The Instigator
Lord_Logic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MasterKage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,561 times Debate No: 19931
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Lord_Logic

Con

Round 1 is for acceptance only.

Save definitions for Round 2.
MasterKage

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

Since definitions will be provided next round, I assume my opponent will provide definitions.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Lord_Logic

Con

Thank you, Pro, for accepting this debate. Good luck!

C1 Definitions

Pen- Words
Sword- Actions

I believe the others are self-explanatory. This will be words vs. actions.

C2 Literal

Let's just go with literal for a second. A sword slices through a pen. Ink spills out. No need to refute this. Readers, this was just a fun argument...

C3 Sword

{1}. The pen is not mightier than the sword because the pen needs swords to back it up. Meaning: words cannot win alone but need actions to support the words. Which basically means that words are discarded when there is no force. Hope you understand. Try going to {1}.

C4 Superior Sword: Example 1

An example of failure in words is the Emancipation Proclamation. {2}. The Emancipation Proclamation stated that all slaves are free in the country. Of course, it never worked because the South forced the slaves to keep working when they were technically, "free." Up until the Union forces came and made the South surrender did the slaves finally become free. Therefore, the swords are better because the Emancipation Proclamation (pen) failed to truly make all slaves free. When the Civil War ended, the swords won and the pen truly did not win. {3}. "The proclamation declared 'that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free.'" stated {3}.

C5 Failing Pens: Example 1

Let's give an example. You, Pro, go to some country and say that you want to take all their weapons. You are defenseless with no other swords/people around. Of course, the conclusion would be you dead. Even better, try ask your mom to give all her money to you. Words don't work. Your mother will most likely ground you and, well, bye bye.

I feel like this is enough for now. Good luck, Pro!

{1} http://deanesmay.com...
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org...
{3} http://www.archives.gov...
MasterKage

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response.

I will elaborate on the actual proverb before I begin.

The proverb refers that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation.



I will now present my arguments on why the pen is mightier than the sword.



Contention 1: The pen promotes the voice of reason while the sword promotes unnecessary violence.



The pen promotes the voice of reason and the intelligence of human beings, while the sword promoted unnecessary violence.

For an example of this I will give a scenario giving the outcomes of using the pen and using the sword.



You just had an argument with your best friend.

1A) Pen

1A) You verbally insult your best friend out of anger.

2B) You calm down and reach an agreement with your friend and you both apologize.



2) Sword

1A) You physically attack your friend in some way.



Pen: 1A) You apologize and forgive your friend.

Sword: 1A) Your friend would be shocked at you and would probably end the friendship. Your friend would also probably fight back in self defense.



Contention 2: The pen can be used to stop the sword.

The pen can be used to stop the actions of the sword



For example let's say a country is preparing to go into war against another country.

The are numerous example of how the actions of the pen can prevent the war (sword).

  1. You can sign a treaty between the two countries negating the war.

  2. The populace can rally to get the war to be negated.

I will now refute each of my opponents points.



C3 Sword



Actually it would be actions cannot win alone but need words to support the actions.



For example let's say country A plans on attacking country B so that Country B would stop a negative action on country A.

If country A had a large amount of weapons at their disposal but made no notice to country B that they had an intent on using it then Country B would get no chance to undo their wrongs and get no warning of an attack.



C4 Superior Sword

This is actually an example of the pen's usefulness.

The south used the pen's and respectfully disagreed to relinquish the slaves.



C5 Failing Pens



Well seeing as I am just 14, they would not take me seriously.

Besides, they probably wouldn't automatically kill the person and instead jail them.

Debate Round No. 2
Lord_Logic

Con

Thank you, Pro, for the quick response.

CA1==> C1

The pen does not promote the voice of reason as well as the sword. Tell that to George Bush. You expect us to just go to a terrorist group and say, "Don't bomb the US." Good luck with that. The sword, on the other hand, does not always promote unnecessary violence. Try coming with five thousand troops to capture a city that hates you and would like to bomb your country. Chances are that you win and that is not unnecessary violence. Any threat to you, you should take action, not trying to persuade the enemy. It's like saying in a robbery. Try to persuade the robber to leave. Good luck with that. If you ambush them, it's not unnecessary violence. You had courage and to try to fight to save your life. NECESSARY VIOLENCE.

CA2- Sword Violence

Yes. ATTACKING them with love and friendship. Isn't that a way to solve? I mean, you stated: "You physically attack your friend in some way." Of course, you hug the friend (non-verbally) and buy the friend some ice cream and you live happily ever after…

CA3==> C2

Yes. Try stopping the war in Iraq. If you sign a treaty saying that Iraq should not take the weapons of mass destruction, but, people may have the urge to get the weapons and destroy your country. Because the troops left, you get hit by surprise! SURPRISE ATTACK!

CA4==>C3

Isn't that the way of war? Surprise attack? Nothing's fair. Please elaborate on your counter argument for I may have taken it the wrong way.

CA4==>C4

Actually, it is an example of the sword's usefulness. When the South bombed the Union fort, would the Union say, "Please stop doing that." No. The Union would have attacked the South. Would the South have listened to the "Please stop doing that!"? No. Therefore, this example shows the usefulness of the sword. The South did not verbally disagree, they shot and captured anyone who tried to run away. Battle of Fort Sumter. {1}.

