While this is clever, it's destructive. You're buying "The end justifies the means." This is not the opponent's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy, they corrupt the end. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you lost what you valued instead.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.

While this is clever, it's destructive. You're buying "The end justifies the means." This is not the opponent's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy, they corrupt the end. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you actually lost instead.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.

While this is clever, it's destructive. You're buying into "The end justifies the means." This is not the opponent's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy, they corrupt the end. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you actually lost.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.

While this is clever, it's destructive. You're buying into "The end justifies the means." This is not the other people's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy of the end, they corrupt it. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you actually lost.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.

While this is clever, it's destructive. You're buying into "The end justifies the means." This is not the opponent's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy of the end, they corrupt it. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you actually lost.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.

While this is clever, the problem is you're buying into "The end justifies the means." This is not the opponent's strength, it's their mistake.

The end does not justify the means. Instead, the means must be worthy of the end. If the means are unworthy of the end, they corrupt it. By the time you arrive at your "victory", you find out it has rotten, and although you "won", you actually lost.

Be the change you want to see in the world. What you suggest makes sense if what you want is more corruption and grief.