On Balance, the Pen is Mightier than the Sword.

My position as Con does not call for me to prove why the sword is mightier than the pen, but rather oppose the resolution that the pen is mightier than the sword. In this round I will refute all four of my opponent's arguments and prove why, according to his reasoning, the pen is not mightier than the sword. 1. My opponent's first example is flawed, to say the least, and I can counter it in two effective ways. First, I can just as easily provide an equal example in which the outcome is the exact opposite. Two kids are fighting on a playground and Child #1 calls the other a derogatory name. Child #2 responds by pushing #1 to the ground and as a result he (#1) lands harshly and winds up causing damage to his spine. Now Child #1 is paralyzed and will not be able to walk for the rest of his life. So who was mightier (caused the most damage/was the most effective) in this example? The "pen" (Child #1) or the "sword" (Child #2)? Second, my opponent is merely assuming that being teased caused more long-lasting damage to the child than being pushed, even if the fall did only result in a scratch. Instead of quoting some fancy medical journal to prove my point, I ask that the judges recall their own childhood. Surely each of you has been verbally insulted at least once or twice as a kid. Did that sort of rite of passage teasing have a long lasting impact on who you are today? Or is it just nonsense that almost everyone has to deal with at some point or another? Many of us have probably even forgotten all the names that we were ever called throughout our young lives. On the other hand, I bet that each of you still has at least one scar on your body from a wound that was "just a scratch" at one time. Thus in this example, simple name-calling or the use of words to hurt another is not as long lasting as a physical wound. 2. My opponent contests that words are superior to violence because, "violence in and of itself, is incapable of stopping violence." I completely disagree. Take WWII for example. Were Hitler and the Nazi's stopped as a result of peaceful pleas on our behalf? Or was the use of force entirely necessary to end a tyrannical regime? My opponent also writes, "Words hold the ability to tame the most violent of psychopaths and to aggravate the most calm of pacifists." This is true. But I argue that violence can have the same effect. For instance, if a violent psychopath is tormenting others (eg. domestic violence), it is entirely possible to use violent scare tactics in order to intimidate them into ceasing their behavior. Similarly, even the most calm pacifist is liable to be at LEAST "aggravated" by someone who acts violently towards them. Thus violence in these situations are equally capable as words, and therefore words are not mightier. Finally on this point, my opponent says, "More often then not, violence is created by words." Again I have to disagree. I believe that violence is created by action. Usually if people are bickering and name-calling, for instance, or using words as weapons, there is a good chance that one or both of these individuals will succumb to the mentality "I will not strike unless I am struck first." In this case, violence is created by violence. However, if one wishes to project that the entire conflict came about because of words, again I will have to disagree. There would usually be some type of specific action or measure taken to lead to the words that can lead to the violence. For example, Jane kissed my boyfriend so now I'm going to call her names. As a result, she may or may not strike me. But the point is that it was the action of Jane kissing my boyfriend that started the fight, not just random words. On a larger scale, say during time of war, violence also results from a particular action. The main catalyst for WWI for example was the assination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand. During WWII it was Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 that sparked the war, not his bigoted commentary about Jews. 3. I agree that the pen or words have the ability to educate, however, I disagree with my opponent when he says, "Fighting does not teach you anything other than how to win at fighting." On the contrary, "fighting" or physical force can teach you skill, discipline, the usefulness or necessity of war, a way to dominate or control others through physical means (I'm not saying that's a good thing but it is definitely a lesson learned), the effectiveness of using violent torture tactics when questioning enemies, the consequence or punishment for disobeying rules and more. 4. Con's fourth and final point states, "Words can control Violence, but Violence will never control words." First of all it is never a good idea to use the word never. That said, suppose an individual insists on doing something incredibly annoying over and over. One might beg and plead with this person to stop, and they may or may not comply. Another option is for one to simply strike (or even kill?!) this other person in order to get them to stop. Hitting them may or may not work as well. However it is entirely possible (and even probable) that the use of physical violence would be more likely to attain the desired effect than the use of words. Even if it weren't, at best it would produce the same result (the individual choosing to continue their annoying behavior). So you see, Pro's hope that the evidence of the pen being mightier than the sword is unfulfilled, let alone absolutely apparent. At best, Pro has proven that the pen is equal to the might of the sword, but not greater. On the contrary, I have provided specific examples in which it is entirely possible or even probable than violence is preferable over words in terms of achieving a desired goal.