"No defeat is final until you stop trying."

After a fight giving one's best, one should go for a compromise to conserve one's resources and use it effectively for implementation.

My submission is not to be treated as supporting the cause. It transpires that the options in the debate are restricted.What one needs to establish is the "Cause". Take example of a three match series.after first loss, or even after second there is still sense in putting up a fight for the honour.Where do you go once the series is over. Which means, that some causes have quantifiable results. Once the results are out, the game is over. You can prepare for another series, but this one's over.Who do you fight now ? The argument is OK in situations where social causes or territorial disputes are being addressed and there is a collective effort in the cause. An individual against a system fighting solo becomes a personal issue with a personal cause and the position of false ego assumes a larger role.It is like the difference between a debate and an argument.A debate eventually reaches a conclusion, an argument invariably goes on till it becomes ugly and endless.Brave statements, of course happen  in bothsituations.It is prudent to evaluate ones strength against the opposition (person or situation whatever). A wise decision to compromise or quit at times may be more potent than going down fighting in an irrational cause. Warm regards

We should take every bad event in life as good experience and good event to do better than the present. So, every one is learning in respect of their ages, caste, creed, etc. So, God has give us wisdom to know which is right and wrong. So, we have to think twice before we leap. So, as for as I am concerned, no defeat in life, everything is an experience to do better or avoid better.