Neither. Being adaptable is the only sustainable stance.
100% depends on context and there are very few stances you should not bounce between the two.
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.
Actually knowing facts
Defense is harder, for instance it’s easier to lie than to debunk a lie. See also: (cyber)security
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.
I would argue their defense is mostly about attacking
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. Oh wait sorry what were we talking about?
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 while having a offense that can wear down a defense.
Also it helps having a coach who doesn’t onside with the lead with 3 minutes remaining giving northwestern great field position and the only win of the season. Thank God we got rid of that guy
