re: The pen is mightier than the sword

I want to start this speech by thanking my opponent for this debate. I want to first address an issue that has come up in this debate. It is about the resolution. It asks about the pen being mightier than the sword. Not more influential, not more creative, but mightier. With that said, we have to look to the definitions provided in this round. The definitions that I provided, and that were not contested, was: the power, authority, or resources wielded (as by an individual or group) b (1): bodily strength (2): the power, energy, or intensity of which one is capable So. If we look to the definition, we see the words, bodily strength. We see the words power and authority. Therefore, if we put this into the resolution, it can also say: The pen is stronger than the sword. Therefore, the direct next move would be to say that my opponent has to prove that the pen is stronger than the sword. It brings more power and influence than the sword. Now lets look at what my opponent provided for what a pen means. "The pen symblifies writing, reading, and literature" Ok. Now lets look at what a sword symbolizes: "arms" However, we can't just stop there. If my opponent can broaden that a "pen" is, then surely we can't just limit a sword to what a sword is, a weapon. Since my opponent broadened what a "pen" was to something much grander than your average UniBall, I should be allowed to do so. Which I did. I add that a sword includes physical might. Physical power. Power. Authority. If my opponent can expand, so can I. So lets look at the 2 things side by side, in the context of the debate, which is what I've been doing. Pen is literature and writing, and reading. Nothing mighty about it. Sword is power, strength, authority. So lets look at both in the context of the meaning of what mightier means. "the power, authority, or resources wielded (as by an individual or group) b (1): bodily strength (2): the power, energy, or intensity of which one is capable " So if we look at what the pen is, and what a sword is, and compare it to each other, we clearly see that a sword is mightier than the pen. Its what a sword is! Strength. Check, its in the definition of both might and sword. Reading. Wrong, its not might. Same for writing and literature. I'm not saying that a bunch of baboons is better than humankind, but I'm saying that in a fight, a baboon is mightier. Now to my opponents previous speech: Then the pen only represents a UniBall. But that doesn't help either of us. So for the sake of the debate, we have to accept it. If my opponent can expand his chosen object, so can I. To accept otherwise is putting a heavier burden on me. No warrant. No impacts therefore. No argument. We can't accept these 2 "refutations" since they have no warrant, and therefore no impact on my arguments. They stand. I eagerly await it. Is this your proof? Ok first off, it still has no bearing on the debate. It still doesn't show how the pen is stronger than the sword. So I'm still winning. Indirectly, the pen has more influence over history, by being able to record it. But that doesn't make it inherently stronger. And then you go on with your baby anectdote. First off, the pen doesn't create the sword. It is the sword maker, or the forger of swords who makes the sword. Also, the pen isn't some all powerful being that can store everything. Last time I checked, my UniBall doesn't have a data processor on it. Perhaps you are talking about humankind's ability to USE the pen. In that case, my argument still stands. That only shows how humankind is powerful and mighty, not the pen. About true power: Ok, but that only refers to humankind. About the babies: Does that mean that the pen learns? And a sword doesn't? Neither of them learn. They are tools. Forgive me if this is insulting, but this only seems like an excuse not to answer the argument. And it still stands. You can't change what you mean in the middle of the debate, considering that you didn't say anything about my definitions in your speech after my first one, and you never supplied any definitions with which to frame the round. Therefore, since you didn't do it, the burden fell on me to frame the round with a definition with which to focus the round around. You can't spend your last speech putting up a one line answer to a very valid section of the debate. Now to my opponents one and ONLY argument. Thats great. The ability to learn is great, and probably mightier than both the pen and the sword combined! But that doesn't show how the pen is inherently stronger or more powerful than the sword. It only shows how learning, or intelligence, or sentience, trumps both of them. So all you have proven is that sentience and intelligence is mightier than swords. But the pen doesn't represent sentience and intelligence. It represents writing, and literature, and reading (in your own words.) The sword represents strength and power. Neither of those are sentient things. You can't argue that the pen is sentient and learns, and therefore is mightier than the sword, since it is HUMANKIND that is the one using both of them. HUMANKIND trumps both. CONCLUSION: So by this point, my opponent has successfully proven that sentience and humankind is quite important, and is probably mightier than the sword. But the debate is not Sentience is mightier than the sword. The debate is The PEN is mightier than the sword. And since the Pen represents writing and reading, and the sword represents power and strength (which embodies the definition of might), the Sword is obviously mightier than the pen. BUT in case you haven't bought anything that I've said: I still win. I have shown that the Pen is not mightier than the sword. That doesn't necessarily mean that the sword is mightier than the pen. That only means that the Pen is not mightier than the Sword. So they can be equal. Or they might not be able to be compared at all. And since my opponent has no offense, but he has the burden, I win on default. And even if you don't buy that, you have to buy that the Pen is not mightier than the Sword, but they might be the same, since they are both so radically different. And therefore the Pen is not Mightier than the Sword. Once again, I want to thank my opponent for the debate, and once again I ask that all votes give RFDs in the comments section. It would be greatly appreciated, since I only consider those votes with RFDs to be valid. Thank you. I await the will of the voters.