On Balance, the Pen is Mightier than the Sword.

To keep things brief, I hope to prove that at least on one of these arguments, that words are mightier(possess more strength or power) than violence. 1. Lets take into consideration this debate about probability. My opponent's argument revolves around the worst case scenario of a child being physically impaired because of a scuffle. Her argument about my "over-exaggeration" of the harm has no ground when her argument as well is based on exaggerating the harm towards the most depressing possible outcome. Well if we are going to deal in worst case scenarios, then I too shall suggest my own worst case scenario. Take a child, who is constantly harassed and belittled on a daily basis by his peers all his childhood. From that point on he is demoralized, anti-social and beats himself up mentally whenever he fails and when he works with others. His mental health goes down the toilet as he plays mind games with himself until the point where he goes clinically insane and loses touch with reality. In all actuality this should balance out our arguments and thus judges should not consider this a major issue in the long run because it is obvious that both words and violence have the potential to do incredible harm. At this point, I would like to discuss the "Lack of teacher discipline = loss of control" argument. First off, the argument has no backing to the outrageous claims it makes. It provides no evidence to prove that children are more out of control now then they were 50 years ago. Second, even if you believe her claims, there are far too many outside factors to consider when explaining why children may be more out of control then in the past. I mean there is widespread drug use, pop culture influences that express rebellious attitudes, poor parenting, overcrowding in schools leading to an inability of teachers to maintain classroom, etc. Do not be so quick to assume that just because there may be increased problems in schools that a lack of discipline is the primary cause or even a substantial cause. I ask the judges to disregard this argument for there is little evidence for such bold claims. 2A. All I can say is "What? Imminent death?" Seriously, the likelihood that he would have been killed on the spot is outrageous. Most likely he would have been convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, where he would be humiliated and have to serve a punishment for his actions. Violence wasn't what he was afraid of, otherwise he wouldn't have killed himself. If I am not mistaken, taking one's life is a form of violence. And even if you want to consider Hitler killing himself as the "end of WWII" have you to realize that the fighting did not stop when he died. There were still factions of loyal Nazis that put up resistance against the Allies and thus you see that violence did not end the conflict in its entirety like Con claims. Secondly, I would like to point out the flaw in my opponents arguments. She claims that words "failed" with the Treaty of Versailles. The fact is, if you hold Pro by those standards, you must also hold Con to them as well. What I mean is that if you claim words failed to prevent WWII then violence as well failed to prevent WWII. My final argument against this point is the idea that words do not solve conflicts. So the ending of WWII is debatable whether words or violence truly solved it. But here are 3 conflicts in recent American history that WERE solved by words. Korea - a stalemate ensued after years of fighting and fighting could have continued if not for negotiations. Vietnam - The US could have continued waging war in the jungles of Vietnam but the words of the President to pull out troops(which by the way, his actions were strongly influenced by the WORDS of the people). Cuban Missile Crisis - Cuba was gaining nuclear weaponry from the Soviets and violence wasn't going to stop them from using them. What ultimately ended all these conflicts? Words. Like I have stated before, words have the power to control violence. 2B. Wait, let me get this straight. Are you trying to say that because Caesar was murdered he could no longer conquer and destroy? Well it is true that while he was dead he couldn't lead armies anymore, but that doesn't mean that violence was stopped, in fact that lead to more and more violence. I don't see how this proves the point that violence can control violence. The only way violence controls violence is through death, but that doesn't mean that the action of murder doesn't cause more violence. Its an endless cycle and to be blunt nothing can stop that cycle but words. Off the Attila argument, all I ask is that the judge take a serious look at the arguments claims. I find little or no reason to believe that argument to hold any weight simply because of the absurdity of the statement. Also, do you think that the leader of the Huns would be frightened by a big guy with a flaming sword? Lets be honest here, Con, do you really think that is what persuaded him to negotiate peace? 2C.I see that the definition of "mightier" has been called into question at this point. What I do not see is how by that definition I have been arguing this debate all wrong. Have I not been trying to prove the power and strength of words? Have not my explanations of words are used not achieving a result? I would also like to clarify the fact is that all I must do is convince you that Words are mightier(more power or strength)than violence. 2D.After reading this, I would like to focus the attention of the judges on the fact that my opponent concedes to the idea that words are more versatile. Like I stated before, words have the ability to create, to harm, to destroy, to help, to educate and many other things that I don't have the space to list. To me, words versus violence in this situation is like poker. Violence MAY have the Ace in some situations, BUT words are like a pair. It doesn't matter that words may be a pair of 2s or a pair of kings, they trump the single ace. By having all the mentioned ways words can be used, you have to consider that each one in itself has its own power and own strengths. 3a.Judges, keep in mind the knowledge is power argument. Why did Alexander the Great prove to be a successful commander? Knowledge. Where did he get that knowledge? Education. How is one educated? WORDS. In the end, I find that all the advantages and strengths of violence that is in any way, shape, or form organized or thought out has in some way words to grant it it's power. The simple fact is, the versatility of words to educate and strengthen violence. 4a.I would like to point out that even if you buy the interpretation that violence inflated the power of words, you must take into consideration that STILL words are not being overpowered by violence, but in turn using violence as a means to strengthen themselves. Again, we see the versatility of words in action. I know it probably seems odd to attack my opponents conclusion, but the fact is the statement she highlights and focuses on is taken out of context and argues only the part in which she can lodge a actually argument against. Read my previous conclusion in its fullness to understand the argument. For my closing arguments judges, I want you to look at all the examples that the Con provides where she tries to prove that violence is more powerful then words and you will find that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Violence or words may solve certain situations more effectively, depending on the situation(Though I believe I provide more examples where words are more effective, it is ultimately up to the judges to decide this). But I want the judges to focus on the argument of versatility and consider that each of the various abilities of words is in itself a strength. The fact that words possess more strengths in the form of various uses, than violence should prove that the Pen is mightier than the Sword.