The resources are endless in our society, so is it still possible to have a ‘fair’ fight? Personally, I would say yes, but the problem is we can all gather so much information from both sides. Therefore, in order for it to be fair the other person should get the same amount of time. They thing you can argue is it could never be ‘fair’, but if people get the same amount of time they can get the information from where they desire. It is their choice where to gather the information from and how to prepare.
Some people are better at arguing than others which some can argue is unfair. But you have to decide which rhetorical appeal you want to use to persuade your audience. If someone choses logos and an other ethos some would say it is unfair because one has facts. But if you know your audience you should use a technique that they are interested in hearing. A combination of all three would be the best choice, since you can appeal to their emotion, use logical facts and persuade the audience you are a good person and that they should follow your beliefs. One of the best speeches made was Obama in 2008 during the elections.
Then you can think arguing fairly only means listening before responding, remaining clam throughout the argument, and express yourself and not just state certain things without having evidence and an explanation, which are the ground rules. Let the other finish talking, let them express them selves, give them a chance. But there are a lot of different aspects of arguing fairly. You yourself have to think and argue as fair as you can in the ground rules.