The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,195 times Debate No: 3484
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (15)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

The pen is mightier than the sword.

This maxim was created to explain how the written word has much more impact on humanity than does warfare.

For example, I will use the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. The Bible and U.S. Constitution were both created with the pen.

The Bible has had effects on humanity that are quite beyond measure. The creation of Christianity (a direct result of the writing of the Bible) has had such pronounced effects on humanity that I cannot even begin to list the implications of those effects here. If my opponent disputes my claim that Christianity has had a very pronounced effect on humanity, more than any other war in history has, then we can debate that in round two. For now I will keep it short and sweet without getting into a religious tangent here.

The U.S. Constitution guides our country, the most powerful nation in the history of the world (from an absolute standpoint). Our country is utterly devoted to following the U.S. Constitution, and our Commander-In-Chief must swear to uphold it by name before he is allowed to take office. Words cannot begin to apprehend the might of the U.S. Constitution.

Wars have had a significant effect on humanity, but war's effects are not as long-lived as the written word. The combined effects and influences of all religious scripture, philosophical texts, all countries' constitutions, fictional stories, poetry, music, and other texts both ancient and modern (the list is endless) have had a more profound effect on humanity than has the combined effects of the world's wars. The effects of texts, for one, are cumulative. That is, they are preserved indefinitely and continue to create influence long after the author has died. Wars' effects are not cumulative; wars pass and after a few centuries their influences are relinquished to the pen.
Yraelz

Con

Alright, I thank my opponent for his opening argument and wish him luck throughout this tournament.

With that being said I have 10 main contentions against his argument.

Contention 1: The pen and the sword have absolutely no intrinsic might what-so-ever. It is instead the wielder of the sword and the pen, that have the might. For example, I can walk into a room and see a ferocious man wielding a sword. This man may come at me and simply pulverize me with his might using his sword. However at the same time if I walked into that room and found the same sword only this time being wielded by a baby I would have nothing to fear. The sword would have no might behind it thus it could do me no harm. The same is true of the written word. Nietzsche has impacted a great deal of people with the pen, he has written many novels. However my sister, a 6th greater has arguably impacted no one with the use of the pen.

Conclusion: The sword and the pen are of equal might as they both have no might.

Contention 2: Resolutional analysis. The resolution states, "On balance" which means quite clearly means an equal proportion of each. Thus if they are both to be set as an equal as dictated by the resolution then one cannot be greater than the other.

Contention 3: Even if my opponent wanted to examine strictly the people wielding the sword and the pen instead of the sword and pen then he will still lose. Let us now examine the might of the swordsman compared to the might of the pensman. Throughout history there have been a great many of people who were fine pensman, but compared to the overall population a very small percent has been a fine pensman. Most have been inept with the pen. Where as throughout history the sword (warfare) has been of great need and use. Throughout history there have doubtlessly been a larger percent of skilled swordsman (people skilled in the art of warfare) than those skilled in the use of pensmanship.

Contention 4: In my opponents first speech he brings up the constitution of the United States of America. This seems like a powerful point at first glance, yet my opponent forgets the history of this nation. Without instances of the sword, for example the American Revolution, the pen would have all been for naught. It is strictly because of the sword that this nation was ever allowed to exist, otherwise we would still be colonies of great Britain. Furthermore a great deal of American history would have been changed for the worse without usages of the sword. Take WWII as a prime example. Had we not overthrown Hitler there would have been great potential in him overtaking the world.

Contention 5: After citing the constitution my opponent brings up the bible. The bible would have not been possible without the sword! Lets take a look at genesis, how many times is Abraham threatened? Joseph? Jacob? Isaac? Then we get to the book of numbers, documenting battles and wars waged against the Jewish nation. There were many times where they could have been wiped off the face of this planet yet they fought back with the use of the sword. Had it not been for the use of the sword the pen which they so valiantly wielded afterwards would have not been possible. The sword is a means of which to maintain the right, the means of the usage of pen. This is supported empirically throughout history. Benefits derived through the pen have been in part because of the sword.

