The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Coveny
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The sword is mightier than the pen.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
03days15hours48minutes11seconds
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,164 times Debate No: 106830
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Danielle

Pro

"The pen is mightier than the sword" is a proverb indicating that communication (particularly written language), or in some interpretations, administrative power or advocacy of an independent press, is a more effective tool than direct violence and military prowess.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the upcoming rounds, I will be arguing that the sword is more effective.

I will begin the discussion in Round Two upon my opponent's acceptance.
Coveny

Con

Accepted.

Well I guess we aren't going to wait for this one until after we get done with the other one. (that's one way to keep me off the forums...)


Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate, Coveny. I'll make the opening round quick.

The pen is mightier than the sword = writing is more effective than military power or violence.

The word effective means successful in producing a desired or intended result.

I will be arguing that physical force is better and more reliable at producing a desired result than writing, or the intent to persuade through rhetoric. Note that I do not have to argue that physical dominance is always preferable or moral - merely that it is more EFFECTIVE than verbiage alone.

I'll start by acknowledging the provocative and transformative power of words. Indeed they can be powerful, crippling, devastating or awe inspiring. They are incredibly useful tools to communicate. It is how this country's founding fathers created a document like The Declaration of Independence, which contained ideas that would lay the foundation for one of the most impressive legal systems of governance the world has ever known. It is how peace treaties that ended wars have come to fruition. It is how rights have been dictated to the world.

It is not, however, how rights are established.

Words alone are not responsible for the Declaration of Independence, or for upholding a legal system of governance amidst a chaotic and violent world. They are not how peace treaties are implemented or how law and order is actually upheld. Instead it is might: the power for physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY carry out the ideas and instructions that are written by the pen.

Laws and rights that are written in global documents are only significant because they can be defended by force if need-be. If there is the belief or reality they could not be defended by force, then they would be nothing more than words that people do or do not have to care about.

I could theoretically create my own country; all I would have to do is declare that I've made one. Perhaps I could write it down with my pen. But simply writing that down would do nothing insofar as having any real world impact with my words. On the other hand, if I wrote that I had my own country and I had the capacity to defend that notion with my sword (or nuclear bomb in this day and age) then it would have very real impact. If I could use physical force to carry out my idea, that strength would make me powerful whereas simply writing down words would not.

One might argue that words are effective at "actually convincing" people of an idea. But what does that have to do with being effective? If my goal is to manage workers to produce 100 widgets, it doesn't matter if I've convinced the workers that they should do so. If I had the physical power to dominate and oppress or suppress them, I could get them to effectively make the widgets whether or not I've convinced them and my goal would be achieved.

After all the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness. That is how an institution like slavery came about -- and it took military might and physical dominance to bring it down. Words alone did not do so; they couldn't do so. It took winning a war to end that institution... and then people got to write down the new law of the land; law that was established through force.

In The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli famously states "Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present."

Rather than advocate the use of cruelty for its own sake, Machiavelli explains that it is necessary in the interests of the ultimate end of statecraft to flex one's military prowess. Based on his assessment of human nature, this is not only the most effective way to maintain order but the virtuous course of action; order could not be maintained otherwise. Machiavelli explains that people will become disloyal if circumstances warrant. The prince's ultimate goal is to maintain the state, which requires obedience of the people. From these two points, it follows that between benevolence and cruelty, the latter is the more reliable.

By simply writing a document, a prince or governor could not simply will people into compliance. People might become passionate about a cause, even willing to fight and die for something based on being moved by one's words. Yet having to FIGHT they will, in order for the words to be effective at change. Again I'll go back to slavery as an example. It wasn't enough that powerful writing inspired people to change an institution. It took military might to transform and idea to reality.

Thus the sword (physical prowess) is ultimately more effective than the pen.
Coveny

Con

This debate is on the virtues of force vs. persuasion, but it really shouldn’t be a debate, because the pen encompasses the sword, while the sword does not encompass the pen. So how could a part of a whole ever be mightier than the whole? I will however present my arguments now and respond to pro in the next round.

Gone are the days of cave men clubbing people to get what you want. We all understand that using a gun (the modern-day club) to force someone to make you a cup of coffee at McDonalds is ludicrous. It is much more effective to follow the laws that have been penned out for this country to get what you want. This is true in every aspect of our lives, and it’s why the pen doesn’t allow taking others property, torturing others, even murder, or the one my opponent should be acutely aware forcing others to do what you want at the tip of a sword. As a female, I shouldn’t need to explain to her that a guy attempting to force himself on a woman is not the most effective at getting laid, a girlfriend, a relationship, or whatever. And as previously stated the pen allows individuals the use of the sword in protection of the penned laws.

I will be proving the power of the pen with these 4 points:

1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the pen

2) Live by the sword, die by the sword

3) The power of religious pen

4) The pen hurts more than the sword



1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the pen

The pen has many faces, and military is only one of them. However military rule removes all the diplomatic options in a countries toolbox. This is the reason no developed government is a stratocracy with the globalization that exists now. The closest we see to one currently is Russia and England, and both of those have laws and lawmakers who are in charge. Pro needs to convince you that the sword is more effective than the pen, I look forward to seeing pro try to put forth an example of a government that is effective without the use of the pen. So either Pro needs to prove that all these governments are ineffective and they should change over to a stratocracy, or Pro needs to concede the debate on those grounds alone. A partial list of governments ruled by the pen: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, etc.

Be it hiring mercenaries, or assassins, all military contracts are the pen directing the sword. When you sign up to be a soldier you sign a contract. The military is ruled by laws that we’ve penned. If you break those laws, a military court will try your offenses against those penned law. Every aspect of military life is dictated by the pen, and the sword doesn’t dictate a single thing in this (and all the countries listed above) country. While there may be some cases were temporarily the sword is in charge instead of the pen, but even in martial law, the pen is dictating the rules of what the sword can and cannot do. The pen controls and dominates the sword in every aspect of the swords existence.



