The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Which is mightier, The sword or the pen(Pro for sword, Con for pen)?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
BiggsBoonj has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 120793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Oof so the last debate I had on this topic dung goof'ed harddddd. However I'm back with a new attack!

A few things: One side only wins when they prove why their side is BETTER than the other. Tieing the two is not enough to win.

First round can be acceptance or argument, Doesn't matter, But opponent must clarify their position so we know we are all on the same page here. Failure to do so will mean that the opponent loses this debate.


I accept. I think that the pen is mightier than the sword. Your floor.
Debate Round No. 1


ToasterMinistry forfeited this round.


BiggsBoonj forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Ugh dammit I didn't see this. . . Sorry for the hold-up.

I would like to start by acknowledging the fact that the power of words is indeed a strong one. It can indeed be powerful, Inspiring, Or devastating. They are useful tools for communication, And it is how things like The Declaration of Independence was formed. It is how laws and treaties were made. It is not, However, How these rights and laws were established.

Words alone aren't responsible for The Declaration of Independence, nor for upholding a legal system and government in the chaos of the world. Words are not how treaties were implemented or rights and laws enforced. Instead it is the power of physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY carry out these ideas and instructions that are written by the pen.

Laws and rights, Although written by the pen, Are only significant because they are protected by physical might when needed to be. Or else, If there is a belief, Or even reality, That these laws and rights could not be defended by force, then they would be nothing more than words that people do or do not have to care about.

Let me give an example that shows the difference between the might of the sword and the pen. I could theoretically make a country by getting a piece of land and declaring that I made a country, And that this piece of land is mine. Perhaps I could write it down. But simply writing that down would do nothing whatsoever as to having any real impact in the world with my words. On the other hand, If I were to claim the same peice of land and declare that it is part of my country, And got a few hundred nuclear bombs to my disposal, Then there would be a very real impact. I don't need to write any laws to become part of the recognized world. Words alone cannot, While physical might can.

I think one of the strongest arguments to why the pen is stronger is because they are better at convincing others. But if my goal was to manage workers that needed to produce 100 pencils in a day, I would not need to convince them with physical strength. If I had the physical power to dominate and oppress or suppress them, I could get them to effectively make the pencils whether or not I've convinced them and my goal would be achieved. To further support this, In The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli states famously: "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 might.

By simply writing a document, A governor cannot simply will people into compliance. People might become passionate about a cause, They might even become 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. \

Your floor.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EzDuel 3 years ago
This has more to do with the people who use it. None are mightier than each other without people to wield them in different ways of power in utilization. Eh
Posted by TheBestSpllellelr 3 years ago
I iz da bestset splllelleller
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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