Contention 6: The man who wields the pen can only go so far alone. The pen in the past has moved people to action, has shown the people injustices being committed. But the man who wields the pen cannot fight for his cause with the pen. Look all throughout history, many wars were started by unjust actions shown to us through the pen, but they were fought with the sword. The man behind the pen can have so much impact, the sword is responsible for completing that impact. Without the swordsman the pensman is all but useless. Let us look at the civil war as a reminder of this principle. Let us look at the writings of Socrates to remind us that he could not survive without the sword. Let us examine every rebellion that has ever happened, every fight for independence, I ask you, how many of those were won with simply the pen?

Did the pen single handedly free the Jews from the holocaust? Did the pen stop the corrupt kings of Europe? Did the pen preserve the Roman empire from German barbarian attacks? The pen is powerful when used in the right hands I admit, but it can only do so much. Most every substantial impact of the past that involved the pen also involved the swords.

Contention 7: This brings me to a literal interpretation of the Pen and the Sword. Up to this point I have been debating them as ideas as my opponent suggested. However in all reality the sword is just as capable as a pen if not more so. It is sharper, and cuts deeper. It can also be used to carve, to carve and write anything. It may double with the same function as that of the pen.

Contention 8: Specific point in my opponents case. He mentions that the United States is the most powerful nation to ever rise to power. Not only is this false but even if it was true, the United States rose to power because of the sword. The most powerful nation to have ever existed was doubtlessly the roman empire. The roman empire was doubtlessly, at its time, the one super power of the world. The sword was responsible for its preservation. The sword was responsible for its growth, into such a large empire. Through the sword it united vast amounts of people who then had the ability to benefit from the written law, the pen of the roman empire.

Contention 9: Yet another specific point in my opponents case. He mentions that the pen has a cumulative impact over time. "The effects of texts, for one, are cumulative." The very same is true of the sword. The sword, the wars throughout history, the movements, the rebellions, have been what has made the world the way it is. These events have in turn lead to the possibility of texts being created. Had the roman empire fallen to the barbarian tribes of the north the bible would have never been created. It is through the sword that the events of the pen are derived, they are inevitably intertwined. Not only that but the sword has the possibility to destroy entire nations, and with those nations it has destroyed entire texts. The crusades destroyed entire cities and with them entire texts. How often does the pen destroy the sword?

Contention 10: This is quite possibly my most important contention. The subjective nature of human interpretation. I cite as evidence my opponents points being the constitution in and the bible. Let us first examine the constitution, it has laws written within it, yet everyday these laws are interpreted to mean different things. A democrat will tell you that the second ammendment only allows you to have certain types of guns. A republican will tell you that the first ammendment doesn't allow for certain freedoms of expression. Everything is interpreted in its own way. The bible is another prime example. It lists 10 commandments yet everyone feels each one of them means a different thing. Some people feel no murder means straight pacifism, others feel only retributive justice is allowed. My point is thus: Like I said in point 1 the pen has no intrinsic value except through the writer, likewise even the writing has no intrinsic value except through the human interpretations of it. Humans themselves give value to the words of the penmen, where one person praises a text as holy, another completely ignores it. In itself the pen has no value, in themselves the words written by the penman have no value.

Likewise the sword has no intrinsic value, in contrast however the actions of the swordsmen merit value inevitably.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

My opponent's rebuttal is very... involved indeed. Let us not get caught up in the wordiness of his paragraphs, and instead concentrate on his main points, so that we may analyze them clearly.

His arguments are well-organized, so I will address them accordingly.

1) paraphrased - the pen and sword, as inanimate objects, obviously have no intrinsic value of "might".

Yes, this is true. This is why you will not find a single sentence in my argument proposing the contrary. This is a clever manuever to get off-topic, but let us not get distracted here. My thesis, based on the debate title, is clearly stated as "the written word has much more impact on humanity than does warfare." The judge should not tolerate any twisting of my words to imply other meanings that can be refuted by con, and if con wants to go off on his own tangent and refute the title as interpreted by himself or someone else, it should have no bearing on this debate. The roles of pro and con are quite clear: pro makes an argument, and con refutes it. The roles do not involve con making up his own points and then refuting them as if I proposed them.

2) On the title meaning each should have equal value - Again, this contention really does not deal with my argument. Con is attempting to bring the debate into his own personal playing field. My thesis deals with warfare versus the written word, and con cannot refute arguments that I have not even made.

