Some fights are justified.

One consideration is the purpose or goal of the fight. If the purpose of the fight is to resolve a conflict that cannot be resolved in another way, then you may choose to fight. However, resolution of the conflict means that you can make up with your fighting partner after the fight is terminated. You will have a basis for making up.

That means that a fight should be done in such a way that there will be hope for coming to terms and reconciliation in the future. In order to do that, you should limit the fight to the issues involved and not to increase the issues.

Be sure to limit your fight to yourself and your fighting partner. Do not broaden the scope of the fight to include a third party. That third party may be able to to do your fighting for you, but it will mean that future reconciliation will be more difficult - and possibly impossible. That third party may also become angered. In that case, he will also have to be pacified.

Usually both sides have some issues that are wrong and and some issues that are right. All of this will have to be untangled with the third party whom you have involved, which means that that party will be brought in to a much deeper degree than you had expected. It will be embarrassing to have to explain to the third party that you had presented only part of the story and that you did not present the part in which you were wrong. The third party will then look at you in a different way and have less respect for you. You've lost a great deal by involving the third party.

A better way, if you have to have a fight, is to fight with the person youself. You may win. You may lose. But you are cutting your losses, and you will not create an even more difficult time reconciling. If you involve a third party, then no matter what you say or do ultimately you are guaranteed to lose.

You may say that you are not a good negotiating partner and that you cannot present your case well and you want to increase your chances of winning the debate or the fight by involving the third party.

That is a foolish and shortsighted way of looking at the circumstance and it is also misleading. However, that overlooks a greater goal: To have a peaceful reconciliation after the fight is over.

Your goal should not be the creation of a permanent enemy and a situation that cannot be corrected. Your goal is to deal with a problem in the best possible way so that ultimately you will not have to cross the street when your current enemy comes.

If you look at your battle in this way, then you will say that you want to do whatever it takes to shock your enemy or your sparring partner into reality, into changing his ways so that he will see and understand your way.

Do whatever you can in order to shock your partner. Fight as well as you can.

Expanding the feud just for its own sake by involving a third person will not help you win the situation. Your sparring partner or your enemy will be hurt by the fact that you have involved a third person. He will not want to defend himself against both you and the third person, although he might do so. What you have done is you are not increasing your chances of winning. To the contrary, your chances of winning remain the same as they were before or possibly even worse.

What you have done by involving a third party is to increase the damage to reconciliation, making it potentially impossible for you to reconcile with the partner.

You might say that you hate and that you never want to reconcile with your partner.

That's fine. Go ahead. Nobody is forcing you to reconcile. Don't. Just remain enemies. That's not a very mature way of going about the situation, but you can feel free to do so.

The problem arises when you refuse to reconcile with the partner but you make it also impossible to reconcile. What you are doing then by involving a third party is you are indeed not reconciling, but you are doing something which is bad. You have taken a situation in which there is a feud and in which both sides may have justification or may not have justification, and you are then changing the situation, adding a very big negative element to your argument. It's an irrelevant negative element in which you then not only have the initial issues but this new and major issue of refusal to reconcile or of denial of the opportunity to reconcile. No matter what the original issues are they may be overshadowed by this tremendous additional issue and you have done it to yourself. You have created this issue when there really was not one and when there was no need to have this additional issue.

Thus, by causing a situation in which you cannot reconcile because you brought in a third party, you have taken the original issue in which you may have been right or may have been wrong and you have turned it into a very strong likelihood that you are wrong.

Even an outside observer would say whether you are right or wrong, if you could not fight the battle yourself, if you could not say what needs to be said yourself, if you were on such unsteady ground that you had to bring in somebody else, if your case is that weak that others had to be involved, then your original issue is quite questionable and an outside judge would generally question the validity of your case.

In other words, you've put yourself in a situation by involving a third party of ultimately not being able to win. You've lost and you've done it to yourself. Even if your case really would have had merit, even if you would have been right, bringing in a third party made you wrong.