On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Final round! FIGHT! 1. To begin with point 1. First off my opponent's strategy is very abusive and should not be allowed in this round. Basically he puts up points against me (see round 2) and thus I spend an entire round responding to those point, then he turns around in his next contention (round 3) and ignores the points which I presented. Instead he decides to argue all new points in the last round. So we have two choices in this round. Either A). I can advocate all new points in my final contention to make this perfectly fair or B). My opponents new points don't count. Hopefully everyone understands why me advocating a new points would be extremely abusive and we can settle with choice B. However even if I examine my opponents new point in contention 1 it doesn't actually hurt my case. He says, "If I drop a sword and a pen from a set height, any height will do, the sword will hit the ground with more force(might) than the pen, because it weights much more." This is still not intrinsic might! It is someone dropping the sword and the pen off of a cliff, the sword and the pen are not going to do that by themselves. Furthermore, even if you want to believe this is intrinsic might it proves that I win this round. The sword, in my opponents scenario, is mightier. 2. Please cross apply my new arguments in last round argument from my first contention as it applies here as well. Secondly my opponents new point has nothing to do with the resolution, he attempts to prove that they can be compared by saying, "ON a balance" which I would totally agree with only thats not the resolution. The resolution states, "On balance." not "On a balance" as my opponent attempts to prove. As much as I wish "on balance" meant "on a balance" this example can be disproved by examining the phrase "on time" which is not the same as the phrase "on a time." Third my opponent accepts my definition of balance by not offering a counter definition. Fourth as my definition is from a dictionary source it is of higher quality and needs to be accepted in this round today. (dictionary.com) 3. Cross apply my new arguments point from contention 1, it also applies here. My opponent states here that a greater quantity does not necessarily mean a greater might. He does not however prove that a greater quantity in this scenario does not mean a greater might. Thus my observation bases itself around the idea that if you as a judge are going to vote for my opponent you cannot just feel that the pen is mightier than the sword you must feel that it is much much mightier than the sword to combat the mass quantity of swords. 7. Once again my opponent brings up a completely new argument so once again I offer the ultimatum. Either his new points don't count in this round or This new picture does count as evidence on my side: http://www.hisnibs.com... 10. My opponent begins the 10th point by straw manning me, he states, "Con's point is that the words a pen writes have to be interpreted, thus making their effects only indirect, while a swordsman cutting off someone's head has a somewhat more direct effect on a person." That was decisively not my point, in fact my point was quite simple. Humans will subjectively interrupt anything in a way that appeals to them the most. Thus the pen actually has no might whatsoever unless someone chooses to interpret it in a way that has an impact. Once again my opponents argument is completely new. 4. Once again my opponent mistakes me argument, he states, "To say that the sword cause the constitution however, rather than the pen, is a practice in absurdity." and then, "I would point out that just because a war occurs, it does not mean that the main cause of everything that happens afterward is the war itself." My point was not that the constitution was directly caused by the revolutionary war. It was rather that the constitution could never have existed without the revolutionary war. It was because of the revolutionary war that the constitution was even possible in the first place and thus the constitution is a byproduct of the revolutionary war. As the constitution could never have existed without the revolutionary war therefor the revolutionary war is the mightier of the two. If you agree that the constitution is mighty then you must agree that what allowed it to be was of equal or greater might. 5. For a third time my opponent has applied the same argumentation to my contention. And for the third time he has missed my point. I am not arguing that the wars that occurred before the bible directly caused the bible. I am arguing that the bible would not have been possible if those wars had not been fought, if the Jewish nation had been destroyed because it didn't feel like fighting then Jesus would not have existed. Furthermore if the Romans had lain down their swords and allowed the German tribes of the north to take the empire then Constantine would have never compiled the bible. These events, these instances of the sword, allowed for the bible to be made. The sword in this way is at the very least equal to the pen if not of a greater might! Furthermore my opponent brings god into this saying, "I'm sure God wouldn't agree with you Yraelz..." This might be true, maybe God would not agree with me, however if we are going to go on a Godly paradigm then nothing has any might. God will create everything exactly how he needs it to be thus the might of the sword or the pen will simply be the divine might of god. Or the same thing. 6. My opponent ignores most of my points in this contention in favor of stating, "the sword does NOT exist independently. " So let me state every point that fell under contention 6: a. The pen has little to no impact without the sword. My opponent conceded to this by not refuting it. b. "In this sense they are mutually dependent on each other and should be considered on equal at the least." My opponent also makes no comment on this sentence thereby agreeing they should be equal at the very least. c. "However I must say that the sword by itself can probably exist with greater might." Which is the sentence my opponent did respond. So to set the record straight my opponent agreed that the pen has little impact without the sword, he agreed that they are at the very least equal, he just disagrees that the sword could be mightier than the pen. Thus at this point all I need to offer is an example of where the sword existed by itself without the pen...... My example will be Atilla the Hun! A man who took a great deal of Asia without using the written word at all to my knowledge. 8. My opponent states, "WW2 and civ. war are merely 2 instances in US hist." Yeah, this is true. However my point was that the United States has continued to exist to this day because of a reliance on the sword. So the fact that my opponent puts the word, "merely" in there does not change the fact that those events would have destroyed us. The swords effect is also real and tangible. 9. I realize this contention went dropped by both my opponent and I but it should be noted that my opponent dropped this point, "Not only that but the sword has the possibility to destroy entire nations, and with those nations it has destroyed entire texts." FINISH HIM! As I brought up in my second round it is my opponent burden to defend the resolution. He has conceded that there are multiple sides to this resolution, not just a metaphorical, by arguing my contention 1 and 2. Thus if my opponent is to win this debate round he must support his side of the resolution in each way. He must support it metaphorically, literally, and entirely. As my opponent has not done this I can see nothing but a vote for Con. Thanks.