3) Con opens this contention with "Even if my opponent wanted to..." Again, he is taking my argument into undiscovered country. Up until now, he has failed to address my arguments.

4) Con finally decides to address my argument. Con cites the American revolution and World War 2. Let us skip to the end of his percieved direction here, and include WW1, the American Civil War, and all the known wars in history. Substantial effects on humanity? You bet. I don't really have the time to analyze every war in history here, so I will use the ones he cited. The effects of WW2 were tremendous. Would you compare those effects to the effects of the Bible? The Bible founded Christianity, which is responsible for many wars in and of itself. Christianity, a 2,000 year old religion, has incorporated countless Billions of members in its past. Think of how many people go to church every week, how many people give their lives to Christ, how many wars were fought BECAUSE of Christianity itself, and think of how long Christianity has been around. The written word (Bible) is responsible for ALL of this. What effects are still lingering from WW2? There are some, granted, but it is safe to say that they are small and dwindling with time. Christianity's influence, however, is not dwindling AT ALL. Christianity is as strong as ever, and people gather all around the world to get into church on sunday and donate their $1 bills to the offering. As you can see, Christianity's influence is simply unparralelled, and it is so long lasting that no 10 year war can possibly begin to approach its magnitude. When we say the pen is "mightier" than the sword, we are describing its INFLUENCE. How can you take some isolated war and compare it to the influence of the Bible?

On the revolutionary war versus the U.S. Constitution - Thank you for reminding me about our nation's history :) ! The U.S. Constitution is a living document. It is used EVERY single day by myself (in my con-law class) and millions of people. All 300 million people in this country are bound by its rules. I'm not going to waste time down-playing the significance of the revolutionary war and insult your intelligence. I would allow you the point that our country, while it stands, reflects the influence of the Rev. War. But this influence fades with time. We can talk about it, reflect on it, and learn from it, but what we essentially get out of it is not as potent as the U.S. Constitution. The USC is referenced constantly to influence our laws. Its effects are not fading with time and retain the same potency as the day it was signed. Furthermore, think about the men who spoke out against the Englishmen and wrote their words on paper to get us to the point to rebel. It was these writers of pursuasion that were the ultimate causes of the Revolutionary war. When we look back, it is these men who are remembered, not the actual gunmen.

5) The warfare that pre-dated the Bible is simply not as influencial as the Bible itself. The Bible is percieved as the word of God by Billions of people, and it was written with the pen. My opponent mentions Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac.... What about Jesus? I think my opponent has FORGOTTEN about him! Allow me to remind my opponent, as he so graciously reminded me of our nations history. Did Jesus swing a sword? Did Jesus engage in warfare? Jesus did NO such thing. So please answer this question for me, Yraelz, if you really intend on defending your stance: How is it that Jesus Christ is BY FAR the most influencial (hence powerful) figure in history, yet he did not engage in warfare AT ALL? True, he did not weild a pen either, but it was the writings of his life that are contained in the Bible, and give it much of its potency.

6) Con claims that while the pen can mobilize troops, only the sword can actually defeat enemies - "The man behind the pen can have [only] so much impact..." This is a rather pursuasive paragraph, but here is the logical fault. Con says that only the swords REALLY make the difference, because, after all, they are the ones actually doing the work, right? He is correct, but we are again escaping the relevence of the maxim "the pen is mightier than the sword". One man, wielding a pen, can influence a thousand to do battle with a sword. Therefore, the man made more of an impact, using the pen, then he would have actually doing the fighting himself. Furthermore, no warrior, even at the level of Achilles, could be as mighty as the man who used the pen to influence thousands of men to enter battle. Example: the Bible and the Crusades. You see, no matter how powerful the sword may become, it is the pen that CONTROLS the sword. Remember this.

7) On the literal, physical usage of pens and swords - This falls into the same category as his first 3 contentions; I never postulated these ideas, and there is no reason for me to defend postulates that I didn't put forward. The pen can put an eye out, and the sword can carve words into a tree. Irrelevent.