2) Live by the sword, die by the sword

The sword is a tool for people who lack the ability to function in modern society. We no longer create fiefdoms of warring clans where only the strong survive. It’s not effective to risk your life every time you want Starbucks. And that’s a good thing, because when a person resorts to the sword to get what they want they remove all other forms of compromise, and create a dual to the death. It forces the person on the other side to either given in, or fight back. How many times have we seen in the news of a shop owner killing a thief in a shootout? Is that 6 pack of Budweiser really worth losing your life over?

http://abc7.com...

Even if you do “win” the battle with that individual, you still risk their friends and family vengeance. (and even your own family) When you live by the sword, you never know who is coming to harm you. They know you cannot be reasoned with, and the only thing you understand is the sword, so it is the sword they will use against you, and you must have constant vigilance to protect yourself from that retribution. I think we can all agree that’s not an effective at achieving your goals in life. (unless your goal is to always be hunted and on your guard)

http://abcnews.go.com...

https://www.thenewsminute.com...

And to bring it back to the female perspective, maybe the sword works the first time, the second time, or whatever, but there is always the chance that it’s going to be too much, and she is going to kill you. I think we are all aware of Cyntoia Brown who at 16 killed her capture, because she felt like she had no other choice. Which highlights another issue with the sword, in a world full of guns being physically stronger does not give you any advantage against bullets. So, the belief that only the strong survive has been nullified by Mr. Colt.

https://nypost.com...



3) The power of religious pen

In some ways religion has the strongest pen, there are billions who believe that the word (pen) of various gods is mightier than the sword. It doesn’t matter whether you are a believer or non-believer, you must respect the power that the religious pen holds globally. Two quotes on the topic

Napoleon - “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”

Lucius Annaeus Seneca – “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”


The power of the religious pen to effectively control the masses better than the sword has been proven time and time again. In the modern age, it has gotten to where we now use clergy as diplomats:

“the objective of faith-based diplomacy is not only conflict resolution but also the restoration of the political order that has suffered from war and injustice, and the reconciliation of individuals and social groups.” http://internationalstudies.oxfordre.com...



4) The pen hurts more than the sword

Propaganda has shown to be one of the most effective ways to control the masses. The most popular example of this is Nazi Germany and the holocaust, but we don’t need to go to another country to see how hurtful propaganda can be. The weapons of mass destruction the US government used as propaganda to take us into yet another war leading people to vote against their own interest, and causing untold harm.

“Many say that it is inevitable in war that people will die. Yet, in many cases, war itself is not inevitable, and propaganda is often employed to go closer to war, if that is the preferred foreign policy option.”

“In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective [than a propaganda system imposed in a totalitarian regime].”

http://www.globalissues.org...


On an individual level words and the emotional pain are far more effective at destroying someone than the sword. This article goes through the ways that the pen is stronger than the sword:

1. Memories Trigger Emotional Pain But Not Physical Pain

2. We Use Physical Pain as Distraction from Emotional Pain Not Vice Versa

3. Physical Pain Garners Far More Empathy from Others Than Emotional Pain

4. Emotional Pain Echoes in Ways Physical Pain Does Not

5. Emotional Pain but Not Physical Pain Can Damage Our Self-Esteem and Long-Term Mental Health

https://www.psychologytoday.com...



Conclusion

I enjoy freedom, and I enjoy trade as I think most people do. I have no interest in risking my like to get a country fried steak dinner at Cracker Barrel with force, it’s just not effective. At best, the sword provides for an ineffective way to sacrifice your future for a chance of short term gains, but every time you chose the sword you are putting your life on the line. (and not just with the person in front of you) This is true on both a personal and national level, and I have shown why governments and individuals don’t live by the sword anymore, it’s simply not an effective way of getting what you want. In the same way that torture is ineffective, so too is choosing the sword over the pen. We all know this to be true because as children we tried to live this way. Some of use found that there was always someone bigger or better, and even the rare undefeated swords cave to the power of the pen as they matured. The use of the pen to incite people to use the sword in the case of Black American protestors should be a sad reminder of how easy it is for the pen to beat anyone who draws the sword.

I’ll leave you with a quote from John Lennon:

When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you.

Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Coveny opens this debate by claiming the pen encompasses the sword, while the sword does not encompass the pen.

That is wrong. Indeed it is the other way around.

* * *

Rebuttal - Part 1

1. Con's first point is that, "It is much more effective to follow the laws that have been penned out for this country to get what you want." In the last round, I explained at length why the sword is responsible for carrying out the laws that are written by the pen. I highlighted that what is written by the pen is completely meaningless if there is not a sword (force) to back it up.

Governments would simply not exist without military might - that is what gives government any type of authority at all. Even in places without government, such as in Africa where warring tribes and mini militias have control, it is their physical dominance that gives them power.

Again what is written means absolutely nothing if you don't have force to back it up. That is especially true with law and government.

2. Con continues, "It"s why the pen doesn"t allow taking others property, torturing others, even murder, or the one my opponent should be acutely aware forcing others to do what you want at the tip of a sword."

(Coveny seriously needs to improve his grammar.)

But here Con defeats his very own argument. He acknowledges that the pen intends to prohibit bad things things from happening... and yet these things happen anyway. Thus Con is blatantly highlighting how the pen is INEFFECTIVE at prohibiting these things.

Meanwhile, if one had the physical force to prevent these harms, the sword would be effective at deterring them. The government could write a law not to murder me, but someone might ignore it and the law as-written would not be enough to deter the behavior. However if one tried to murder me and I had a gun to fight back with, then my force would deter the behavior. So again we can see that physical force is more effective.

* * *

Rebuttal - Part 2

RE: "The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn"t direct the pen"

Con writes, "I look forward to seeing pro try to put forth an example of a government that is effective without the use of the pen." I absolutely do not have to describe a government which does not use diplomacy or the power of the written word as tools. In fact I pointed out the utility of words in the last round by highlighting how people and governments utilize words to convey meaning. However I then went on to explain how all of those words are backed by force.

I demand that Con present a government which is not backed by military might.

He will NOT be able to do so, and therefore he completely loses this argument.

Since no government can exist without military might, then any diplomacy which is enacted by government only exists because of the military might. Thus the utility of laws and diplomacy (the pen) only exist because of the sword, and the sword is therefore more effective than the pen.

