The Instigator
NobodyAtTheGraveyard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 51137
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

NobodyAtTheGraveyard

Con

Just to be clear, I will be trying to prove that physical force is greater than the written word. Pro will be trying to prove that the pen is mightier.

In the past, the sword has proved to be a more powerful weapon compared to the flimsy thing called a pen.

One needs to simply look back to what has caused both World Wars to start, and one will see that the sword was the cause of the outbreak of both. WWI broke out when Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his wife) of Austria were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb. We seriously doubt they were killed by a pen. WWII only ended when the Allied managed to dismantle the Nazi government, through military intervention.

Besides, the pen didn't seem to work against Hitler when he was marching across Europe, invading country after country. It didn't even prevent Stalin from killing millions of innocent people who had different ideals than he and his government did.

Although, the pen is great at signing peace treaties and creating agreements between countries and people, it seems to be quite flimsy compared to the sword. Hitler easily managed to end the Versailles treaty, and create a larger military than he was allowed to.

Osama Bin Laden, known for being a terrorist and the one who planned the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, was only stopped because of military intervention. He was killed.

Now, moving on to famous peace-keepers who are believed to have used the pen only.

Mahatma Ghandi: He was a great man who managed to get India its independence. Although, he did all of this through words, the only reason why his words were even listened to was because Britain was in a weakened state after the results of WWI and WWII. These are obviously actions of the sword.

Nelson Mandela: in 1961 he led the “Umkhonto we Sizwe”, which was the armed wing of the African National Congress, into plans for a guerrilla war. In case you don´t know what a Guerrilla war is… We have a definition here. It is a form of irregular warfare of a small group of combatants, namely civilians, who use military tactics such as ambushes, sabotage, raids and hit-and-run-tactics. Once again, an action of the sword.

<sp

Defro

Pro

Thank you for instigating this debate, although I am slightly dissapointed that there is only one round and because the word limit is not much.

Before I begin, I would like to give my definition of the term "great".

Great (adj): influential

I will be arguing that what is written is in fact greater and more influential than physical force, if not on equal terms.


================================================================================


Rebuttal:


"In the past, the sword has proved to be a more powerful weapon compared to the flimsy thing called a pen."

-Con has committed a fallacy. This debate itself is comparing which holds more influence between what is written and physical force. In this claim, Con is comparing physical force of a weapon with the physical force of a pen, which is irrelevant and invalid because the purpose of the pen is not to influence through physical force.


WWI

-Yes, you are correct, Archduke was shot by a gun and killed by a bullet, which is under the category of physical force. However, what Con fails to realize is that to keep record of how all weapons are made and to pass them on generation to generation, it must be written down or recorded in some way. Therefore, it can be concluded that without the existance of writing, there would be no guns to assasinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

-Furthermore, many wars and riots are not started by the physical force of weapons, but by the disagreenments among written words. For example, recently there has been protests in Taiwan, that was not caused by any physcal force. It was caused because the Taiwanese government signed a contract of some sort with China, and the citizens did not approve. The written word certainly had huge influence over wars, especially if enemies are writing letters to each other.


"Besides, the pen didn't seem to work against Hitler when he was marching across Europe, invading country after country. It didn't even prevent Stalin from killing millions of innocent people who had different ideals than he and his government did."

-Con has based his arguments off of 2 specific examples, which can go against him as well. Hitler used the pen! He was a great speaker who wrote powerful speeches that held the loyalties of his troops! He also uses the pen to send letters to his officials, ordering them to execute physical force. It was the same for Stalin.

-Now I will give an example. An American mother once wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein, beggin him to release her son who has been held hostage by his people. I will provide the letter below. In the end, Saddam complied and released her son. She achieved this through her use of rhetoric in her letter, which I analyzed in my AP English Language and Composition class.

http://www.nytimes.com...


"Osama Bin Laden, known for being a terrorist and the one who planned the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, was only stopped because of military intervention. He was killed."

-Without the use of writing, the Twin Towers would not have been terrorized and Osama would not have been killed. In fact, the Twin Towers probably would not have even been built. As mentioned before, recording things is how society can progress. Without writing, airplanes and skyscrapers wouldn't have been invented.



Addendum:

-Con has provided two historical figures who used the pen to influence people. And Con has conceded that they had major influence over the world.


Conclusion:

-The written word is just as influential as physical force, if not more influential.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
NobodyAtTheGraveyardDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Great job by Pro. He countered every point by Con and even turned some around. He made clever use od sources, building up an entire argument on one picture.
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
oculus_de_logica
NobodyAtTheGraveyardDefroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to undermine con's entire case and make a strong case himself, providing him a rather convincing win.