8) on U.S. vs. Rome - I said specifically that the U.S. was ABSOLUTELY the most powerful country that ever existed, not relatively speaking. If we engaged the ancient Roman armies in battle, I don't think they would put up much of a fight. Even John McCain would probably not screw that one up...
Yes, the Romans used warfare to keep power. So did the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, and English. And what did it get them? Annihilation. The sword only grants temporary power; it is the pen that allows you to keep it indefinitely. Look at it this way. What does America's continued success depend on? The sword or the pen? If you say the sword, then we are destined to be the next fallen empire. The pen will be the way we remain great indefinitely, and the day we forget that will be the beginning of the end for this great country.

9) "How often does the pen destroy the sword?" All the time. It is easier to crush an army then it is to crush an idea. Why do you think we look so stupid out there in Iraq right now? We have no army to defeat, so we are wasting 720 Million $ a day fighting Islam. If Osama Bin Laden crafted this with a pen, then he has single-handedly spent more U.S. dollars then any other man in history.

10) On the bible and consitution having elusive meanings - Even if this is so, which I will NOT agree at this juncture, then it doesn't dilute the importance or influence of these documents. The pen will always be stronger.
Yraelz

Con

In my opponents second round he dropped/discarded 5 of my contentions, I will be placing these contentions first and explaining exactly why they flow to my side of this debate.

1. My opponent states that he has no need to argue this point. He points out that,

"The roles of pro and con are quite clear: pro makes an argument, and con refutes it."

This statement is not even mildly true. In a debate round the debaters are presented with a resolution, each debater my interrupt the resolution in any way he/she desires. The con has no burden to refute the pros argument and may ignore it if he/she desires. Take the below listed scenario for example:

Resolution: Cats are better than dogs.
Pro: "Well I like ice cream!"
Con: Must I then argue that my opponent doesn't like ice cream?

Obviously not, this is fallacious.

Thus my point still stands, if my opponent would like to prove his point true, then he must disprove that the pen and sword in themselves have no intrinsic value. Otherwise my opponent will only be proving this resolution true as a metaphor (if he can do that).

2. My second contention had nothing to do with the idea of them having no value, yet my opponent attempts to discard it under the same logic. My second contention was that of resolutional analysis. The resolution states, "On balance" which is defined as equal. If they are equal in regard to might as the first part of the resolution states then they cannot also be of different might as the second part of the resolution states. Thus my opponent can only possibly win one part of the resolution. The resolution is 2 part, therefor my opponent cannot win this round.

3. Once again my opponent attempts to discard this contention under the logic he used to attempt to refute my first contention. This logic once again does not even apply here as I am advocating the application as my opponent did in his first round. My point was simple, and dropped by my opponent, throughout history there have been some pensman. At the same point throughout history there have been many many metaphorical swordman, this ranging from literal swordsman of the medieval world to the marines today. Thereby the swordsman easily outweight the pensman.

7. My opponent admits to this phenomenon when he says, "The pen can put an eye out, and the sword can carve words into a tree." Which leads him to once again argue that the point is irrelevant under his logic refuting contention 1.

RESTATE: The Pro's burden in this round is the affirm the resolution! If I can disprove the resolution in any way and prove the statement not to be true in any way then my opponent will lose this round.

The sword can literally do just as much as the pen. (When they are wielded by capable hands)

10. This as a pointed out was quite possibly my most important point of last round.... Yet all my opponent has to say about this is, "Even if this is so, which I will NOT agree at this juncture, then it doesn't dilute the importance or influence of these documents."

Hmmmm.... Well first off my point was not that the bible and constitution had elusive meanings but rather that they are subjectively interpreted by everyone. If there was a way to literally interpret them and people did it then that would be considered an impact but as it is people simply decide their own meaning. It is the people themselves that create an impact on any of these issues. On the other hand a sword or warfare kills people, which is very difficult to interpret in any other way. This is a definite and defined impact through itself.

This leads me to the points my opponent did argue.

4. First off I'll concede that the revolutionary war and constitution have less of an impact as compared to christianity. This isn't a relevant point, as christianity will be covered anyways in my next point.

Secondly my opponent almost completely misses the point. The revolutionary war was an instance of the sword. To some extent my opponent argues that the revolutionary war was caused by the pen, and to a MINOR extent this is true. However moreover it was the actions of British soldiers coupled by lack of representation on a multitude of levels that lead people to revolt. More importantly the war in itself was not possible without the sword! The revolution could have never occurred without the sword, and it is because of the word that the modern United States was ever made possible. A direct effect of the revolutionary war, an instance of the sword was and is the constitution of the United States of America. Therefor the constitution is a byproduct of the sword and happenings of the constitution are still impacts of the sword.