Con is 100% wrong when he says "Every aspect of military life is dictated by the pen, and the sword doesn"t dictate a single thing in this (and all the countries listed above) country."

Let me repeat it again: nothing that is written in law means a single thing if it is not backed by force, including the military code. If the military code or laws are broken, what are the repercussions? The answer is that people are thrown in jail. Yet if prisoners fought against the jailers, they would overrule the jailers and the law. They would escape or defy the law and it would be meaningless.

Once again the law means NOTHING if there is not force to back it up. There must be police, sheriffs, military, and overall more force/weapons behind one group over another in order for any law and order to be effective.

That is why there is global conflict over the power to have nuclear weapons. Proof that physical dominance trumps the pen is that countries are struggling to fight for their right to have nuclear weapons, or deter others from getting nuclear weapons. Why? Because having nuclear weapons makes one more powerful and influential. Suddenly you are a threat when you have substantial military force.

Nobody is afraid of Kim Jung Un's words, but everyone is afraid of him having nuclear weapons. Kim Jung Un's words would be completely INeffective at hurting anyone in Hawaii. His physical prowess, however, would be very much effective at hurting people in the United States if he gains more military might.

So I would like to reiterate that I have proven Con's comments completely wrong.

He said, "The pen controls and dominates the sword in every aspect of the swords existence."

On the contrary, the sword is what gives the pen any power and influence whatsoever.


RE: "Live by the sword, die by the sword"

Con continues to talk about the dangers of living through violence which I agree with. Nowhere in this debate did I ever advocate using violence (at the individual level) to get ahead. In fact, I clarified in the opening round that I would not be arguing violence is always the more MORAL option. Instead, I said I would be defending the notion that physical force is more EFFECTIVE at carrying out a goal than rhetoric alone. I explained that rhetoric tries to be persuasive, but having the power to physically dominate someone compels a certain action rather than merely inviting one. If one lives by the sword, they will die by the sword. Yet one can still live by words and die by the sword. Nobody dies from words alone.


RE: The Power of the Religious Pen

While I acknowledge the utility of words to persuade, I've explained that the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness. That is why religious wars have been fought despite being predicated on religion. The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. They were campaigns aimed at recovering the Christian holy land from Muslim rule [1]. But if [religious] words alone were actually effective and powerful enough to carry out one's goals... why did not one, but a SERIES of crusades spanning multiple centuries need to continue? Why wasn't religious rhetoric alone enough to secure the goal of Christians? Clearly this example has backfired on Con to prove that military might is more useful at establishing power and authority than the "religious pen" is.

RE: The pen hurts more than the sword

Con writes, "Propaganda has shown to be one of the most effective ways to control the masses. The most popular example of this is Nazi Germany and the holocaust." Of course the Holocaust would not exist if there were not Nazi Germans, i.e. military, to force people into concentration camps, and perpetuate that god awful policy through military might.

And indeed it took military might to DEFEAT the Nazis, which proves Con is once again arguing against himself and proving my point to be superior. Thank you for that example, Coveny, in proving how Winston Churchill's words alone did precisely nothing to stop the Germans -- it was the Allie's military power which was able to subdue them.

The treaties that ended WWII at the Paris Peace Conference were ONLY the result of military power. They only had meaning because of military power (by the Allies) that would force the Axis powers into submission.

All of the propaganda utilized during WWII was meant to inspire violence. Wars are not fought or won with words. The words only inspired people to exemplify physical dominance, thus the sword is mightier than the pen.


RE: Emotional Pain Hurts

I do not deny that words hurt. My position in this debate is that physical force is (on balance) more effective than words. I can admit that words have utility and power while still effectively demonstrating that the sword is overall more effective. Obviously different goals demand different strategies, but ultimately physical force is more compelling if not moral.

Conclusion

I do not have to advocate the use of violence in order to win this debate (and I have not). Nor do I have to prove that words aren't useful - because they are. I admitted at the very start of this discussion that words have great power. However I went on to explain that the threat of physical force is what gives many words (especially anything that has to do with government) their power.

I have proven that physical force is better and more reliable at producing a desired result (i.e., being effective) than writing. I gave examples such as violence being necessary to end slavery, wars, etc. Diplomacy would not be possible if governments didn't negotiate peace, and governments could not exist unless there was physical force to back up every law and legal document. Otherwise, the government could only exist insofar as other people allow it to. But the people with the military might get to decide what is legitimate and what is not.

Any group that has power, including gangs, only derive that power from their ability to physically dominate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Coveny

Con

Pro is arguing “Note that I do not have to argue that physical dominance is always preferable or moral - merely that it is more EFFECTIVE than verbiage alone.” Further stating “it is might: the power for physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY carry out the ideas and instructions that are written by the pen.” I would draw your attention to the phrase “physical dominance” and I want you to remember that Pro’s argument hinges on physical dominance as this is an important point.

Rebuttal – Only one country has physical dominance
I said, “there was always someone bigger or better, and even the rare undefeated swords cave to the power of the pen as they matured.” I still hold this to be true. Let’s put the two statements together. There are the rare physical dominant winners in the world. Globally the USA spends several times what other nations spend on their military and has around 8 wars it’s currently engaged in. The USA has the physical dominance that Pro speaks of. That means that everyone else lacks physical dominance because only one country can be dominant. All other countries, except for the USA, effectively function without the use of a dominant military force to back them up, all they have is the pen.

