Actually knowing facts
In the world of sports, politics, conversations, and argument, and much more. Which is the better stance to have? Offensive or Defensive? What is the overall no matter what it is O or D?
Submitted 4 weeks ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
Depends on what your goal is. Winning? Not losing? Having fun? Personal growth? Depending on what you’re doing and what your circumstances are, you need to take different approaches.
To actually answer your question, neither action is inherently good or bad, and so neither ‘wins’. Attacking a child is bad, but defending a rapist is also bad. Reverse those positions, and suddenly they are good.
felixwhynot@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Defense is harder, for instance it’s easier to lie than to debunk a lie. See also: (cyber)security
Iunnrais@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
In some contexts this is true. Other contexts reverse this. Ukraine is showing a context in which it is easier to defend than attack, for instance.
felixwhynot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I would argue their defense is mostly about attacking
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Neither. Being adaptable is the only sustainable stance.
KC_Royalz@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
All defense no offense is the Iowa Hawkeye’s. All offense and no defense is the ole miss rebels.
Personally being a Nebraska fan. I believe defense wins championships.
CombatWombat@feddit.online 4 weeks ago
If you have all defense and no offense, the best you can hope for is a 0-0 draw, which’ll never get you into the playoffs. If you play all offense, you can maintain possession and see out a narrow win, or just go whole hog and try to win 7-6. Please, Adrian, we desperately need someone who can score goals for the Reign, just playing anti-soccer nonstop is destroying me.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
100% depends on context and there are very few stances you should not bounce between the two.