Example: If I make a robot and it makes 15 other robots then the impact of my action is no longer 1 robot but rather 16 robots.

The same is true in this scenario.

5. The bible, I bring up times in history where the entire bible could have been ruined. Specifically my definite examples came from genesis, along with a bit of numbers. These are examples where, had the sword not been employed, the jewish nation would not have existed. My opponent of course decides to site Jesus as an example and point out that Jesus never held a sword. This is true but it does not change the fact that Jesus was a direct by product of the Jewish nation! Had it not been for the sword sustaining the Jewish nation then Jesus could never have existed. The impact of the sword in this scenario is the sustaining of the Jewish people coupled with the birth of Jesus which leads to not only the old testament but through Jesus the new testament. The sword is responsible for the modern day existence of all of these things, without it they would have never been. The sword in this instance far outweighs the pen.

6. My point was simply that the pen has little impact without the sword. The Pro reminds me that the pen "can influence a thousand to do battle with a sword." Yet apparently my opponent has discarded the subjective nature of the human again. The pen can say things yes, but the swordsman is still going to have to decide for himself whether or not to employ the use of his sword. The pensman has a fine amount of might, but that might means NOTHING without the backing of the sword. In this sense they are mutually dependent on each other and should be considered on equal at the least. However I must say that the sword by itself can probably exist with greater might.

My opponent goes on to state that it will always be the pensman who is remembered over the swordsman. I'm not so sure if this is true, I can remember a great deal of brilliant and notable generals. These generals have always been depended on for the winnings of fights of the sword.

8. Final point. My opponent states that many empires have depended on the sword and this has resulted in their utter annihilation. The United States on the other hand has continued to exist because of our reliance on the pen.

This is extremely flawed. First off, we have depended on sword in two very notable instances. There was civil war, an instance where our nation actually did split in two for a time period. Then there was world war II where it would have been more than possible for Germany to have taken a great portion of the world.

Secondly this is a flawed comparison. The roman empire existed for over a thousand years. On the other hand the United States has existed for around 300 and actually has already broken up once, something the Roman empire never really managed to do. Until the United States has existed for 1000 years this comparison cannot be made.

The pen and the sword in themselves have no might, the wielder of them contains a might but the wielder of the pen is dependent on the sword for survival and first existence. Furthermore the sword contains a definite impact, the pen is subjective.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

1)Con says the pen/sword have no intrinsic might. If I drop a sword and a pen from a set height, any height will do, the sword will hit the ground with more force(might) than the pen, because it weights much more. It doesn't matter if Yraelz's sixth grade sister is dropping it or a full-grown man. Therefore, there is an intrinsic sense of might to these inanimate objects indeed, and my opponents statement that "The pen and the sword have absolutely no intrinsic might what-so-ever" is false. He could have used this chance to prove that the sword DOES in fact have more might, but his contention clearly does not include this, and it is clearly false.

2)The title absolutely does NOT dictate that these two are "balanced". It says "on balance", which means that they can be compared ON a balance. "one cannot be greater than the other"... Actually, on a balance, there is always the chance that one can be greater than the other.

3)In this contention he weighs the number of skilled swordsmen in history versus the number of skilled pensmen in history. This doesn't negate the fact that the pen is mightier than the sword. Most armed citizens in the U.S. have simple handguns and rifles, but does that mean that simple handguns and rifles are mightier than a tank mortar? Even if you lump them together, a bunch of militia with handguns and rifles could not penetrate an army of tanks and airplanes. In almost every analogy that you can think of, the less mighty of the two will be more numerous. It doesn't logically follow that you lump up all the less mighty, and compare them as a whole against the more mighty, unless you have a logical reason to do so, like if they all fought for the same army. The fact that there has been many more swordsmen than pensmen only reinforces my point; since the pensman is so much more powerful, it logically follows that they would be less numerous. There are many more less mighty than there are more mighty. How many Michael Jordans, Brett Farves, Wayne Gretzkies, and Mickey Mantles are there compared to people who play these sports who are considerably less mighty? Does this mean all the crappy sports players should be lumped together and declared more mighty than these great men?