CA5==> C5

Ha ha. Please read Counter Argument 1 again…

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C6 Suicide Bombers

Would you kill the suicide bomber that is about to bomb a populated city? Or, would you ask him to drop his bombs and interrogate him. Most likely, he would press the trigger before you could arrest him. Nice try.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{1} http://en.wikipedia.org...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Lord_Logic
MasterKage

Pro

CA1==> C1

It does promote unnecessary and unneeded violence.

In these situations negotiating is the best option.
Negation is taking the route of the pen.
With negotiation instead of rashly attacking a country you can negotiate with the country.

CA2- Sword Violence

This is blatant sarcasm, my opponent never bothered to challenge this contention just sarcastically commented on "You physically attack your friend in some way."

CA3==> C2

If you make a treaty than both parties would have to agree to the terms associated with the treaty and sign it.
If the disagreed with the treaty they wouldn't sign it.

CA4==>C3

If Country A used a sunrise attack against Country B, yet there are much better less violent alternatives.

1) Negotiate with Country B
2) Issue a treaty between Country A and Country B to come to terms.

CA4==>C4

Actually the South made no actions until they discovered the North had an intent to invade the south.

CA5==> C5

Since my opponent is using his CA1 to counter this point, then I am going to extend my refutation of his CA1 to here.


C6 Suicide Bombers

Once again negotiation would come into play.
You can negotiate with the suicide bomber to prevent him from using his tactic.

I will now present one counter argument affirming the resolution.

Contention 1: The pen has the power to forgive while the sword does not.

You can forgive or take back your words (pen), but you can never take my you physical actions, they remain.
Debate Round No. 3
Lord_Logic

Con

Thank you for the well-done debate, MasterKage.

Contention 1/Counter Argument- As we all, the pen is not mightier than the sword. As I said, with Pro's approval, the pen is words and the sword is actions. Negotiation will not work. Did the Americans try to talk it out with the Japanese about World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor? No, they didn't. Why would we try to negotiate with someone that harms and threatens us? The sword promote necessary violence to stop any further attacks on America. After thousands of death from Pearl Harbor, you, MasterKage, expect us to just go to Japan and ask nicely: "Please don't hurt our people." The sword saved the day by promoting necessary violence and the Americans as an ally to others. If America were to negotiate with Japan right after Pearl Harbor, we may have to give up weapons and explosives to them because, as you say, we should have a compromise with them. What about: "You Americans give explosives and we leave you alone." Because you said we should negotiate with other countries, this may lead to a downfall in America because of the explosives that you just gave them because you wanted negotiation. This proves that the sword promotes necessary violence while the pen does not work in negotiation, as you say.

Contention 2/Counter Argument- When one, after arguing for a really long time, will not immediately apologize. Psychology. After arguing/debating for a really long time, many people will become stubborn with their ideas and will never give in and say that they both are right. As you state in 1A, you verbally insult your best friend out of anger. Well that also leads to hatred and the end of a friendship. See Round 2. As you state in Round 2 about Sword 1A, you can always smile at them (non-verbally) and just act like we shouldn't care about a dumb argument. Of course, you could hug them and smile or laugh.

"If you make a treaty than both parties would have to agree to the terms associated with the treaty and sign it."

Okay. Let's see you making a treaty with a terrorist group. After all, the word "terrorist" refers to "a person who terrifies or frightens others," proven by {1}. As the definition states, one cannot have a treaty with a person who frightens others. As we all know, the attack of 9-11 hurt many American citizens. America is still sad from this attack that bombed and made many children parent-less if their parents were caught in the fire. America would not want to have a treaty with them and therefore treaties will not work. The pen will not work.

"Actually the South made no actions until they discovered the North had an intent to invade the south."

If you have not studied American history yet, let me give you a fast lecture/argument. See {2}. Abraham Lincoln was against slavery and had a campaign against slavery. Because of his election, 11 southern states made their own country. They attacked Fort Sumter. Please read {2} for full details.

"Since my opponent is using his CA1 to counter this point, then I am going to extend my refutation of his CA1 to here."

I have already refuted. See above contentions/counter arguments. Take action. Negotiation (pen) does not work, as I have proven in the first two contentions. In a robbery/home invasion, would you try to negotiate with the criminals or escape for your own sake with your kids, family, relatives, friends, etc.? Obviously, you would choose escaping over negotiation as negotiation leads to your death while escaping leads to calling 911 and saving any loved ones.

"You can negotiate with the suicide bomber to prevent him from using his tactic."

As I have pointed out numerous of times, you can never, and I say never, negotiate with a stubborn man/woman. As I have proven in above contentions, negotiation does not work and therefore the sword is more useful than the pen, thus showing that the sword is mightier than the pen. Negotiation (pen) does not work.

"You can forgive or take back your words (pen), but you can never take my you physical actions, they remain."

