The sword is mightier than the pen.

***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 debate1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the pen2) Live by the sword, die by the sword3) The power of religious pen4) The pen hurts more than the sword1) The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn’t direct the penPro 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 swordNot 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 penPro 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 swordRather 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 PointsA) “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) MachiavelliI’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 changeI 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 #BL) Kim Jung UnSo, 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 beneficialPro 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 FallacyPro 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. ConclusionGiven 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.