Rebuttal – Countries that have no sword, just the pen
Pro says “I absolutely do not have to describe a government which does not use diplomacy or the power of the written word as tools.” then goes on to state “I demand that Con present a government which is not backed by military might.”. Even though Pro cannot compel, I can. Pro was wrong when she stated “He will NOT be able to do so, and therefore he completely loses this argument.” Here is a list of 22 countries that have no military:

1) Andorra (never)
2) Costa Rica (since 1948)
3) Dominica (Since 1981)
4) Grenada (Since 1983)
5) Haiti (Since 1995)
6) Iceland (Since 1869.. that’s pretty impressive)
7) Kiribati (Since 1978)
8) Liechtenstein (Since 1868)
9) The Marshall Islands (never)
10) Mauritius (Since 1968)
11) Micronesia (never)
12) Monaco (Since the 17th century.. another impressive one)
13) Nauru (never)
14) Palau (never)
15) Panama (Since 1990)
16) St. Lucia (never)
17) St. Vincent and the Grenadines (never)
18) Samoa (never)
19) Solomon Islands (never)
20) Tuvalu (never)
21) Vanuatu (never)
22) Vatican City (Since 1970… and another nail in Pro’s coffin)

As the article states “Well, if these countries can manage to survive without an army, then why not the whole world?” The pen can exist without the sword, but the sword cannot exist without the pen, as I have just proven.
https://tinyurl.com...


Rebuttal – The pen is only mighty because of the sword

Pro argues “Laws and rights that are written in global documents are only significant because they can be defended by force if need-be.” going so far as to say, “the pen is completely meaningless if there is not a sword (force) to back it up” and “what is written means absolutely nothing if you don't have force to back it up”. This naïve sentiment should not have to be rebutted, but it is the core of Pro’s argument, so I must address it. All mutually beneficial agreements created using the pen have nothing to do with the threat of force and are effective at achieving both party’s goals. Rather than going into those, I’ll use a personal example instead. Are there any among you who only keep their word because you believe you will be attacked/harmed/killed if you don’t? This obviously includes a fear of breaking the penned word of your god as well. Are all your actions motivated by fear of the sword?


If the only thing that’s stopping you from following the laws our society has enacted is the fear of repercussion then you are part of the 4% of the population that is a sociopath. Pro needs to understand that it is not how our (or any other) society runs. If it were threat of force that compelled us to follow the laws we wouldn’t have a ratio of less than one cop per hundred civilians. (the average is closer to 500 civilians to each cop). This proves humans follow the pen not because of threat of force, they follow the pen because the pen is on the side of what is right/just and what we have all agreed to in our society. Our morals and ethics, not the sword, are the reason we follow the pen. To quote Penn Jillette: “I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.”
https://tinyurl.com...


Rebuttal – Most effective way to create productive employees

Pro states “If my goal is to manage workers to produce 100 widgets, it doesn't matter if I've convinced the workers that they should do so. If I had the physical power to dominate and oppress or suppress them, I could get them to effectively make the widgets whether or not I've convinced them and my goal would be achieved.” This is a glaring hole in Pro’s argument for anyone who has tried to manage people in an effective way or even been managed. I’ll use a LinkedIn article to support that effective managers don’t dominate their employees, but I don’t really need to, every employee knows that they don’t produce as much or as high a quality of work when their boss is a tyrant who “dominate and oppress or suppress them”. This is business 101.
https://tinyurl.com...


Rebuttal – Gambles and Nirvana fallacy

Pro says “the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness”. Remember when I stated there was always “someone bigger or better”? When you draw your sword you aren’t gambling your time, energy, or money; you are gambling your life. There is no guarantee that your sword will be better than their sword, even if you have superior firepower. And as a USA citizen you should be familiar with us beating the British even though we were vastly out gunned. There are numerous instances of the underdog winning the fight. Neither the pen nor the sword is a guarantee that the goals will be achieved. And just as both are gambles, both allow “things happen anyway”. Neither the pen nor the sword provide guarantees. Pro has no advantage with the claim of the pen being a gamble or the nirvana fallacy claim that the pen doesn’t prevent things from happening. The sword has the same failings.


Rebuttal – Machiavelli’s false dichotomy
Rather than going into the horrendous acts committed because of Machiavelli’s teachings I’ll just take Pro’s quote “it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse.” and say there are more options than that. It’s better to have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship than to be feared or loved. I could give other examples, but Machiavelli was a hammer, and he saw every problem as a nail. (my whole argument about how the military doesn’t use diplomacy can be seen in his writings)


Rebuttal - Kim Jung Un
Pro makes a fatal mistake here. Kim has a standing army of 3.5 million and yet Pro concedes with “Nobody is afraid of Kim Jung Un's words” and “Kim Jung Un's words would be completely INeffective at hurting anyone in Hawaii.” Kim has the physical force that Pro is arguing is so effective, yet Kim is not effective and nobody is afraid of him in Pro’s opinion.


This leads to reinforce that Pro understands my point that only the most powerful country has the “dominant power” and that having physical force is ineffective unless you are the strongest. Only one country can be the strongest on the world stage and all others are ineffective (as Pro views Kim) when it comes to the sword because of this. Or to put it another way, they do not have the ability to use direct violence and military prowess (sword) to compel other nations. Yet these non-dominant countries are still powerful nations because of the pen. Pro must then admit that the sword is ineffective unless you have the biggest sword and that most country’s might comes from the pen.


Con’s #4 - The pen hurts more than the sword

Pro has dropped my argument and did not refute it. Going so far as to say both “I do not deny that words hurt” and “different goals demand different strategies”. My point stands uncontested.


Rebuttal –Pro IS advocating violence
Pro’s states in round 3 “I do not have to advocate the use of violence in order to win this debate (and I have not).” Pro uses the term force (and physical force) over and over in the debate to achieve results. Pro’s argument from round 1 defining the debate "The pen is mightier than the sword" is a proverb indicating that communication (particularly written language), or in some interpretations, administrative power or advocacy of an independent press, is a more effective tool than direct violence and military prowess.” In round 2 Pro reiterates “The pen is mightier than the sword = writing is more effective than military power or violence.“ But in round 3 Pro isn’t advocating violence? Pro’s whole argument is an avocation for violence being more effective to achieve desired results. I cry foul.


Conclusion

I have shown how countries exist with just the pen, but no countries can exist without the pen. I have shown how individuals are not motivated by the sword to follow the pen because there are not enough swords in place to force us. I have shown how living by the sword is both dangerous and ineffective at achieving goals. I have shown how the Vatican with no army is one of the mightiest powers on the globe. I have shown how words cause more harm than violence. In all these areas, the pen is mightier than the sword. We have progressed past the point where people get what they want through violence. (and Pro is advocating violence) Legally, ethically, morally, socially, etc. we all agree that violence is not the answer. This is what it means to be mature.

Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

I'd like to thank Coveny for participarting in this debate with me.


RE: Only One Country Has Physical Dominance


Coveny claims that because there is one country / government that is MOST dominant (i.e., the USA) no other government can exhibit dominance. That is silly. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are just a few examples of countries that hold power because they are backed by military might and could significantly threaten world peace, even though none of them have the mightiest military. Con will not be able to deny that the USA is very much concerned with the military going-ons of countries like North Korea and other enemies, even though the USA has far more power. Thus the sword (military might) provides one with significance and influence, even if one is not the strongest.

RE: Countries That Have No Sword

I challenged Con to find a country that existed without a military. However note that in the last round (in the last paragraph) I explicitly stated this: "Governments could not exist unless there was physical force to back up every law and legal document. Otherwise, the government could only exist insofar as other people allow it to." Ergo, countries with military power or any force behind it must *allow those nations to exist* ... but if a side with more power did NOT want those countries to exist, they would simply use their dominance to eradicate them or ignore them entirely, and they wouldn't be legitimized.

A number of polities have sought diplomatic recognition from the international community as de jure sovereign states, but have not been universally recognized [1]. So basically more powerful and influential countries (with significant militaries) do not acknowledge them as legitimate states. Similarly, "In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the contested entity, making the description of the country's de facto status problematic" [1]. In other words, once a country with a significant military DOES recognize a territory as being legitimate, then it has weight. We see this with Iran legitimizing Palestine. Without the backing of a country with a military (like Iran) then Palestine might cease to have any global significance.

That is true of all the countries Con listed. They include seven of the world's 10 smallest independent countries by land area. "Traditionally [those countries] weren't subject to invasion," explained Peter Stearns, a George Mason professor who edited the 2013 book Demilitarization in the Contemporary World [2]. But just in case, the standard for most of these countries is to have military arrangements with bigger, stronger countries who offer them militaristic protection [3].

For example, Bolivian President said Costa Rica did have an army: the United States military [2]. Further the journalist Robert Beckhusen has argued that Costa Rica has a commando team that is a "military force in all but name." Iceland "is under the wing of NATO, and different member states take turns guarding Iceland's air space. Monaco is protected by France, Italy looks after the Vatican, and Andorra was smart enough to sign an agreement of protection in case of invasion with both of its neighbors, France and Spain" [4].

I could go on to detail the arrangement of each country, but the point here is one I already reiterated in the last round: countries that do have physical power (the sword) make the rules. So while it's nice that 22 or 23 countries exist without militaries, the fact isn that every single one of them ONLY exists because countries that could completely wipe them off the face of the Earth allow them to exist.

Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that Con has in no way, shape or form proven that "the sword could not exist without the pen" which is nonsensical. The concept of aggression to exert dominance does not exist BECAUSE of the pen. In the animal kingdom, physical dominance is how different species (including humans) behave to compete for resources and mating opportunities [5]. When humans evolved into the species we are today, we did not initially have government or written and verbal language. That did not come until years later [6].

Even militaries in today's context do not exist because of government; rather governments exist because of militaries (or militias). We see that with the USA as one example. The USA only exists a nation specifically because a militia FOUGHT for independence, and the military established an entirely new government. The USA government would not exist if not for people fighting for its existence through physical force! Thus I have defeated Con's point that the sword could not exist without the pen, and this example (the creation of the USA government after war) proves it's the other way around.

RE: "The Pen Is Only Mighty Because of the Sword"

Con asks "Are all your actions motivated by fear of the sword?" He argues that only sociopaths need violence to be decent. However I never said that physical force was the ONLY motivating factor that humans have. Yet just because we are motivated by things other than violence, does NOT prove that violence isn't a more effective motivator than words.

When someone asks, "Is there a gun to your head?" they are implying that having a gun to your head (i.e. the threat of death) is the only thing that would or should motivate you to do something in particular. Obviously when someone is put in danger, they do things that they absolutely would not do if they were not in harm. For instance, a bank teller would have no reason to give a bank robber money just because the robber used his words. Yet if a bank robber had a gun to the teller's head, that would be effective at persuading the teller to give him the cash.

In short, Con's point about "mutually beneficial" transactions proves nothing. First, not all transactions are mutually beneficial (i.e. the bank robber scenario) and we can see plainly how physical dominance is more powerful / effective in those scenarios... and second, just because we don't always need force to motivate us, doesn't mean force isn't a far more effective motivator (on balance) than words alone.

Penn Jillette has no desire to rape or kill, and neither do I. Yet Penn Jillette will not thwart any rapists or killers by saying "stop." He could stop them, however, by fighting back if need-be... which is precisely why Penn Jillette is a big fan of the second amendment [7]. Now why would anyone need to bear arms if words alone were EFFECTIVE at protecting people and their rights? Clearly people recognize that the capacity for physical force empowers people.

RE: Managing Employees

Obviously happy employees are more productive, and I never said otherwise. What I said is that employees don't NEED to be happy in order to be productive. My opponent has completely failed to address my example proving this point: slavery. I noted that slave owners had more physical power (weapons, etc.) over slaves, thus they were able to sustain an institution like slavery - even though slaves out numbered the masters. It took WAR and military might to end the institution of slavery. Words alone did not (could not) free the slaves, and owners were very successful even though the slaves were miserable.

RE: The Nirvana Fallacy

Con claims that I have utilized the nirvana fallacy which is wrong. This fallacy refers to comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. Yet Coveny has failed to specify any things I've compared that are unrealistic. Instead, his rebuttal is that "there is always someone bigger" meaning physical force does not offer security. To illustrate this, he gives an example of noting the colonists defeated the British. Of course this is ironic for several reasons. First, it backs up MY point that the sword created the government (USA) and not the other way around. And second, he is just explaining that one group was more physically dominant than another! So yes, while dominance is transient - meaning you never know who will become more powerful next - here Con seems to acknowledge that having physical prowess DOES give someone power in the first place.