7)He states that the sword can be used "to carve and write anything", and that "It may double with the same function as that of the pen". Ok Yraelz, you go out and get a sword and carve me out a novel on the side of a board, and then go tell me how mighty you fell afterward! All of the great pensmen in history, from the writers of the Bible to the writers of the U.S. Constitution, would not have succeeded in carving out these great documents WITH A SWORD AND A PIECE OF WOOD. I am simply unable to accept how you can say that since I can carve out a few nicks out of a tree that the sword can capture the essence of the pen.

10)Con's point is that the words a pen writes have to be interpreted, thus making their effects only indirect, while a swordsman cutting off someone's head has a somewhat more direct effect on a person. While this is true, to say that the pen and the words the penman writes have no value, simply because the words themselves must first motivate people to act before its value is realized, is to miss the entire point of the maxim "the pen is mightier than the sword". The reason that this maxim was created was to enlighten humanity that an indirect action(writing pursuasively about an opponent) can carry more weight than a direct action(trying to take the matter into your own hands and attacking them directly). His point, that it is ultimately the swordsman who makes the true difference in any case, because the penman is not the one out there actually carrying out the killing, does not take into account WHY the swordsman is out there doing the killing. The penman CONTROLS the swordsman. A king controls an army, and you wouldn't say that just because it is each soldier doing the actual killing, that any soldier is mightier than the king. Furthermore, saying that there is no inherent value in the pen or the words it writes is simply making a metaphysical claim that carries no weight in the real world. Practically speaking, the words obviously do carry a lot of value, or else how could you explain the effects that they carry to influence the swordsman?

4)Con attempts to just stake his claim that it was the sword that caused our revolution. I will concede that there was a fair mix of the pen and the sword that caused it, as to avoid turning this into a debate on the Rev. War. To say that the sword cause the constitution however, rather than the pen, is a practice in absurdity. How can you possibly just conclude that the USC is a "byproduct" of the sword? It was great penmen who wrote the USC! It wasn't a bunch of warriors that wrote it... Just because the warriors were instrumental in fighting off the british doesn't mean that the warriors wrote the USC. The USC is clearly a creation of the pen and I fail to see how you can successfully argue to the contrary.

Most of cons arguments in cont. 4,5,6 and 8 simply show how wars shaped our history, and then he attempts to claim that since wars shape history that every single instance of a man holding a pen(or doing anything else for that matter) is only because some war put him there in the first place. He is attempting to cloud the debate, and I must work here to clear it up. His arguments would imply that we are sitting here having these debates because the revolutionary war and civil war affected us, therefore our arguments in this debate's main cause is the wars that put us in the spot we are now, not the fact that we are actually writing it. He attempts to say that since Jesus was jewish, it is the wars involving jews that are the main cause of Jesus and the Bible. I would point out that just because a war occurs, it does not mean that the main cause of everything that happens afterward is the war itself. His arguments have merit only to the extent that every action has effects that are spread out through the world, but you can't just turn around and say that because a certain action affected something else, that it is the primary cause of that event. In round 2 I postulated that Christianity is propagated through the pen, because the Bible is written word and the wars fought because of it are after-effects. No war directly cause the writing of the Bible, and since the Bible has had a greater cumulative effect than most wars in history, the pen is therefore mightier than the sword.

5)Again, Jesus' impacts are mostly propagated through the pen. Some war has affected every person in history, and it is complete hogwash to just say that every cause of every thing is whatever war was most recent that occured in the region. The Bible was written with the pen, and is an example of the power of it. No instance of the sword approaches the influence that the pen had on the USC or the Bible, and these two documents work to show how powerful indeed the pen is. Jesus, the most powerful man in history(based on his influence in the Christian faith), had his influence propagated through the bible(pen). Your arguments cannot change this fact, and since the sheer magnitude of the influence of Jesus, the Bible, and the USC is so tremendous I can not see how you can compare any amount of warfare to them. "Had it not been for the sword sustaining the Jewish nation then Jesus could never have existed". I'm sure God wouldn't agree with you Yraelz...

