The sword is mightier than the pen.

Coveny opens this debate by claiming the pen encompasses the sword, while the sword does not encompass the pen. That is wrong. Indeed it is the other way around. * * *Rebuttal - Part 1 1. Con's first point is that, "It is much more effective to follow the laws that have been penned out for this country to get what you want." In the last round, I explained at length why the sword is responsible for carrying out the laws that are written by the pen. I highlighted that what is written by the pen is completely meaningless if there is not a sword (force) to back it up. Governments would simply not exist without military might - that is what gives government any type of authority at all. Even in places without government, such as in Africa where warring tribes and mini militias have control, it is their physical dominance that gives them power. Again what is written means absolutely nothing if you don't have force to back it up. That is especially true with law and government. 2. Con continues, "It"s why the pen doesn"t allow taking others property, torturing others, even murder, or the one my opponent should be acutely aware forcing others to do what you want at the tip of a sword." (Coveny seriously needs to improve his grammar.) But here Con defeats his very own argument. He acknowledges that the pen intends to prohibit bad things things from happening... and yet these things happen anyway. Thus Con is blatantly highlighting how the pen is INEFFECTIVE at prohibiting these things. Meanwhile, if one had the physical force to prevent these harms, the sword would be effective at deterring them. The government could write a law not to murder me, but someone might ignore it and the law as-written would not be enough to deter the behavior. However if one tried to murder me and I had a gun to fight back with, then my force would deter the behavior. So again we can see that physical force is more effective. * * * Rebuttal - Part 2RE: "The pen directs the sword, the sword doesn"t direct the pen"Con writes, "I look forward to seeing pro try to put forth an example of a government that is effective without the use of the pen." I absolutely do not have to describe a government which does not use diplomacy or the power of the written word as tools. In fact I pointed out the utility of words in the last round by highlighting how people and governments utilize words to convey meaning. However I then went on to explain how all of those words are backed by force. I demand that Con present a government which is not backed by military might.He will NOT be able to do so, and therefore he completely loses this argument. Since no government can exist without military might, then any diplomacy which is enacted by government only exists because of the military might. Thus the utility of laws and diplomacy (the pen) only exist because of the sword, and the sword is therefore more effective than the pen. Con is 100% wrong when he says "Every aspect of military life is dictated by the pen, and the sword doesn"t dictate a single thing in this (and all the countries listed above) country."Let me repeat it again: nothing that is written in law means a single thing if it is not backed by force, including the military code. If the military code or laws are broken, what are the repercussions? The answer is that people are thrown in jail. Yet if prisoners fought against the jailers, they would overrule the jailers and the law. They would escape or defy the law and it would be meaningless. Once again the law means NOTHING if there is not force to back it up. There must be police, sheriffs, military, and overall more force/weapons behind one group over another in order for any law and order to be effective. That is why there is global conflict over the power to have nuclear weapons. Proof that physical dominance trumps the pen is that countries are struggling to fight for their right to have nuclear weapons, or deter others from getting nuclear weapons. Why? Because having nuclear weapons makes one more powerful and influential. Suddenly you are a threat when you have substantial military force. Nobody is afraid of Kim Jung Un's words, but everyone is afraid of him having nuclear weapons. Kim Jung Un's words would be completely INeffective at hurting anyone in Hawaii. His physical prowess, however, would be very much effective at hurting people in the United States if he gains more military might. So I would like to reiterate that I have proven Con's comments completely wrong.He said, "The pen controls and dominates the sword in every aspect of the swords existence."On the contrary, the sword is what gives the pen any power and influence whatsoever. RE: "Live by the sword, die by the sword"Con continues to talk about the dangers of living through violence which I agree with. Nowhere in this debate did I ever advocate using violence (at the individual level) to get ahead. In fact, I clarified in the opening round that I would not be arguing violence is always the more MORAL option. Instead, I said I would be defending the notion that physical force is more EFFECTIVE at carrying out a goal than rhetoric alone. I explained that rhetoric tries to be persuasive, but having the power to physically dominate someone compels a certain action rather than merely inviting one. If one lives by the sword, they will die by the sword. Yet one can still live by words and die by the sword. Nobody dies from words alone.RE: The Power of the Religious PenWhile I acknowledge the utility of words to persuade, I've explained that the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness. That is why religious wars have been fought despite being predicated on religion. The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. They were campaigns aimed at recovering the Christian holy land from Muslim rule [1]. But if [religious] words alone were actually effective and powerful enough to carry out one's goals... why did not one, but a SERIES of crusades spanning multiple centuries need to continue? Why wasn't religious rhetoric alone enough to secure the goal of Christians? Clearly this example has backfired on Con to prove that military might is more useful at establishing power and authority than the "religious pen" is.RE: The pen hurts more than the swordCon writes, "Propaganda has shown to be one of the most effective ways to control the masses. The most popular example of this is Nazi Germany and the holocaust." Of course the Holocaust would not exist if there were not Nazi Germans, i.e. military, to force people into concentration camps, and perpetuate that god awful policy through military might. And indeed it took military might to DEFEAT the Nazis, which proves Con is once again arguing against himself and proving my point to be superior. Thank you for that example, Coveny, in proving how Winston Churchill's words alone did precisely nothing to stop the Germans -- it was the Allie's military power which was able to subdue them. The treaties that ended WWII at the Paris Peace Conference were ONLY the result of military power. They only had meaning because of military power (by the Allies) that would force the Axis powers into submission.All of the propaganda utilized during WWII was meant to inspire violence. Wars are not fought or won with words. The words only inspired people to exemplify physical dominance, thus the sword is mightier than the pen. RE: Emotional Pain HurtsI do not deny that words hurt. My position in this debate is that physical force is (on balance) more effective than words. I can admit that words have utility and power while still effectively demonstrating that the sword is overall more effective. Obviously different goals demand different strategies, but ultimately physical force is more compelling if not moral.ConclusionI do not have to advocate the use of violence in order to win this debate (and I have not). Nor do I have to prove that words aren't useful - because they are. I admitted at the very start of this discussion that words have great power. However I went on to explain that the threat of physical force is what gives many words (especially anything that has to do with government) their power. I have proven that physical force is better and more reliable at producing a desired result (i.e., being effective) than writing. I gave examples such as violence being necessary to end slavery, wars, etc. Diplomacy would not be possible if governments didn't negotiate peace, and governments could not exist unless there was physical force to back up every law and legal document. Otherwise, the government could only exist insofar as other people allow it to. But the people with the military might get to decide what is legitimate and what is not. Any group that has power, including gangs, only derive that power from their ability to physically dominate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...