RE: Machiavelli

Please extend my argument on Machiavelli: he explains that people will become disloyal if circumstances warrant, thus the need for exerting dominance. Maintaining the state requires obedience of the people. I explained that obedience is maintained through law/order/the sword.

RE: Kim Jung Un

Coveny dropped my argument. My point is that people (like the USA) all over the world are afraid of Kim Jung Un getting nuclear powers, even though we have far more nuclear powers and could beat him in a war. This proves that one having significant military might gives them power and influence, even if they aren't the MOST powerful. Thus Con's remark that "having physical force is ineffective unless you are the strongest" is completely and utterly wrong. I have proven this many times throughout this debate, and North Korea is just one example. The world is highly afraid of terrorist groups like ISIS, even though by comparison ISIS is infinitely smaller and significantly less armed than, say, the USA.

RE: Advocating Violence

Con is wrong - I do NOT have to advocate the use of violence. I only have to prove that violence is more effective than words. Let's go back to my bank robber example. I recognize that threatening someone with a gun is MORE EFFECTIVE at achieving a desired result (stealing money from a bank). However I do NOT advocate using violence to rob a bank. I'm simply saying that the threat of violence is more effective than words alone, and that is my only burden in this debate.

Conclusion

It's been fun, but I have annihilated every one of Con's arguments. All of my strongest arguments remain uncontested.

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
Coveny

Con

***Aside***
Thank you for round 4, that was what I look for in a debate. Really wish rounds 2 and 3 would have been that good, but I’m greedy. :) I’d also like to offer you a moderator spot at ForDebating.com, just let me know if you’re interested. Round 4 was awesome, thanks again.
***Aside***

By points for this debate
1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the pen
2) Live by the sword, die by the sword
3) The power of religious pen
4) The pen hurts more than the sword


1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the pen
Pro has not refuted that the sword directs the pen only attempting to sidestep the issue by saying that the pen only has power because of the sword. The same holds true for the rules that govern the entrance to the sword, as well as the swords actions they are directed by the pen, and Pro sidesteps that by hoping (but not proving) that the pen only has power because of the sword. We are past the stage in our evolution where we get in street brawls to get what we want. As we know inherently words, contracts, laws, etc. are the civil and most effective way to get what you want. And I’ll remind everyone the agreed upon definition of sword in this debate is “direct violence and military prowess.” Not threat of violence, but direct violence. (look back at round 1 if you need proof of this) To advocate the sword, is to advocate direct violence as the most effective tool to get what you want.

2) Live by the sword, die by the sword
Not only did Pro drop this argument Pro agreed with it “Con continues to talk about the dangers of living through violence which I agree with.” If your goal is to live (which I feel confident that everyone reading this debate does) then using the sword becomes ineffective at achieving your goals because it puts your life at risk. You may achieve the goal of robbing the bank with a gun, but you never get to spend the money because someone killed you.

3) The power of religious pen
Pro attempts to counter this by saying the pen is a gamble, but concedes that the sword is a gamble as well “So yes, while dominance is transient - meaning you never know who will become more powerful next - here Con seems to acknowledge that having physical prowess DOES give someone power in the first place.” Having some power does not mean it is the most effective way of getting what you want, which is what this debate is about. There are instances where the sword has failed many times, but the various religions of the world have been successful. So, while Pro wants you to focus on the parts where religion used the sword, she drops the argument about the successes religion has had without the use, or threat of, the sword.

4) The pen hurts more than the sword
Rather than addressing this point Pro sidesteps the argument again. Pro is saying that what counters words is the sword, but propaganda is what motivated the sword to act. On the subpart that words hurt more than physical pain, the point was dropped “I do not deny that words hurt.”, and an ambivalent response of “Obviously different goals demand different strategies, but ultimately physical force is more compelling if not moral.” Dropping the point.

Pro’s Points
A) “physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY”
I refuted this with the productive employees, and Pro concedes the point to me “Obviously happy employees are more productive, and I never said otherwise.” But Pro did say otherwise “I could get them to effectively make the widgets”

B) “only significant because they can be defended by force if need-be.”
I refuted with basic human morals being significant without force defending them. Pro side steps the counter (and missed the point) by saying if you needed to defend against them you would use force. Pro’s statement is that they are only significant because of force. If they are significant without force because they are morally correct, then it defeats Pro’s point. Force was not significant in stopping Penn from raping and murdering, ergo I’ve proven that laws, morals, etc. are significant WITHOUT them being defended by force. (except in the case of sociopaths as I have already agreed)

C) “create my own country”
The sword doesn’t give you “any real world impact” any more than the pen. We have tons of fiefdoms of warring clans that don’t count as countries any more than countries that attempt to pen their way into existence. Even if this was a point, it takes more than the fantasy of an individual to create a country. This is a non-point.

D) “goal is to manage workers to produce 100 widgets”
See point A. Countered, conceded, and refuted.

E) “pen is a gamble”
As stated in #3 both are gambles.

F) Machiavelli
I’ve shown this to be a false dichotomy, Pro doesn’t refute that claim, so the point can be tossed.

G) Must fight to effect change
I feel like this one doesn’t need to be refuted because it’s so glaringly false. In everything from making babies to embargos physical violence is not required to make a change. In the vast majority of the world violence is the LAST resort. We are no longer those barbarians.

H) Governments would simply not exist without military might.
Countered and proven false.

I) the pen is INEFFECTIVE at prohibiting these things/physical force to prevent these harms.
Addressed in B, but I’ll go a step further and say that the sword doesn’t prohibit those things either. Remember the “transient” concession of the sword? Another non-point.

J) Doesn’t have to show a government that doesn’t use the pen, but I must state a government that doesn’t use the sword.
She drops my argument saying it nonsensical, but I can provide what she says “He will NOT be able to”. Point to Coveny.