6)the sword does NOT exist independently. Every war has a reason. Those reasons are mainly dependent on the pen. The pen shapes warfare, and the individual warriors are merely pawns in the general scheme. It is the kings that wield the greatest power; and the penmen that influence their decisions.

8)WW2 and civ. war are merely 2 instances in US hist. US is more than just these 2 events. pen's effects real and tangible. no more room aaaaaaaaaghhhh
Yraelz

Con

Final round! FIGHT!

1. To begin with point 1. First off my opponent's strategy is very abusive and should not be allowed in this round. Basically he puts up points against me (see round 2) and thus I spend an entire round responding to those point, then he turns around in his next contention (round 3) and ignores the points which I presented. Instead he decides to argue all new points in the last round. So we have two choices in this round. Either A). I can advocate all new points in my final contention to make this perfectly fair or B). My opponents new points don't count. Hopefully everyone understands why me advocating a new points would be extremely abusive and we can settle with choice B.

However even if I examine my opponents new point in contention 1 it doesn't actually hurt my case. He says,

"If I drop a sword and a pen from a set height, any height will do, the sword will hit the ground with more force(might) than the pen, because it weights much more."

This is still not intrinsic might! It is someone dropping the sword and the pen off of a cliff, the sword and the pen are not going to do that by themselves. Furthermore, even if you want to believe this is intrinsic might it proves that I win this round. The sword, in my opponents scenario, is mightier.

2. Please cross apply my new arguments in last round argument from my first contention as it applies here as well.

Secondly my opponents new point has nothing to do with the resolution, he attempts to prove that they can be compared by saying, "ON a balance" which I would totally agree with only thats not the resolution. The resolution states, "On balance." not "On a balance" as my opponent attempts to prove.

As much as I wish "on balance" meant "on a balance" this example can be disproved by examining the phrase "on time" which is not the same as the phrase "on a time."

Third my opponent accepts my definition of balance by not offering a counter definition.

Fourth as my definition is from a dictionary source it is of higher quality and needs to be accepted in this round today. (dictionary.com)

3. Cross apply my new arguments point from contention 1, it also applies here.

My opponent states here that a greater quantity does not necessarily mean a greater might. He does not however prove that a greater quantity in this scenario does not mean a greater might. Thus my observation bases itself around the idea that if you as a judge are going to vote for my opponent you cannot just feel that the pen is mightier than the sword you must feel that it is much much mightier than the sword to combat the mass quantity of swords.

7. Once again my opponent brings up a completely new argument so once again I offer the ultimatum.

Either his new points don't count in this round

or

This new picture does count as evidence on my side: http://www.hisnibs.com...

10. My opponent begins the 10th point by straw manning me, he states,

"Con's point is that the words a pen writes have to be interpreted, thus making their effects only indirect, while a swordsman cutting off someone's head has a somewhat more direct effect on a person."

That was decisively not my point, in fact my point was quite simple. Humans will subjectively interrupt anything in a way that appeals to them the most. Thus the pen actually has no might whatsoever unless someone chooses to interpret it in a way that has an impact.

Once again my opponents argument is completely new.

4. Once again my opponent mistakes me argument, he states,

"To say that the sword cause the constitution however, rather than the pen, is a practice in absurdity."

and then,

"I would point out that just because a war occurs, it does not mean that the main cause of everything that happens afterward is the war itself."

My point was not that the constitution was directly caused by the revolutionary war. It was rather that the constitution could never have existed without the revolutionary war. It was because of the revolutionary war that the constitution was even possible in the first place and thus the constitution is a byproduct of the revolutionary war. As the constitution could never have existed without the revolutionary war therefor the revolutionary war is the mightier of the two. If you agree that the constitution is mighty then you must agree that what allowed it to be was of equal or greater might.

5. For a third time my opponent has applied the same argumentation to my contention. And for the third time he has missed my point. I am not arguing that the wars that occurred before the bible directly caused the bible. I am arguing that the bible would not have been possible if those wars had not been fought, if the Jewish nation had been destroyed because it didn't feel like fighting then Jesus would not have existed. Furthermore if the Romans had lain down their swords and allowed the German tribes of the north to take the empire then Constantine would have never compiled the bible.

These events, these instances of the sword, allowed for the bible to be made. The sword in this way is at the very least equal to the pen if not of a greater might!

