On Balance, the Pen is Mightier than the Sword.

1 A&B. I agree with my opponent - MOST fights that occur on the playground will not leave a child paralyzed or seriously physically harmed. However the topic of debate isn't about probability factor or which gets used more often (pen or sword). This debate is about which is MIGHTIER. So even if a child only gets seriously hurt with violence one out of every 1,000,000 times, again I ask which caused MORE damage - the "emotional scarring" of being called a few names, or the reality that one might never walk again. The logical answer is that a child will much more quickly get over being called "stupid" or any other childish slander than they would if they were paralyzed or seriously injured for the long-term as a result of violence. Also, my opponent is exaggerating the "harm" caused by being teased on the playground as a child. It is true that some people are forever effected by the names they were called in 4th grade, however, I would argue that more often than not that is not the case. Pro points out, "there is little treatment for the harm dealt to the mind." I disagree. What are therapists for? What are parents for? What are principals and teachers for? All of these individuals can and should assist a child in getting over whatever feelings of inferiority they might feel. I acknowledge that a teacher, for instance, typically does not use violence in trying to get her point across say to a playground bully who verbally terrorizes other students. However this is only true of recent years; as recently as the 50s (up to the 1970s in private schools) corporal punishment was used to keep kids in line during school hours. Since then schools have become less and less safe and students have more discipline problems than ever. Plus, since the 1950s teenage suicide has tripled. It is fair to assume that as teachers lost "physical control" over students that more and more bad seeds began to terrorize other students driving them to suicide. Going back to what I mentioned in a previous round, usually it is an act of violence that sets a feud off... For instance I might not mind so much if someone called me names (sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me), however, I might deem it TOO FAR if someone were to actually use physical violence against me. Thus the power of violence affects me greater than the power of words. 2A. Pro suggests that it was words, not violence that put an end to WWII after Hitler killed himself. I could not disagree more. It was iminent death (via war and violence) that caused Hitler to commit suicide and ultimately lose the war. As far as the "remaining loyal Germans" go, yes it is true that treaties were signed and that is technically what ended the Nazi regime. My opponent writes, "violence did not solve violence, it only made it easier for words to solve violence." This is completely false. After WWI, words were written and constructed to forbid certain action that would lead to more violence and war (the Treaty of Versailles). However people (Nazi Germany) completely disregarded the restrictions put forth by the treaty and continued to violate its policies causing WWII. They did not concede until they were VIOLENTLY STOPPED through physical force. Thus violence in this case and in most cases has more weight than words. 2B. My opponent uses the example of Attila the Hun to demonstrate how the power of words supercedes the power of violence. I argue that I can counter this by providing just one example in which violence was used to have the same effect (eg. the murder of Julius Caesar prevented him from invading any more territory). Additionally, history tells us that it may not have been Leo's WORDS that dissuaded Attila but rather the large sum of gold he bestowed upon him in exchange for his mercy. Furthermore, "Other sources of Catholic hagiographical information cite that an enormously huge man dressed in priestly robes and armed with a flaming sword, visible only to Attila, threatened him and his army with death during his discourse with Pope Leo, and this prompted Attila to submit to the Pope's request" (http://saints.sqpn.com...). So ironically, it was a SWORD in this example that actually tamed Atilla. 2C. This is where the debate gets tricky as my opponent decides to use words vs. violence in a whole other context. Rather than arguing words vs. violence as a means to achieve a desired result, Pro instead begins reminding us that words create laws and whatnot in order to establish the effectiveness of words over violence in society. To an extent I agree with my opponent (how can you not)? After all we would not even be debating right now if it weren't for the usefulness of words. But usefulness is not what we are debating here. We are debating which is MIGHTIER, definition being "showing superior power or strength" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). We are discussing this in relation to achieving a result. Pro writes, "The laws, which were formed by WORDS control and prevent violence and anarchy from breaking loose." Yes, laws were created by words but WORDS do not uphold these laws. Fear of punishment uphold laws, and punishment does not come in the form of words. Nobody steals from someone and as a result gets called a bunch of names in order to suffice as justice. In this country the use of fines or jail time are used to deter crime; we don't provide counseling or therapy to thieves in order to stop them from stealing the next time around. However in some countries, violence IS used as a form of punishment and absolute deterant. If you look at Muslim countries that regularly practice extreme corporal punishment, and compare their crime rates with ours (keeping in mind that what they consider a "crime" is definitely not how we define the word), you can clearly see the usefulness and effectiveness as violence as a deterant over words. Finally on this point my opponent says, "I need not prove that words are 100% effective here, but that words do have the power to control violence." At the same token, I need not prove that violence is 100% effective but rather the fact that violence does have the power to control words (eg. "Say that one more time and I'll punch you")... So again, my opponent has maintained why words can be equivical to violence but not mightier. 2D. Pro argues the versatility of words as opposed to violence. Again I concede that words are used more frequently in our society than violence. However that does not make it MIGHTIER. When violence IS used, it is more effective than words. To reiterate this point, Osama bin Ladin has been bashing the United States for years. But it wasn't until he used violence that we decided to go after him. Thus his violence has had a greater impact than his words. 3A. Pro states "If we are to assume that knowledge [words] is power, then which means do we gain more "power" in this sense?" True, but Pro is talking about a specific type of power. In another instance, if we take a look at Alexander the Great, for example, was it his WORDS that gave him so much power or the fact that he violently conquered most of Europe? 4A. Pro says, "More often then not, people will die proudly for what they believe in and the fear of violence does not overpower the desire for individuals to express themselves." If someone is dead, they are silenced even if their message is not. And their message is amplified by the fact that someone VIOLENTLY took their lives. Thus violence in this scenario is again more effective than words. In conclusion, Pro states, "the fact is words just as well as violence has the 'possibility' to achieve the end desire." Again, I maintain that words are equivical to violence but not mightier. And finally, consider the fact that the use of violence and weapons are against the law whereas slanderous words are often not... why do you think that is?