K) repeat of #B

L) Kim Jung Un
So, pro starts with “Nobody is afraid of Kim Jung Un” and “completely Ineffective” with his 3.5 million swords. I bring that 3.5 million swords are pretty impressive. Here things get a bit weird so stay with me. “people (like the USA) all over the world are afraid of Kim Jung Un getting nuclear power, even though we have far more nuclear power and could beat him in a war.” So, Pro is saying that he isn’t scary now, but he would be scary IF he had nuclear power. Then following up with “This proves that one having significant military might gives them power and influence, even if they aren't the MOST powerful.” So, this is a concession that 3.5 million swords is ineffective, and that if he had nuclear power he would THEN have power and influence. Pro is saying that the exception to the “only the most physically dominant have power” is nuclear weapons. Um… duh? Yes, having a nuclear warhead capable of killing millions if not billions of people and no guaranteed way to stop it changes the dynamic. I agree, but that’s an exception, not the rule. The points still stand.

M) Countries without militaries use allies to get recognized.
Ok so Pro’s point here is that the power of the pen legitimized countries that don’t have armies, and I’m supposed to what… say thanks? Thanks!

N) every single one of them ONLY exists because countries that could completely wipe them off the face of the Earth allow them to exist.
This is more of B. NATO and many other countries who don’t have an alliance with smaller countries would lend aid, apply pen based negatives, etc. to help a country unfairly invaded. Morally speaking the world has matured to the point that one country can’t just attack another country without many other countries getting involved. (this can be seen with the numerous countries in the middle east that aren’t “official” allies but still get support from several other countries.

O) Mutually beneficial
Pro states “we can see plainly how physical dominance is more powerful / effective in those scenarios” in reference to mutually beneficial. Really? Because it seems more EFFECTIVE to work for the money and not risk death/jail by robbing a bank/running for the rest of your life. So that point was NOT proven, or refuted. Mutually beneficial transactions like trading food for furniture help both parties and are much MORE effective at getting all the goals (staying alive) that people have.

P) Nirvana Fallacy
Pro states I failed to compare a realistic solution to an idealized solution, but I have. The pen is a realistic solution that, while not perfect, is considered the most effective solution across the world (as I have shown unrefuted), where the sword is an idealized solution that has no real-world examples. Pro refuses to give an example because she can’t give an example of a fantasy.

Conclusion
Given the past debates I decided to go through every argument even wasting characters on the ridiculous ones. Of my points, 1 is the only one Pro really contested, 2-4 were either agreed with or dropped. I have proven the resolution that the pen is mightier/more effective than the sword, but then I think most people knew that when they started reading the debate. As we have evolved as a society we become less warlike. We understand and have empathy for our fellow man and have no desire to use “direct violence” to achieve our goals when we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement. As I’ve mentioned the solution isn’t a perfect one but it is far and away the more effective one.

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emilrose 5 months ago
Emilrose
Sad that one of the few serious debates between two active members (including one of DDO's best) has been spammed by some retard.
Posted by CatalyticConvertersRule 5 months ago
CatalyticConvertersRule
The jew caused that enormous outbreak of hurricanes in the summer of 17' via WSACs.

Proof >>>>>>

Hurricane Harvey Origin: Targeting Texas

https://www.youtube.com...

Hurricane Harvey: Rockport Landfall & Houston Flood

https://www.youtube.com...

BLUE LASERS From The SKY; CA FIRE TEST GROUNDS 2030 -A21 DEW

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

INCREDIBLE PROOFS that your country is under ATTACK. There is a civil war breaking out in the JEW.S.A. and not one person (other than the Militia) seem to know. Would YOU trust your so called "Police Officers?!?!" <No way in HELL would I trust them. What is their meal ticket? YOU are their meal ticket - hence, they ain't standing up for you when they have direct deposit FROM YOU ALL.

NOW, your FINAL chance. The MILITARY.

Do YOU trust your military???!!! THEY AIN'T GONNA SAVE YOU FROM F ALL. Let me ask you. WHERE are they right now? How many WORLDWIDE BASES do you have? You have a JUE.S.A. base on EVERY piece of land on the planet? Where are they? I've heard more about the ****ing U.N. than I have about the so called "U.S. Military" - which is really Israeli's b!tch; if you did not know that.

Now, what did your troops do for you on 9/11? They were ordered to STAND THE **** DOWN. Does that make sense? If some bomb were to hit the country, where would they be!!!??? You KNOW where. Nowhere to be found - that's where. Then, it would be Martial Law.

PAID pigs vs. UNPAID, UNFED, BABIES TO FEED etc. MILITIA, right?

Remember all of those Military "heroes" who were just let go? No reason - just bye - you're gone? Now, they got who they WANT in there. COWARDS. It's NOT North Korea who is a threat. It is not IRAN.
I S R A E L IS YOUR ENEMY.

Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries 200 times. WAKE,
Posted by CatalyticConvertersRule 5 months ago
CatalyticConvertersRule
Now, the rest of America, is said to consist of only "TWO PERCENT JEW!!!" What a crock of ***t! I have always laughed at that statistic. In Jew York alone, it is rumored to have over 2.5 million jew. That means hair on the top of the hook nosed head that curls; much like pubes, which is abbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbsolutely disgusting. But, there are WAY more than 2% of the world's population which are jew. Why? Because jew are in charge of their OWN money - which they set up when THEY CRASHED THE TITANIC to kill the men who opposed the Federal Reserve in the JU.S.A.. The jew had their hollow hoax set up probably in the 1880's. Listen, I have other people to teach this his story to so I am going to leave you with PROOF of the jew and how EVIL it is...

https://www.youtube.com... https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com... The Importance For jew To Suck Cock >

https://www.youtube.com... https://www.youtube.com...

THIS IS WHO DID 9/11 >> https://www.youtube.com...

