The sword is mightier than the pen.

Pro is arguing “Note that I do not have to argue that physical dominance is always preferable or moral - merely that it is more EFFECTIVE than verbiage alone.” Further stating “it is might: the power for physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY carry out the ideas and instructions that are written by the pen.” I would draw your attention to the phrase “physical dominance” and I want you to remember that Pro’s argument hinges on physical dominance as this is an important point.Rebuttal – Only one country has physical dominanceI said, “there was always someone bigger or better, and even the rare undefeated swords cave to the power of the pen as they matured.” I still hold this to be true. Let’s put the two statements together. There are the rare physical dominant winners in the world. Globally the USA spends several times what other nations spend on their military and has around 8 wars it’s currently engaged in. The USA has the physical dominance that Pro speaks of. That means that everyone else lacks physical dominance because only one country can be dominant. All other countries, except for the USA, effectively function without the use of a dominant military force to back them up, all they have is the pen.Rebuttal – Countries that have no sword, just the penPro says “I absolutely do not have to describe a government which does not use diplomacy or the power of the written word as tools.” then goes on to state “I demand that Con present a government which is not backed by military might.”. Even though Pro cannot compel, I can. Pro was wrong when she stated “He will NOT be able to do so, and therefore he completely loses this argument.” Here is a list of 22 countries that have no military:1) Andorra (never)2) Costa Rica (since 1948)3) Dominica (Since 1981)4) Grenada (Since 1983)5) Haiti (Since 1995)6) Iceland (Since 1869.. that’s pretty impressive)7) Kiribati (Since 1978)8) Liechtenstein (Since 1868)9) The Marshall Islands (never)10) Mauritius (Since 1968)11) Micronesia (never)12) Monaco (Since the 17th century.. another impressive one)13) Nauru (never)14) Palau (never)15) Panama (Since 1990)16) St. Lucia (never)17) St. Vincent and the Grenadines (never)18) Samoa (never)19) Solomon Islands (never)20) Tuvalu (never)21) Vanuatu (never)22) Vatican City (Since 1970… and another nail in Pro’s coffin)As the article states “Well, if these countries can manage to survive without an army, then why not the whole world?” The pen can exist without the sword, but the sword cannot exist without the pen, as I have just proven.https://tinyurl.com... Rebuttal – The pen is only mighty because of the swordPro argues “Laws and rights that are written in global documents are only significant because they can be defended by force if need-be.” going so far as to say, “the pen is completely meaningless if there is not a sword (force) to back it up” and “what is written means absolutely nothing if you don't have force to back it up”. This naïve sentiment should not have to be rebutted, but it is the core of Pro’s argument, so I must address it. All mutually beneficial agreements created using the pen have nothing to do with the threat of force and are effective at achieving both party’s goals. Rather than going into those, I’ll use a personal example instead. Are there any among you who only keep their word because you believe you will be attacked/harmed/killed if you don’t? This obviously includes a fear of breaking the penned word of your god as well. Are all your actions motivated by fear of the sword? If the only thing that’s stopping you from following the laws our society has enacted is the fear of repercussion then you are part of the 4% of the population that is a sociopath. Pro needs to understand that it is not how our (or any other) society runs. If it were threat of force that compelled us to follow the laws we wouldn’t have a ratio of less than one cop per hundred civilians. (the average is closer to 500 civilians to each cop). This proves humans follow the pen not because of threat of force, they follow the pen because the pen is on the side of what is right/just and what we have all agreed to in our society. Our morals and ethics, not the sword, are the reason we follow the pen. To quote Penn Jillette: “I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.”https://tinyurl.com... Rebuttal – Most effective way to create productive employeesPro states “If my goal is to manage workers to produce 100 widgets, it doesn't matter if I've convinced the workers that they should do so. If I had the physical power to dominate and oppress or suppress them, I could get them to effectively make the widgets whether or not I've convinced them and my goal would be achieved.” This is a glaring hole in Pro’s argument for anyone who has tried to manage people in an effective way or even been managed. I’ll use a LinkedIn article to support that effective managers don’t dominate their employees, but I don’t really need to, every employee knows that they don’t produce as much or as high a quality of work when their boss is a tyrant who “dominate and oppress or suppress them”. This is business 101.https://tinyurl.com... Rebuttal – Gambles and Nirvana fallacyPro says “the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness”. Remember when I stated there was always “someone bigger or better”? When you draw your sword you aren’t gambling your time, energy, or money; you are gambling your life. There is no guarantee that your sword will be better than their sword, even if you have superior firepower. And as a USA citizen you should be familiar with us beating the British even though we were vastly out gunned. There are numerous instances of the underdog winning the fight. Neither the pen nor the sword is a guarantee that the goals will be achieved. And just as both are gambles, both allow “things happen anyway”. Neither the pen nor the sword provide guarantees. Pro has no advantage with the claim of the pen being a gamble or the nirvana fallacy claim that the pen doesn’t prevent things from happening. The sword has the same failings. Rebuttal – Machiavelli’s false dichotomyRather than going into the horrendous acts committed because of Machiavelli’s teachings I’ll just take Pro’s quote “it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse.” and say there are more options than that. It’s better to have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship than to be feared or loved. I could give other examples, but Machiavelli was a hammer, and he saw every problem as a nail. (my whole argument about how the military doesn’t use diplomacy can be seen in his writings) Rebuttal - Kim Jung UnPro makes a fatal mistake here. Kim has a standing army of 3.5 million and yet Pro concedes with “Nobody is afraid of Kim Jung Un's words” and “Kim Jung Un's words would be completely INeffective at hurting anyone in Hawaii.” Kim has the physical force that Pro is arguing is so effective, yet Kim is not effective and nobody is afraid of him in Pro’s opinion. This leads to reinforce that Pro understands my point that only the most powerful country has the “dominant power” and that having physical force is ineffective unless you are the strongest. Only one country can be the strongest on the world stage and all others are ineffective (as Pro views Kim) when it comes to the sword because of this. Or to put it another way, they do not have the ability to use direct violence and military prowess (sword) to compel other nations. Yet these non-dominant countries are still powerful nations because of the pen. Pro must then admit that the sword is ineffective unless you have the biggest sword and that most country’s might comes from the pen. Con’s #4 - The pen hurts more than the swordPro has dropped my argument and did not refute it. Going so far as to say both “I do not deny that words hurt” and “different goals demand different strategies”. My point stands uncontested. Rebuttal –Pro IS advocating violencePro’s states in round 3 “I do not have to advocate the use of violence in order to win this debate (and I have not).” Pro uses the term force (and physical force) over and over in the debate to achieve results. Pro’s argument from round 1 defining the debate "The pen is mightier than the sword" is a proverb indicating that communication (particularly written language), or in some interpretations, administrative power or advocacy of an independent press, is a more effective tool than direct violence and military prowess.” In round 2 Pro reiterates “The pen is mightier than the sword = writing is more effective than military power or violence.“ But in round 3 Pro isn’t advocating violence? Pro’s whole argument is an avocation for violence being more effective to achieve desired results. I cry foul. ConclusionI have shown how countries exist with just the pen, but no countries can exist without the pen. I have shown how individuals are not motivated by the sword to follow the pen because there are not enough swords in place to force us. I have shown how living by the sword is both dangerous and ineffective at achieving goals. I have shown how the Vatican with no army is one of the mightiest powers on the globe. I have shown how words cause more harm than violence. In all these areas, the pen is mightier than the sword. We have progressed past the point where people get what they want through violence. (and Pro is advocating violence) Legally, ethically, morally, socially, etc. we all agree that violence is not the answer. This is what it means to be mature.