On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

My opponent's rebuttal is very... involved indeed. Let us not get caught up in the wordiness of his paragraphs, and instead concentrate on his main points, so that we may analyze them clearly. His arguments are well-organized, so I will address them accordingly. 1) paraphrased - the pen and sword, as inanimate objects, obviously have no intrinsic value of "might". Yes, this is true. This is why you will not find a single sentence in my argument proposing the contrary. This is a clever manuever to get off-topic, but let us not get distracted here. My thesis, based on the debate title, is clearly stated as "the written word has much more impact on humanity than does warfare." The judge should not tolerate any twisting of my words to imply other meanings that can be refuted by con, and if con wants to go off on his own tangent and refute the title as interpreted by himself or someone else, it should have no bearing on this debate. The roles of pro and con are quite clear: pro makes an argument, and con refutes it. The roles do not involve con making up his own points and then refuting them as if I proposed them. 2) On the title meaning each should have equal value - Again, this contention really does not deal with my argument. Con is attempting to bring the debate into his own personal playing field. My thesis deals with warfare versus the written word, and con cannot refute arguments that I have not even made. 3) Con opens this contention with "Even if my opponent wanted to..." Again, he is taking my argument into undiscovered country. Up until now, he has failed to address my arguments. 4) Con finally decides to address my argument. Con cites the American revolution and World War 2. Let us skip to the end of his percieved direction here, and include WW1, the American Civil War, and all the known wars in history. Substantial effects on humanity? You bet. I don't really have the time to analyze every war in history here, so I will use the ones he cited. The effects of WW2 were tremendous. Would you compare those effects to the effects of the Bible? The Bible founded Christianity, which is responsible for many wars in and of itself. Christianity, a 2,000 year old religion, has incorporated countless Billions of members in its past. Think of how many people go to church every week, how many people give their lives to Christ, how many wars were fought BECAUSE of Christianity itself, and think of how long Christianity has been around. The written word (Bible) is responsible for ALL of this. What effects are still lingering from WW2? There are some, granted, but it is safe to say that they are small and dwindling with time. Christianity's influence, however, is not dwindling AT ALL. Christianity is as strong as ever, and people gather all around the world to get into church on sunday and donate their $1 bills to the offering. As you can see, Christianity's influence is simply unparralelled, and it is so long lasting that no 10 year war can possibly begin to approach its magnitude. When we say the pen is "mightier" than the sword, we are describing its INFLUENCE. How can you take some isolated war and compare it to the influence of the Bible? On the revolutionary war versus the U.S. Constitution - Thank you for reminding me about our nation's history :) ! The U.S. Constitution is a living document. It is used EVERY single day by myself (in my con-law class) and millions of people. All 300 million people in this country are bound by its rules. I'm not going to waste time down-playing the significance of the revolutionary war and insult your intelligence. I would allow you the point that our country, while it stands, reflects the influence of the Rev. War. But this influence fades with time. We can talk about it, reflect on it, and learn from it, but what we essentially get out of it is not as potent as the U.S. Constitution. The USC is referenced constantly to influence our laws. Its effects are not fading with time and retain the same potency as the day it was signed. Furthermore, think about the men who spoke out against the Englishmen and wrote their words on paper to get us to the point to rebel. It was these writers of pursuasion that were the ultimate causes of the Revolutionary war. When we look back, it is these men who are remembered, not the actual gunmen. 5) The warfare that pre-dated the Bible is simply not as influencial as the Bible itself. The Bible is percieved as the word of God by Billions of people, and it was written with the pen. My opponent mentions Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac.... What about Jesus? I think my opponent has FORGOTTEN about him! Allow me to remind my opponent, as he so graciously reminded me of our nations history. Did Jesus swing a sword? Did Jesus engage in warfare? Jesus did NO such thing. So please answer this question for me, Yraelz, if you really intend on defending your stance: How is it that Jesus Christ is BY FAR the most influencial (hence powerful) figure in history, yet he did not engage in warfare AT ALL? True, he did not weild a pen either, but it was the writings of his life that are contained in the Bible, and give it much of its potency. 6) Con claims that while the pen can mobilize troops, only the sword can actually defeat enemies - "The man behind the pen can have [only] so much impact..." This is a rather pursuasive paragraph, but here is the logical fault. Con says that only the swords REALLY make the difference, because, after all, they are the ones actually doing the work, right? He is correct, but we are again escaping the relevence of the maxim "the pen is mightier than the sword". One man, wielding a pen, can influence a thousand to do battle with a sword. Therefore, the man made more of an impact, using the pen, then he would have actually doing the fighting himself. Furthermore, no warrior, even at the level of Achilles, could be as mighty as the man who used the pen to influence thousands of men to enter battle. Example: the Bible and the Crusades. You see, no matter how powerful the sword may become, it is the pen that CONTROLS the sword. Remember this. 7) On the literal, physical usage of pens and swords - This falls into the same category as his first 3 contentions; I never postulated these ideas, and there is no reason for me to defend postulates that I didn't put forward. The pen can put an eye out, and the sword can carve words into a tree. Irrelevent. 8) on U.S. vs. Rome - I said specifically that the U.S. was ABSOLUTELY the most powerful country that ever existed, not relatively speaking. If we engaged the ancient Roman armies in battle, I don't think they would put up much of a fight. Even John McCain would probably not screw that one up... Yes, the Romans used warfare to keep power. So did the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, and English. And what did it get them? Annihilation. The sword only grants temporary power; it is the pen that allows you to keep it indefinitely. Look at it this way. What does America's continued success depend on? The sword or the pen? If you say the sword, then we are destined to be the next fallen empire. The pen will be the way we remain great indefinitely, and the day we forget that will be the beginning of the end for this great country. 9) "How often does the pen destroy the sword?" All the time. It is easier to crush an army then it is to crush an idea. Why do you think we look so stupid out there in Iraq right now? We have no army to defeat, so we are wasting 720 Million $ a day fighting Islam. If Osama Bin Laden crafted this with a pen, then he has single-handedly spent more U.S. dollars then any other man in history. 10) On the bible and consitution having elusive meanings - Even if this is so, which I will NOT agree at this juncture, then it doesn't dilute the importance or influence of these documents. The pen will always be stronger.