The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
In any strategy, everything revolves around Defence (my opinion).
in Military
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
The core considerations are what a strategy revolves around.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're modifying your definition to make your contention a tautology, for the reasons I’ve stated above.
You seem to be going round and round in circles now: if you’re not willing to contend or rebut anything I’m saying after multiple posts now, I will simply assume this is your way of admitting you have no argument, and will leave you to it.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
You assume I admit I have no argument but really I have argued and won.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have explained in detailed what you are doing, and have provided a justification of why.
You're argument is reliant meaningless tautology, as I’ve shown.
if you look back at the arguments, the only argument you have offered as to why it’s not a tautology is assertions that “its a fact that it’s not a tautology”, which is not an argument.
Now, when I pointed out the detail of why it’s a tautology, as part of our response to that argument you ended up basically repeating the same
logic I have already shown is tautology: hence why I can claim you’re just arguing in circles.
So, as a result: it’s a demonstrable fact of the last page of replies: you have no argument as to why your position is not tautology. You have no argument to offer against your original contention.
Now, given that this is a debate, and a debate website: if an individual goes multiple posts without offering any form of rebuttal, and them ends up arguing in circles; it either means they are unable, or unwilling to provide a counter argument.
Being the most charitable and not wanting presume you are a troll, or stood, I would presume that the reason you are not providing an argument, is that you’re unable to: and as you are not stupid, the reason you are unable to, is because you logically can’t.
thus; if I’m you’re not a troll, and not stupid: the sole conclusion I can make is that you know you’re wrong and you’re trying to save face.
thus, the only reasonable conclusion you can draw from your circular argument, and from your inability to present an argument: is that you know I’m right and you’re wrong: hence have conceded the debate.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 16%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The stupidity argument cuts both ways.
Now given that, you could be stupid, I could be stupid: I am the only one of the of us providing detailed reasons why your position is tautology or not: thus far you haven’t provided an explanation for why I’m wrong other than saying it’s a fact that it’s not tautology.
You don’t have to be too smart to realize that’s not a good argument.
  Considerate: 20%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
If a strategy is overwhelming defensive in nature, it’s obviously a strategy that has been considere and weighted based on the strength of an opponents offensive capabilities. The only reason the strategy was formed with such a defensive orientated approach is because it revolves around the offense of its opponents.
Therefore defensive strategies revolve around offence by definition.
QED
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
The defense is good strategy even if your whole game the attack it's specialised in defending against doesn't happen. Why?
Is insurance a waste of money if the accident never happens? No, it's a strategic gamble even if the unlikely outcome of the need for defence not happening occurs.
In retaliation to this, you will say that defending against what doesn't happen is a waste of resources that should be spent either defending elsewhere or no offending, I know that genius yes I do.
This is why weighing your defences against each other matters. You begin with a balanced defence and slowly specialise throughout the war/game/life to match the opponent's playstyle more specifically and defend better against the specific attacks of the opponent.
The attacks are not how the intial defense is built. Your first move in chess or even in any war or game is never ever based on what the enemy will do (it shouldn't be if you are strategic) it should be a 'no matter what I'm fine' safe move to observe the enemy's response and judge if they just opened up a hole in their defence or not.
Strategy is to avoid losing by a huge degree, not to win faster.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
so if the offensive strategy resulted from analyzing your opponents offence, then this is not revolving around offence?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can't get the right attack from the enemy's attack. You need Intel on the enemy's defense to strategize.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
therefore a defensive strategy revolves around offence.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
An offence is a use of resources that sacrifices what could be spent on defence.
Defence is the default optimal use of a resource, offence is an attuned use.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Once you truly understand that offence comes after and is revolving around defence, you understand why the resolution is true.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Defence involves protecting against offence; so defensive strategies revolves around offence.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Generally speaking, there is no such thing as a defensive victory. If you don't attack then you cannot win. Additionally, in general, offense is how you eliminate the opposition, if you successfully eliminate the opposition then you have nothing to defend from. If you opposition is eliminated...who will you be stopping on defense?