We always know that words can leave scars that cannot be seen. Mental scars from words. You can never take back your words. You may have heard the idiom, "Eat your words?" Though my opponent may use this against me, the sword can also leave scars that last physically and mental scars. An example is the overseer of a plantation whipping the slaves. As we know, whipping leaves scars that last physically and also mental scars of this person hates you and may try to kill you. Pro must argue why the pen is mightier than the sword while, as Con, can argue if they are equal or the sword is better.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
{1} http://dictionary.reference.com...
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org...
{3} http://deanesmay.com...

As I close off my argument, I would like to tell all readers that you take ACTION to speak. ACTION, as the sword is represented by. As I have refuted and brought up my contentions, I would like to tell all readers that the sword truly is mightier than the sword. Negotiation and treaties will not work. As {3} states, the pen can ONLY win if it is backed up by swords, which means that the pen alone is never mightier than the sword. Just the pen vs. the sword. The sword will win. If the pen is backed up by many swords, the pen+swords win. Therefore, the pen truly cannot be mightier than the sword. An example is, as I have pointed out before:

The Emancipation Proclamation- Lincoln states that all slaves are free in the South during the Civil War. Did this really make all slaves free? No. With the help of many swords, battles, and actions did the slaves finally be free. This shows that the pen cannot be mightier than the sword. The sword is mightier than the pen.

THE SWORD IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PEN

After all these examples, I hope the readers seehat the sword is, in fact, mightier than the sword. The pen cannot beat the sword. The sword does not promote unneccessary violence. The pen does not work and therefore swords have to come in because pens fail. The sword, as we know, are actions. Words can never win. Actions may win by itself. Thus, the sword is mightier than the pen.

VOTE CON.

I thank MasterKage for a delightful debate and wish MasterKage and the readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I give thanks to MasterKage for not giving up halfway through the debate as other debates have by other people. To the readers, I urge you to believe that The Sword is Mightier Than the Pen. Overall, I love this debate and wish to deba MasterKage in the future.
MasterKage

Pro

Contention 1/Counter Argument

It is unnecessary violence, yes Japan clearly did a wrong, but does that mean the United States should have hit back killing hundreds or thousands of innocent lives.
Yes by doing this they would eliminate guilty lives, but it would cause the loss of innocent lives.

Contention 2/Counter Argument

It wouldn't lead to the end of a friendship, you can easily apologize to the friend. It doesn't necessarily lead to hatred, more of a bit of a grudge which is resolved within a short period of time.

As you state in Round 2 about Sword 1A, you can always smile at them (non-verbally) and just act like we shouldn't care about a dumb argument. Of course, you could hug them and smile or laugh.

The proverb refers that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation. (as I posted in R2)

Smiling, hugging, and laughing all are generally used for communication, thus this is a pen argument and is supporting my position.

After all, the word "terrorist" refers to "a person who terrifies or frightens others,"...

So a bully isn't terrorist? A bully terrifies the majority of his victims and you can easily negotiate with them since the majority of bullies are dim-witted.

In a robbery/home invasion, would you try to negotiate with the criminals or escape for your own sake with your kids, family, relatives, friends, etc.? Obviously, you would choose escaping over negotiation as negotiation leads to your death while escaping leads to calling 911 and saving any loved ones.

Well esaping wouldn't be a sword method, since your not using physical conflict and confrontation.
It would be a pen method since you are calling proper authorities to handle the situation.

" Though my opponent may use this against me, the sword can also leave scars that last physically and mental scars. An example is the overseer of a plantation whipping the slaves. As we know, whipping leaves scars that last physically and also mental scars of this person hates you and may try to kill you. Pro must argue why the pen is mightier than the sword while, as Con, can argue if they are equal or the sword is better.

I'm unsure as to why my opponent presented an argument that can so easily be turned in my favor. My opponent made several examples of how the sword is promoting violence.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

The pen beats the sword for many reasons.

The pen promotes the voice of reason and the human intellect while the sword uses unnecessary violence.








Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lasagna 4 years ago
Lasagna
I took Pro in this debate in DDO's very first tourney: http://www.debate.org...

(I'm Rob1billion)
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
Yes, my Round 4 argument is pretty long: 7,000 characters
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Has either of the debaters mentioned yet that a pen could be used as a deadly weapon? :)
Posted by MasterKage 4 years ago
MasterKage
Sounds good
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
@MasterKage

I'll do my AK-47 vs. AR-15 first. I finish the pen vs. sword thing either today or tomorrow.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Hmm, for me it depends on whether or not its a democratic society. If your reputation matters, then the pen will most likely win out, but if you don't care about your reputation, say a dictator for example, the sword will most likely win out.
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
Yeah, that's true.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
xD! I did this debate >.<
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
Anyone taking?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 4 years ago
Crayzman2297
Lord_LogicMasterKageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that it could be argued that the failure and futility of this debate should be attributed to the fact that while both "pen" and "sword" were metaphorically defined, the definition of "mighty" was not. Because of this it is hard to choose a decisive victor, however I am voting Pro for his adept counter-argument in round two.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 4 years ago
Boogerdoctor
Lord_LogicMasterKageTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro did a good job showing that negotiation is generally superior to war. Thus showing pen>sword.