On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

With that being said I have 10 main contentions against his argument. Contention 1: The pen and the sword have absolutely no intrinsic might what-so-ever. It is instead the wielder of the sword and the pen, that have the might. For example, I can walk into a room and see a ferocious man wielding a sword. This man may come at me and simply pulverize me with his might using his sword. However at the same time if I walked into that room and found the same sword only this time being wielded by a baby I would have nothing to fear. The sword would have no might behind it thus it could do me no harm. The same is true of the written word. Nietzsche has impacted a great deal of people with the pen, he has written many novels. However my sister, a 6th greater has arguably impacted no one with the use of the pen. Conclusion: The sword and the pen are of equal might as they both have no might. Contention 2: Resolutional analysis. The resolution states, "On balance" which means quite clearly means an equal proportion of each. Thus if they are both to be set as an equal as dictated by the resolution then one cannot be greater than the other. Contention 3: Even if my opponent wanted to examine strictly the people wielding the sword and the pen instead of the sword and pen then he will still lose. Let us now examine the might of the swordsman compared to the might of the pensman. Throughout history there have been a great many of people who were fine pensman, but compared to the overall population a very small percent has been a fine pensman. Most have been inept with the pen. Where as throughout history the sword (warfare) has been of great need and use. Throughout history there have doubtlessly been a larger percent of skilled swordsman (people skilled in the art of warfare) than those skilled in the use of pensmanship. Contention 4: In my opponents first speech he brings up the constitution of the United States of America. This seems like a powerful point at first glance, yet my opponent forgets the history of this nation. Without instances of the sword, for example the American Revolution, the pen would have all been for naught. It is strictly because of the sword that this nation was ever allowed to exist, otherwise we would still be colonies of great Britain. Furthermore a great deal of American history would have been changed for the worse without usages of the sword. Take WWII as a prime example. Had we not overthrown Hitler there would have been great potential in him overtaking the world. Contention 5: After citing the constitution my opponent brings up the bible. The bible would have not been possible without the sword! Lets take a look at genesis, how many times is Abraham threatened? Joseph? Jacob? Isaac? Then we get to the book of numbers, documenting battles and wars waged against the Jewish nation. There were many times where they could have been wiped off the face of this planet yet they fought back with the use of the sword. Had it not been for the use of the sword the pen which they so valiantly wielded afterwards would have not been possible. The sword is a means of which to maintain the right, the means of the usage of pen. This is supported empirically throughout history. Benefits derived through the pen have been in part because of the sword. Contention 6: The man who wields the pen can only go so far alone. The pen in the past has moved people to action, has shown the people injustices being committed. But the man who wields the pen cannot fight for his cause with the pen. Look all throughout history, many wars were started by unjust actions shown to us through the pen, but they were fought with the sword. The man behind the pen can have so much impact, the sword is responsible for completing that impact. Without the swordsman the pensman is all but useless. Let us look at the civil war as a reminder of this principle. Let us look at the writings of Socrates to remind us that he could not survive without the sword. Let us examine every rebellion that has ever happened, every fight for independence, I ask you, how many of those were won with simply the pen? Did the pen single handedly free the Jews from the holocaust? Did the pen stop the corrupt kings of Europe? Did the pen preserve the Roman empire from German barbarian attacks? The pen is powerful when used in the right hands I admit, but it can only do so much. Most every substantial impact of the past that involved the pen also involved the swords. Contention 7: This brings me to a literal interpretation of the Pen and the Sword. Up to this point I have been debating them as ideas as my opponent suggested. However in all reality the sword is just as capable as a pen if not more so. It is sharper, and cuts deeper. It can also be used to carve, to carve and write anything. It may double with the same function as that of the pen. Contention 8: Specific point in my opponents case. He mentions that the United States is the most powerful nation to ever rise to power. Not only is this false but even if it was true, the United States rose to power because of the sword. The most powerful nation to have ever existed was doubtlessly the roman empire. The roman empire was doubtlessly, at its time, the one super power of the world. The sword was responsible for its preservation. The sword was responsible for its growth, into such a large empire. Through the sword it united vast amounts of people who then had the ability to benefit from the written law, the pen of the roman empire. Contention 9: Yet another specific point in my opponents case. He mentions that the pen has a cumulative impact over time. "The effects of texts, for one, are cumulative. " The very same is true of the sword. The sword, the wars throughout history, the movements, the rebellions, have been what has made the world the way it is. These events have in turn lead to the possibility of texts being created. Had the roman empire fallen to the barbarian tribes of the north the bible would have never been created. It is through the sword that the events of the pen are derived, they are inevitably intertwined. Not only that but the sword has the possibility to destroy entire nations, and with those nations it has destroyed entire texts. The crusades destroyed entire cities and with them entire texts. How often does the pen destroy the sword? Contention 10: This is quite possibly my most important contention. The subjective nature of human interpretation. I cite as evidence my opponents points being the constitution in and the bible. Let us first examine the constitution, it has laws written within it, yet everyday these laws are interpreted to mean different things. A democrat will tell you that the second ammendment only allows you to have certain types of guns. A republican will tell you that the first ammendment doesn't allow for certain freedoms of expression. Everything is interpreted in its own way. The bible is another prime example. It lists 10 commandments yet everyone feels each one of them means a different thing. Some people feel no murder means straight pacifism, others feel only retributive justice is allowed. My point is thus: Like I said in point 1 the pen has no intrinsic value except through the writer, likewise even the writing has no intrinsic value except through the human interpretations of it. Humans themselves give value to the words of the penmen, where one person praises a text as holy, another completely ignores it. In itself the pen has no value, in themselves the words written by the penman have no value. Likewise the sword has no intrinsic value, in contrast however the actions of the swordsmen merit value inevitably.