Furthermore my opponent brings god into this saying,

"I'm sure God wouldn't agree with you Yraelz..."

This might be true, maybe God would not agree with me, however if we are going to go on a Godly paradigm then nothing has any might. God will create everything exactly how he needs it to be thus the might of the sword or the pen will simply be the divine might of god. Or the same thing.

6. My opponent ignores most of my points in this contention in favor of stating,

"the sword does NOT exist independently. "

So let me state every point that fell under contention 6:

a. The pen has little to no impact without the sword. My opponent conceded to this by not refuting it.

b. "In this sense they are mutually dependent on each other and should be considered on equal at the least." My opponent also makes no comment on this sentence thereby agreeing they should be equal at the very least.

c. "However I must say that the sword by itself can probably exist with greater might." Which is the sentence my opponent did respond. So to set the record straight my opponent agreed that the pen has little impact without the sword, he agreed that they are at the very least equal, he just disagrees that the sword could be mightier than the pen. Thus at this point all I need to offer is an example of where the sword existed by itself without the pen...... My example will be Atilla the Hun! A man who took a great deal of Asia without using the written word at all to my knowledge.

8. My opponent states,

"WW2 and civ. war are merely 2 instances in US hist."

Yeah, this is true. However my point was that the United States has continued to exist to this day because of a reliance on the sword. So the fact that my opponent puts the word, "merely" in there does not change the fact that those events would have destroyed us. The swords effect is also real and tangible.

9. I realize this contention went dropped by both my opponent and I but it should be noted that my opponent dropped this point,

"Not only that but the sword has the possibility to destroy entire nations, and with those nations it has destroyed entire texts."

FINISH HIM!

As I brought up in my second round it is my opponent burden to defend the resolution. He has conceded that there are multiple sides to this resolution, not just a metaphorical, by arguing my contention 1 and 2. Thus if my opponent is to win this debate round he must support his side of the resolution in each way. He must support it metaphorically, literally, and entirely. As my opponent has not done this I can see nothing but a vote for Con.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
When should we expect to hear about round two's schedule?
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Rob1billion - this was a very detailed debate which required detailed examination. Just reading it, and not analysing it, can skew the result. You can still judge well, length is not standard, mine just ended up that way. The important thing is seeing the real for what it really is.

Yraelz - I'm glad this is double elimination though. I didn't want to disqualify you before I had my chance!
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Wow Darth, that was a very detailed analysis of our debate. I volunteered to judge (just for the hell of it) but now I see I don't have the technical accuracy to do the job. Another point of which I was unaware: if you make a point (i.e. in round one) and it goes uncontested, you don't actually win the point unless you bring it back up and cite how it wasn't addressed, apparently...
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I need to advocate burdens a little harder next round perhaps. -sigh-
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelz, I just heard you have to face beem0r in the next round! :O
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I've made my final decision, which can be found here under 'Peter Zupan'.

http://www.facebook.com...

In short, though, Rob1Billion won, even without consideration of his round 2.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hey Darth_Grievous_42 I'm leaving the judging completely up to you.

If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt go for it, if you don't think he should get it, fine. Choice is up to you.

Rob1Billion: Thanks for the debate also it was very good. I neglected to define a term for you earlier,

Spreading: Offering a substantial amount of arguments in an attempt to limit your opponents ability to respond to all of them with sufficient refutation. I don't often use this strategy but considering the topic was very much in your favor I didn't end up having much of choice. Thus we used 8000 characters each time, sorry about that.
Posted by HoosierPapi 9 years ago
HoosierPapi
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Rob1Billion has won this debate. Excellent job.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Good debate Yraelz. Your technique is absolutely exhausting. Good luck in the tourney
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Before posting my decision, I need Con to make a critical Judgement: In round 2, Pro did not attempt to respond to some of Cons arguments on the basis that it had nothing to do with his premises. Upon reading the comments, it appears as though he was temporarily misguided, which would account for this, and recognizes his mistake. I only need to know if Con will allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not penalize him for failing to appropriately respond on a technicality, or if I should even though it appears he did not know otherwise and regretted it. This choice Will determine my judgment, and may or may not help either Pro or Con. Please decide carefully.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by keenan 9 years ago
keenan
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
Rob1BillionYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03