It's SICK how they have the NERVE to blame Arabs or Muslims in this attempt to take over the world. It's on the Georgia Guidestones (what they want to do to us, the "GOYIM" - Yiddish for cattle.) Yes, they think of us as cattle. They did 9/11, suck baby cock, rule the media, blew up the King David Hotel, blew up the USS Liberty, probably caused every single plane explosion in history, INVENTED TERRORISM via the MOSSAD, blow up Palestinians DAILY, killed JESUS CHRIST and have the nerve to brag about it, ISIS stands for ISRAELI SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE(S). I could go on with a TON of proof.
Netanyahu: "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away." "I don"t care if Americans think we"re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government, "I just care that we get to keep running them."
They RULE YOU. WAKE UP AMERICA. **** THE PATRIOTS.
Posted by CatalyticConvertersRule 5 months ago
CatalyticConvertersRule
In addition to my first two, incredibly eye-opening posts for the newbie, it is now up to the *REAL* and *TRUE* people of America. That means on one side you have:

These people have worked to make America better by doing physical labor. They will eat non-"kosher" foods, (kosher to jew means that the animal must be BEATEN THE HELL OUT OF WHILE STILL ALIVE), do not rush to get their *child* circumcised - (this is an even SICKER jew "tradition," where the rabbi cuts or even bites a piece of the kid's dick off, making it scream, the awaiting mothers lose their ****, and pure pandemonium almost breaks out. The "rabbi" then takes a swig of wine - as if to celebrate the fact that he got to be a paedophile for a few minutes and has ruined the way that the boy/guy will look down the road. This oft times leads to the young man wondering "what in the **** did Mom and Dad jo to me?! A TOOoOOooooTALLY unnecessary surgery on a f****** hours old baby - under the guise of "antiseptic!!" Now, we know where the word rabies must have cum from. Later in life, they go on to use this same lie when they force feed the kid VACCINATIONS. Yes, as we see on this site, people actually believe that without giving EEEENORMOUS Drug Companies Trillions of $, we will all die! They HONESTLY have them so CONNED that they think we are ALL in danger of mumps, rubella, measles, polio, influenza, tetanus, the plague, the 'other' plague, diptheria, etc. etc. etc.!!! It's really hilarious if you put your mind (remember? that 10% that ya'll use when the t.v., AND all "smart" devices are OFF - or if the power is off it might jump up a percentile..) to it. All of those books that TOLD YOU that trillions of people died of this and that and the other thing were written by JEW, edited....... BY JEW, and finally published __ ___. Listen. There was NO plumbing, Purell", Irish Spring", etc. Either way, those "diseases" were frauds, usually brought on via TESTS or poor hygiene as pointed out.

......
Posted by CatalyticConvertersRule 5 months ago
CatalyticConvertersRule
First off, I would like to add that there was an apparent, so-called "school shooting," AGAIN, in KY this time! See, what these mothers do, is have PRIVATE CONTRACTORS move state to state and pull off either operations, hoaxes, you name it. These sellouts to YOUR Constitution are usually JU.N. "workers," who are cowardly, willing to rape, and are usually connected with the Mossad or other jew organizations - AIPAC, etc. - all of those Jew York interests whose ONLY JOB is to minimize so called "antisemitism," or to KILL PEOPLE who speak out about it. They are fake jew & they have your country on a rope, by the neck.

Here's one simple video that I found which shows complete and total nonsense by your MSM.

https://www.youtube.com...

Now, my current, favorite topic, are the so called "WILD" fires, which are strategically placed, all around California. These fires do, however, totally miss the HQ's of these LASER/WARFARE/MILITARY Corporations, which are RIGHT in the vicinity! Oh, add the wineries to that list as well. Go. Figure.

The following videos will PROVE that these fires were done on purpose to get Agenda 21/30 rolling out, to facilitate the forceful eviction of so called suburbia to GIGANTIC cities where the RICH mfers expect us ALL to give up our cars, water, air, SOIL, etc. They (the jew) don't want us BREATHING without being taxed. There is a new GAS TAX.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

They are called "disaster capitalists." Remember on 9/11 - that event where most Americans, Brits, and Canadians seem to think was caused by Arab/Muslim people who just volunteered to kill themselves?! Well, if you do, you're a fool! (9/11 was done by jew - 100%.) Anyway, there were people before 9/11 who placed $ on put options on the stock market. A similar event took place with these fires in CA.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by CatalyticConvertersRule 5 months ago
CatalyticConvertersRule
This is an excellent debate and one that I don't want to vote on as both contenders have amazing points. I want to just say that I believe that, without looking it up, the cliche "the pen is mightier than the sword" was probably written by someone who was either under heavy rule, or knew heavy rule, What I'm trying to say, is that the pen can only be mightier than the sword *if* we allow these governments to rule us the way they are currently operating; in secret, in the shadows, covertly, cowardly, all the while owning all major so called "free press" and media. In other words, brace yourselves........... jewish rule.

This entire PLANET. is under rule, by the jew, yet no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

I would bet that the majority of the world thinks that we are *NOT* engaged in any war right now and everything is hunky dory. Well, it is far from it. The U.S.A., for example, has a big, giant er*****n right now, for an event set to take place on February 4th' the Superbowl!!! Break out the beer, Coke, coke, heroin, weed, salsa, and don't forget to feed Vegas!!! Oh yes, this ***RIGGED GAME*** is the talk of the land right now!!!

Meanwhile! We have Houston, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Cuba, and other spots, still in desperate need of FEDERAL RESERVE TOILET PAPER (worthless, non-backed, jew currency) to rebuild their homes, cars, lives, etc. Where is the media? Oh, they're getting ready for the Superbowl. This was a MAN MADE event, which is easily provable by a few Jewtube videos or Joogle searches.

At the same time, in California, we have MAN MADE "DEW" fires, with Zero answers provided by either Gov. Brown, or the Feds! Someone did some incredible digging and found that a company with jew ties (like they all are) set up spot fires via lasers while precisely missing these companies' HQ's!

I will provide some amazing evidence in the next post. Something for people with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Posted by Coveny 5 months ago
Coveny
No worries. I hope you get enough time to respond and the server is working. I've had people tell me there are problems accessing debates several times in the last 24hrs.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
Danielle
My apologies for the delayed reply. I'm busy at work, so probably won't get a chance to read and respond to this until I get home tonight (right before the round is due lol).
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
In Afganistan "the pen" has/had/will winn..They have a book..In Sweeden the sword will have to make place for the pen/word/book.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
"Me too"... Well Afganistan and Sweeden are different..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 5 days ago
Death23
DanielleCovenyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .