The Instigator
ToasterMinistry
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
squeakly54n6
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Physical force is mightier than words

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 1 vote the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 120681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

ToasterMinistry

Pro

Let me get my debate a little bit more clear. What I mean when I say: "Physical might is mightier than words" is basically saying: "The sword is mightier than the pen". The reason I didn't name my debate that is because people might not get what the debate is about. . . There are dumb people out there.
Anyways. . .


First round will be acceptance only. Opponent must also clarify position so we know we're on the same page. Failure to do so will mean opponent loses the round and must resign the duel, And will acknowledge that they have lost the debate.
squeakly54n6

Con

To clarify my position, I believe that while physical violence is effective, Peaceful protest is equally as effective as violent protest is. However, The main distinction is peaceful protest doesn't involve hurting anyone or violating anyone's rights. With all of that said, I would be happy to debate you.
Debate Round No. 1
ToasterMinistry

Pro

Thank you for squeakly54n6 for accepting this debate with me!
I will be arguing that physical force is more effective than words when you want to achieve something. Before I get into my points though, I would like to say a few things.

I recognize that pen, Paper, And words are strong. They can indeed be powerful, Awing, Devasting, Or scared. It is how papers like The Declaration of Indepedence was formed, And was how peace treaties were signed. However, It is not how rights are established, Or enforced.

It is obvious that words alone are not responsible for treaties, Like The Declaration of Indepence. It is also not responsible for holding up governments amist this chaotic and aguably cruel world. It is not how laws and rights are upheld. Instead it is physical might, The power of physical dominance, That compels people to EFFFECTIVELY carry out these laws, Ideas, And instructions that were written by the pen or voiced by a protester.

Laws and rights are only effective and significant because they can be defended by a physical force when such a time comes. If they were just words, Simply words, Very few will care about them.

Let me give an example of this, Actually. If I were to make a country or nation, I could go write up a thousand page book of the laws and history of my country, But on a global scale, Nobody will really care about it. However, What if I were to make a nation that held the power of a hundred nuclear bombs? Obviously, These wouldn't be enough to kill and destroy everyone, But it would be enough to get other nations to recognize me. The mere danger of an all-out nuclear war with the US would make my nation recognized on a global scale. I could make a nation with only words, But it would fail. On the other hand, I could make a nation with only the strongest physical force. I would really like Con to show me a few countries without an an army or protection from others.

Physical force is also the one to abolish things like slavery. Yes, We have great figures like Martin Luther King Jr. , Who fought with words, But remember that it was the people who were under threat of physical force from the government that made people comply.

I wait for Con to respond
squeakly54n6

Con

" It is also not responsible for holding up governments amidst this chaotic and arguably cruel world. "

- To be clear I'm not arguing that the pen is mightier than the sword, I am arguing that both are equally important. In the case of government, You can't have a government without communication or diplomacy. While you do need force to carry out laws, You STILL need the laws and ideas in the first place. There is no point in having an enormous amount of force with no laws or regulations to back it up plain and simple. We see this today with horrible 3rd world countries in Africa, They have the force needed to maintain order but lack the diplomacy, Laws, And leadership needed to guide a nation.

" I could make a nation with only words, But it would fail. "

- Without laws, Regulations, Idea's, Or diplomacy, Your nation cannot exist. While it would be possible to have a nation run on just laws and good diplomacy alone, A country with just force alone wouldn't even be considered a nation but rather an army.

" I would really like Con to show me a few countries without an army or protection from others. "

- Name me 1 country that exists without diplomacy, Laws, Or regulations at all. You will find none.

The bottom line is that countries need a physical force and words to form a successful nation, A country just runs on force alone wouldn't be successful.
Debate Round No. 2
ToasterMinistry

Pro

. . . . . .

Read the title. "Physical force is mightier than words. "

Hm, I don't know what that means.

To be honest, It was a fault on my part.

I'll learn from it.

I'll be happy to end this debate in a tie now, I guess.
squeakly54n6

Con

" Read the title. "Physical force is mightier than words. "

- What about it? I don't have to prove that words are stronger than physical force, All I have to do is prove that physical force is not mightier than words. Which is exactly my argument, My main argument is that physical force isn't stronger, They are equally the same.
Debate Round No. 3
ToasterMinistry

Pro

Dammit your a pro whyyyyy.


Alright, The first thing I noticed what that you haven't refuted all my points, And I ask why.



I said in my previous essay how we could make a nation with only physical might and no laws. You attempt to refute this by saying:

"Without laws, Regulations, Idea's, Or diplomacy, Your nation cannot exist. While it would be possible to have a nation run on just laws and good diplomacy alone, A country with just force alone wouldn't even be considered a nation but rather an army. "

That is not true. First I'd like to give you an example of a country that has no military or police force protecting it. However, When I asked you to find me a country, You asked me back to find you a country that exists with virtually no laws.
ISIS.
Yes, It is technically not a country, But pretty much behaves as one. It has its positions of power, Different cities, A military, A political government, However bad, To govern it, And more. In ISIS, You basically obey the ones with more power. Yes, There really is no rule for it, But it is obvious. They have more power than you. If you disobey or get this very mad or something, You're going to get shot by them. There is no law for killing these people either. ISIS is living proof that a nation could sustain itself with only military might. I would like Con to in turn show me a modern nation without any protection whatsoever, And only rely on laws and rules. If you get your facts wrong, I would have to post that you are wrong and expose you in the comments. I assure you that you do not want that, And I'm lazy and don't want to do it either way. So save both of us time. There is no country without any physical protection. Of course, Maybe a nation that only runs on power won't be successful, As you stated. But it would be enough to sustain a nation with needs. If ISIS grows to be a dominant power in their area, Which I really hope would not happen, I basically win this debate, Showing how a nation governing with only power would be able to sustain itself, While a government and/or nation without any form of protection from inside and outside harm would completely not be able to sustain itself.

I enjoyed this debate with you, And it showed me really the different sides of this argument. Thank you for debating with me.

squeakly54n6

Con

" Alright, The first thing I noticed what that you haven't refuted all my points, And I ask why. "

- If I refuted every single one of your points, We would be here all day. What I and many others do is refute their opponent's main points so that they aren't wasting time.

" Yes, It is technically not a country, But pretty much behaves like one. It has its positions of power, Different cities, A military, A political government, However bad, To govern it, And more. "

- Then it's NOT just a physical force if it has a hierarchy and has a political government.

" I would like Con to in turn show me a modern nation without any protection whatsoever, And only rely on laws and rules. "

- Once again, My claim is NOT that a country can subsist off of words alone, I already agreed that it does need some sort of force to enforce rules.

" I basically win this debate, Showing how a nation governing with only power would be able to sustain itself, "

- You still have not proven how a nation can survive only on raw power and force alone, These " nations" still need laws and rules to run them. Without laws, Regulations, Or diplomacy, It's not even a country in the first place. There is NO country in the world that lives off of force alone. Heck, Even North Korea has a government and has some sort of diplomacy.

The bottom line is countries need a healthy balance of physical force and diplomacy. A country needs to live off of both at the same time. Without words, There will be no laws or regulations. WIthout force, There will be nothing to enforce laws and regulations.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
-s weak. Last two words of vote.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
The problem is that's a specific argument. That even if it 'were true, Is true in 'that scenario but not all or possibly not even most. People will tend to agree it's good to be strong, But there are many kinds of strength. Including the pen.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
ISIS doesn't really have a political government. It is just common sense. If you are a low rank and you piss off a higher rank than you, They'd probably just shoot you. There are no concrete rules about respecting higher ranks, But people know that they should or they'd die.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Hm, If you had gone for a might makes reality and thus ideas, You might have had better luck. But that's not really the direction you wanted I think. I think in your argument as I assume Con pointed out, Reason and might go hand in hand really. Ying and Yang. If you lack one, How can you really have the other. At least in terms of making a person or a nation strong.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Spex is a national treasure.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@vi_spex

There is a positive selfish intention behind every action.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Btw physical force dosnt have to be intended
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
There is a positive intention behind every action
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Hmm, Would this be an acceptable first argument then?

The pen, The word writ, The concept, The idea, The calling upon minds of others. . Is Mightier Than Physical Force.

What's the strength of our arms and hands without the reason to direct it?

But a brute I say, A cavedweller, Solitary existence.

What's an army without a will, Without a spirit inflamed by passion and fire of idea?

But a mob, A mass, A bickering force to rail in fury, Then pass ephemeral.

Though mostly I'd say actions without words is mere violence.
Words without action is powerless.

The point in all, Is that the argument isn't much good. And with myself only needing to point out the flaw. . Would I win?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
ToasterMinistrysqueakly54n6Tied
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: It's 'possible that Pro could find another way to phrase this argument in order to win it, if he started another debate. But as for this debate, as one can tell by his realization in rounds 3 and 4, he was largely disadvantaged by the position he took. A mistake I feel he made is saying in round 1 that this debate was not about the sword vs the pen, but then uses the pen as an example in round 2. Con made good use of his argument that physical force alone is not sufficient for strength in a country, Implied as well I think is that a person can not be strong either without words as well. Pro argument of Isis was countered I think by Pro noting it has laws and words. What would serve Pro best I think is to argue that while words and structure are needed in people and countries, it is better to be strong in body and military. That type of argument could be used for dictatorships. Might is right and all that. But even that argument would require a lot of 'words to convince me. As premise i

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.