On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

In my opponents second round he dropped/discarded 5 of my contentions, I will be placing these contentions first and explaining exactly why they flow to my side of this debate. 1. My opponent states that he has no need to argue this point. He points out that, "The roles of pro and con are quite clear: pro makes an argument, and con refutes it." This statement is not even mildly true. In a debate round the debaters are presented with a resolution, each debater my interrupt the resolution in any way he/she desires. The con has no burden to refute the pros argument and may ignore it if he/she desires. Take the below listed scenario for example: Resolution: Cats are better than dogs. Pro: "Well I like ice cream!" Con: Must I then argue that my opponent doesn't like ice cream? Obviously not, this is fallacious. Thus my point still stands, if my opponent would like to prove his point true, then he must disprove that the pen and sword in themselves have no intrinsic value. Otherwise my opponent will only be proving this resolution true as a metaphor (if he can do that). 2. My second contention had nothing to do with the idea of them having no value, yet my opponent attempts to discard it under the same logic. My second contention was that of resolutional analysis. The resolution states, "On balance" which is defined as equal. If they are equal in regard to might as the first part of the resolution states then they cannot also be of different might as the second part of the resolution states. Thus my opponent can only possibly win one part of the resolution. The resolution is 2 part, therefor my opponent cannot win this round. 3. Once again my opponent attempts to discard this contention under the logic he used to attempt to refute my first contention. This logic once again does not even apply here as I am advocating the application as my opponent did in his first round. My point was simple, and dropped by my opponent, throughout history there have been some pensman. At the same point throughout history there have been many many metaphorical swordman, this ranging from literal swordsman of the medieval world to the marines today. Thereby the swordsman easily outweight the pensman. 7. My opponent admits to this phenomenon when he says, "The pen can put an eye out, and the sword can carve words into a tree." Which leads him to once again argue that the point is irrelevant under his logic refuting contention 1. RESTATE: The Pro's burden in this round is the affirm the resolution! If I can disprove the resolution in any way and prove the statement not to be true in any way then my opponent will lose this round. The sword can literally do just as much as the pen. (When they are wielded by capable hands) 10. This as a pointed out was quite possibly my most important point of last round.... Yet all my opponent has to say about this is, "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." Hmmmm.... Well first off my point was not that the bible and constitution had elusive meanings but rather that they are subjectively interpreted by everyone. If there was a way to literally interpret them and people did it then that would be considered an impact but as it is people simply decide their own meaning. It is the people themselves that create an impact on any of these issues. On the other hand a sword or warfare kills people, which is very difficult to interpret in any other way. This is a definite and defined impact through itself. This leads me to the points my opponent did argue. 4. First off I'll concede that the revolutionary war and constitution have less of an impact as compared to christianity. This isn't a relevant point, as christianity will be covered anyways in my next point. Secondly my opponent almost completely misses the point. The revolutionary war was an instance of the sword. To some extent my opponent argues that the revolutionary war was caused by the pen, and to a MINOR extent this is true. However moreover it was the actions of British soldiers coupled by lack of representation on a multitude of levels that lead people to revolt. More importantly the war in itself was not possible without the sword! The revolution could have never occurred without the sword, and it is because of the word that the modern United States was ever made possible. A direct effect of the revolutionary war, an instance of the sword was and is the constitution of the United States of America. Therefor the constitution is a byproduct of the sword and happenings of the constitution are still impacts of the sword. Example: If I make a robot and it makes 15 other robots then the impact of my action is no longer 1 robot but rather 16 robots. The same is true in this scenario. 5. The bible, I bring up times in history where the entire bible could have been ruined. Specifically my definite examples came from genesis, along with a bit of numbers. These are examples where, had the sword not been employed, the jewish nation would not have existed. My opponent of course decides to site Jesus as an example and point out that Jesus never held a sword. This is true but it does not change the fact that Jesus was a direct by product of the Jewish nation! Had it not been for the sword sustaining the Jewish nation then Jesus could never have existed. The impact of the sword in this scenario is the sustaining of the Jewish people coupled with the birth of Jesus which leads to not only the old testament but through Jesus the new testament. The sword is responsible for the modern day existence of all of these things, without it they would have never been. The sword in this instance far outweighs the pen. 6. My point was simply that the pen has little impact without the sword. The Pro reminds me that the pen "can influence a thousand to do battle with a sword." Yet apparently my opponent has discarded the subjective nature of the human again. The pen can say things yes, but the swordsman is still going to have to decide for himself whether or not to employ the use of his sword. The pensman has a fine amount of might, but that might means NOTHING without the backing of the sword. In this sense they are mutually dependent on each other and should be considered on equal at the least. However I must say that the sword by itself can probably exist with greater might. My opponent goes on to state that it will always be the pensman who is remembered over the swordsman. I'm not so sure if this is true, I can remember a great deal of brilliant and notable generals. These generals have always been depended on for the winnings of fights of the sword. 8. Final point. My opponent states that many empires have depended on the sword and this has resulted in their utter annihilation. The United States on the other hand has continued to exist because of our reliance on the pen. This is extremely flawed. First off, we have depended on sword in two very notable instances. There was civil war, an instance where our nation actually did split in two for a time period. Then there was world war II where it would have been more than possible for Germany to have taken a great portion of the world. Secondly this is a flawed comparison. The roman empire existed for over a thousand years. On the other hand the United States has existed for around 300 and actually has already broken up once, something the Roman empire never really managed to do. Until the United States has existed for 1000 years this comparison cannot be made. The pen and the sword in themselves have no might, the wielder of them contains a might but the wielder of the pen is dependent on the sword for survival and first existence. Furthermore the sword contains a definite impact, the pen is subjective.