I think it's pretty naive to call war a wholly pragmatic affair. You're partially right on the escalation affair, but you're wrong to exclude ethical considerations from the decision process. Take the Cold War (broad terms here). You'd argue that neither the US nor the USSR used nuclear force because they feared escalation into a nuclear war. YOu'd be part right. But you'd also be forgetting another reason. No one wants to be the first to drop the bomb. Generals/politicians are very conscious of their historical legacy, and striking first through illicit means, while perhaps more effective, also casts a shadow of illegitimacy on the country who struck first. Who'd sympathize with the US if we blew USSR off the face of the map? The Cold War was always about the spread of ideals. Each, in essence, promised a peaceful way for the entire world to live in prosperity, and each sought to promote their ideal. You can force a government on people, but you can't force ideals. In other words, each side is extremely conscious from an ethical standpoint about the implications of dropping the bomb first.

That was darkSoul89's fight. I'm now trying to fight Axrendale's standard of undiluted pragmatism.

Basically Axrendale's arguing that the whole notion of 'fair play' stems solely from the notion of a fear of escalation, while I'm trying to argue that there are also moral/ethical implications involved.

This is the sort of argument that I really don't think anyone is going to win, being a wholly opinionated one.

In any case, remember, we are not talking about the person using the "dirty tactics" using them when their oppenent is down and helpless, or the fight hasn't even started. This is about the scenario where faliure to use those tactics means probable defeat, or victory at a much higher cost than can be considered acceptable. With that scenario in mind, the whole thing becomes a lot clearer, in my opinion.

Actually, it was purely based on whether Azula is good or bad at fighting, at least as far as Doomed_soul wanted to take the fight. I'm sure you understand why I felt duty-bound to respond

Well it's hard to gauge anyways whether or not an argument is won, so I'll agree with you on that.

'failure to use those tactics means probable defeat'. No I don't think that's the scenario here. The fight between Azula and Zuko is still very much contested at this point. Had she done this as a last resort, I'd definitely give it some more though, but my answer would probably be the same. You'd argue that self-preservation is the imperative for any individual, regardless the costs. And there's no way that I could convince you otherwise on that point.

I think we may have amplified this to the wrong theater, though. War is ambiguous. Agni Kai, on the other hand, represents the absolute purity of conflict, in which one is honor bound to comply by the rules. It's a duel. A mode of conflict resolution that we now find detestable. So definitely, a slippery slope. Still, my main objection is your absolute pragmatism. Do you endorse any action that leads to a favorable result for one individual? Yes, you'd say, provided you like the individual. (Case in point, Azula). So there's a natural bias, and there's where I'd like to think I've got the higher ground. But, it's up for debate. I wish some others would weigh in on this.

And you respect that? I just have trouble fathoming this.

But only in Azula you'd respect that? That's a bad standard for an argument. But perhaps you're not arguing. You'd have a hard time convincing me of the worth of your opinion without arguing, though.

That's sort of what I was arguing. Remove Azula from this discussion and are we even having it? With Axrendale, perhaps, but certainly not with isabelwhatx.

To Axrendale: It was a good debate. Hopefully I've clarified my position. One doesn't often expect this level of discourse on a TV forum. Only with Avatar, I suppose.