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 43%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Imagine two beings.
One is a being that is always going to win a huge majority of fights it enters at the price of losing to very defensive players due to the risks it takes, the other is unable to ever lose a fight that another starts with it but likely to tie against another very defensive opponent rather than win.
At a first glance, you may think the unstoppable force is superior and more 'alpha male' in nature than the immovable object but play this out for a while.
So, let's say that eventually there comes a time where in order for the latter to gain a victory, it needs to destroy the first being. No matter how it twists and turns, it needs to do it.
It merely begins to form a strategy around the result where it loses (yes even planning to overall gain with this being it's one loss against many victories and ties combined), meanwhile another, more offensive-styled tries to get in on the action, makes one slip-up and the defensive being punishes it immensely and suddenly has gained from that enough advantage to safely (meaning no potential for the enemy to counterplay) the first being, but it just sits there (knowing the being is blessed in that it can win almost any fight) it sit and does everything it can to starve that being of resources and any chance of coping well in life until it fights it. So the former being finally picks a desperate fight and loses to the latter being.
Over time in any workplace, the hard-working powerhouse gets outranked by safe-playing non-threats to their bosses. You do not ever rise to the top of a corporation by being offensive in nature. You may say 'wait a minute, isn't starting your own company from scratch the easiest way to stay on top of a company and isn't that offensive in nature?' sure, but your business will be run into the ground if you don't have enough backing you up defensively to cope against the competitors.
You cannot form strategies based on the need to win and hope to out-grind the ones who form strategies around the goal to never lose. In the end the defensive players will sit back and respects/fear one another as they outplay the risk-takers time and time again.
The reason this doesn't work with corporations is because there are laws against monopolies and cartels (the multi-corporation version of a monopoly). If it wasn't for that, you'd frequently see multiple corporations instantly bankrupt any up-and-coming business as well as banding together if an offensive strike against any of theirs occurs.
If you study gang culture or mafia culture (semantic and culture difference, same concept), you will see how this works. In fact, party-politics ALWAYS ends at two huge parties with very wishy-washy defensive stances while the ones who take a strong stance on anything end up wiped out.
You can say 'but Trump played offensive and won' but you are wrong. As soon as he had gained the immigrant haters, he never once mentioned Mexicans again, he went on to terrorists. Once he had the terrorists fearers gathered behind him, he even began to convince Bernie fans to like him as he focused on how evil and corrupt Hillary was. It was a very deflective, strategic campaign that was about maintaining large portions of usually-ignored bands of voters. If he had gone 'offensive' he'd have put off many by sticking too long to one topic.
Hillary did play defensive but the reason she lost is she forgot to defend against Bernie fans hating her more than Trump. She should somehow have done more 'taken more pictures together with him after he stepped down etc' to ensure his crew kept liking her. This lack of defence was the number one thing that flipped the election, I assure you of it.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't see enough evidence (Presented here or anywhere else) to suggest with any certainty that Hillary lost because she didn't gain Bernie (Socialist) supporters. I do however, see sufficient evidence to suggest that Hillary lost because she's a corrupt politician and everyone could see her for what she was.
While defense and offense both play roles in any contest, there are scenarios that don't require defensive actions but to say that any contest can exist without offensive action is simply wrong. Some of the most critical victories in history have been defensive victories (Defensive wars) but that's not to say that offense wasn't used or that it's possible to win a war without offense.
To summarize, you can war with offense and leave defense behind but you cannot war with defense and not use offense...it's not possible. Those that have tried only prolonged their inevitable defeat.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In the scenario of a tie in any game, it results from both sides not losing OR BY both sides losing at the same time. By default it is not the result of both sides winning and never can be so (there is no way to even build a game where both sides winning is a possibility).
In any game where a force-end can happen it is always the loser who can select when to end it, never the winner. This is because losing is the deciding factor in all games. A game you cannot lose cannot ever be won but a game you cannot win can still be lost (an unwinnable game is always lost but an unlosable game was never a game to begin with because who/what are you possible playing against?).
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Like I said, Defense is the act of resisting an attack, or a setup meant to defend against an attack.
In my chess example, the gambit results in the opponent investing in more defense than you. However, the opponent still ends up losing because your offense is better than your opponent's offense. So by not revolving your strategy around defense in this situation, you end up winning.
As for the perfect play, there is theoretically a perfect play in every game. Your debate was about "any strategy". I won't bring up the worst strategies which only focus on offense and zero defense, but "any strategy" certainly doesn't mean "perfect play".
So I agree that by not playing the perfect strategy, both lost much of their defense. However, white still doesn't focus as much on defense as black, and revolves its strategy on offense.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am actually shocked that it took so long for someone needs to take the semantics of 'any' angle but I was well prepared for it.
White's strategy revolves around gambling on black sacrificing good defense for a short-term lead. Black had no strategy whatsoever and is extremely new to Chess to have dinner what it did.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Which one of my statements was false? I never denied that White didn't bait Black. Black had indeed misplayed in this situation.
You say that "White's strategy revolves around gambling on black sacrificing good defense for a short-term lead."
Which means that white's strategy didn't revolve around defense. Baiting someone, is not defense, since it doesn't resist the opponent's attack. And yes, I agree that black ends up with a bad defense, but that is because white doesn't focus on defense. The whole point of this gambit is to put the opponent on defense for the rest of the game, since white constantly attacks, or puts threats of attacking. There is no need for defending much afterwards, since black can't launch any worthwhile attacks.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm starting to get the impression that you intended this debate to deal exclusively with board games. I was referencing War, violent conflict and such...these are the precursors for games as games merely emulate the circumstances of War or conflict. Games I suppose can be modified to remove the realistic standards for victory and thus can be tied...in War and violent conflict however, there is no tie.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
You only win war when you've dominated the whole world.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
a strategy revolves around defense, only if it is the main subject of the strategy.
as merriam-webster defines
revolves around - to have (someone or something) as a main subject or interest
The main subject of the Danish Gambit variant I showed is not defense. The main subject is the gambit itself, or the bait.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's certainly an interesting position to have, I honestly don't see your logic I'm afraid. You're saying that it's possible to declare a Tie between two Countries at War with one another because if you're NOT at war with another Country then you're tied with that Country...in War. Also, a Nation at peace is somehow Tied in War.
I also don't understand how you came up with the ideology that you must dominate the entirety of the Earth in order to be victorious in a War. Perhaps you could reference a precedence for this.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The current nations, have enough alliance-and-warfare strategy in a defensive manner to make others fear picking a fight with them over owning their land.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I fail to see how that's relevant in this discussion of whether or not you can be tied in War when you're not at War. Also, "There are infinite Countries that are not Countries" does not compute I'm afraid.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Everything is war Vaulk, everything. The reason you are forced to be part of USA no matter how bad you want your land to be 'your land' is because you'd never ever win a war with them and no one would stick up for you against them but many nations would help them squash you (physically squash you) if you went too far with fighting for the right to have a nation.
Think I'm making up a scenario that 'never really happens'? What is Palestine? It's not a nation and it's losing because Israel has better allies. Any could-be nation (and there are infinite could-be nations) are all not nations as they couldn't keep up with other nations and their alliances to ever tie in a war and then remain peacefully safe from attack.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The simple fact that you "Think" or "Believe" that everything is War does not serve as proof that everything is War. One could easily simplify everything down to a matter of Conflict, when people don't agree...a conflict ensues, when two people act against each other in any way...that's a conflict. But everything is not War. War is killing each other to accomplish goals on a massive scale.
At this point I'm seeing a pattern emerge where instead of presenting reasoning for a premise, you state personal opinion as the principle for your argument and proceed to make wild statements and attempt to pass them off as semi-accurate generalizations. Unfortunately this isn't how debate works my friend. Anyone can take up any conclusion, no matter how logical or ridiculous it may be but in either situation one must present a premise for their conclusion and that premise must meet the standards of logic and rationale.
It's not rational to generalize everything as War in all context.
As for your example of Palestine, it's a sovereign state within Israel that's trying to establish itself, after-the-fact, as a separate Country. Depending on which of the organizations belonging to Palestine you want to reference, there are movements to bring War on Israel, commit genocide, take over the Gaza Strip and several other actions that are less than peaceful. I'm afraid I don't see why this is relevant. Palestine can't establish itself as a Nation...ok...so what? I also don't understand where you're getting the "Infinite" could be nations. I suppose if every group of 3 people wanted their own Country...then yea there could be quite a few but the number would still be finite as there is limited surface area on the Earth...so "Infinite" is not possible.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Infinite possible nations could exist even on finite Earth but don't as they can't conquer the ones that currently stand.
Palestine can't attack what Israel is so efficiently taking a defensive stance politically to justify owning.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again your conclusions do not pass the logical standard I'm afraid.
In one sentence you state that "Infinite possible nations could exist" and then state that they don't because they can't do what's necessary for that to happen. "Can't conquer the ones that currently stand.
What I'm reading is "They could buy they can't" and this makes no sense. You're going to need to tighten up that logic and bring in some rationale here.
And Palestine has not taken a defensive stance politically or otherwise, history is a testament to that. While defense may have been used, Palestine has gone on offense multiple times and since 2001 has launched literally thousands of rockets and mortars at Israel. Ever heard of Hamas? The Palestinian Political organization that calls for the entire destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews, also known as Hamas, is sufficiently representative of what Palestine is as a Country and is likely the reason why the rest of the World won't ever get behind this State in their movement to become a Country.
And to clarify specifically, you are in fact wrong. Palestine CAN attack what Israel is because they have been doing so for an incredibly long time. I'd recommend a History lesson.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have yet to prove the debate topic incorrect.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you did, I'm still having a hard time following your sentence structuring.
And while it's true I haven't proven anything regarding the topic of debate...you're also deflecting.
So how about this, I'll prove it wrong and then you ACTUALLY address my arguments.
In any strategy, everything revolves around Defence (my opinion).
This is incorrect and here's why:"Blitzkrieg". This is a strategy that includes no consideration that revolves around defense. Blitzkrieg is a formally recognized strategy that is devoid of all considerations for defense and therefor cannot "Revolve around defense".
There are many others but simply providing one example completely and totally refutes that argument that in "ANY" strategy, "Everything" revolves around defense". I could go further onto the second half of the claim (Which I also contend to be false) but I've already provided a conclusion and proof that it's wrong.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Or you can take this down to the martial arts level. Suits of armor were awesome defense, until either people made better offenses which pierced them or simply were much faster and maneuverable simply by not wearing that armor themselves.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The French had a defence that seemed strong but clearly wasn't strong enough. They should either have fully invested further for full-on passive play (into the defence) or split up resources investing more into offence ready to punish the Germans at their base(s) the minute they dare to penetrate the French defence.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The tactic itself does not include any such requirement or consideration for defense. Your topic states clearly that "In ANY Strategy, everything revolves around defense".
I have shown you a clearly defined strategy that does not revolve around defense.
Again, you cannot simply say that something "Only works" without providing some sort of evidence for your argument. Please show me any evidence what-so-ever where the Blitzkrieg strategy contains a consideration for defense.
I have successfully proven (Regardless of your what you feel is correct) that the blitzkrieg strategy does not include any consideration for defense. The Blitzkrieg strategy is also NOT designed to be used against defensive structures.
At this point I really think you're just trolling...either that or you hold your opinion in such a high regard that you don't feel it necessary and therefor don't read arguments against yours. I also haven't seen a shred of evidence to support any of your arguments. Hubris is dangerous.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sidenote: blitzkrieg defended against expenditure of artillery and the human lives which would be lost if the enemy had time to fight back.
Main note: the exploiting of specific weaknesses that you either spot or help create in the enemy's defence is offence that revolves around defence.
If you call this abusively altering definitions then it's up to you to provide better definitions.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra