On Balance, the Pen is Mightier than the Sword.

1A. My opponent opens up this round by conceding that his first example of words causing more damage than violence in the instance of a playground fight is flawed, and cannot be logically argued to prove his point. He notes that in this scenario the power of words is equal to the power of violence in the sense that either can be used to damage another, and depending on the situation one can be more harmful than the next. This result of a "tie" is important to keep in mind for the remainder of the debate. 1B. I'd like to address his next point linking a lack of corporal punishment in schools to behavioral patterns in society. Perhaps Pro misunderstood; my intention was to note that the lack of physical punishment not only in schools but also in the home is (not all, but) partially to blame for the current societal issue of bad behavior in schools. Indeed Pro agrees that parenting issues are a cause for improper school conduct. Additionally, Pro cites the media and other references of pop culture as a source of children's behavior. In that case, it is easy for me to point out that violence is portrayed in the media in addition to words, yet the theme of violence seems to always prevail and get more attention. This is because violence is sensationalized and explicit. Consider video game popularity to prove my point. Some of the most popular video games today as cited on top 10 lists include Grand Theft Auto 4, Resident Evil 4 and God of War. Family Media Guide notes, "this year, some of the most ultraviolent video games ever created are being made available." Obviously violence is very scandalous and therefore exciting to the children of our society, hence drawing them towards the genre (as opposed to games like Scrabble, Wheel of Fortune, etc) and Pro admits that it is the forces of pop culture that contribute to some of the negative aspects of today's youth. 2A. All of Pro's points here are spent addressing his opinion of what ended WWII and something about Hitler and blah blah blah. What does that have to do with his argument? Nothing. The fact remains that he simply cannot argue that words put an end to WWII (or any war for that matter). Because WWII has already been introduced as an example, I'll put it this way... When Hitler began breaking the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles and disobeying (written) rules put in place in order to deter a second world war, leaders from other nations warned him to heed. Some even begged him to stop. But Hitler did not stop. He did not respond to people's pleas or threats. Rather it was the use of PHYSICAL VIOLENCE that put an end to his regime. Pro can argue all he wants that words ended WWII. But words did not prevent the war and words did not end the war. Now if Pro wants to get technical (which apparently he does) and state that it was a TREATY or verbal/written agreements that ended the war, then fine. But the words that ended the war had absolutely no value without the violence that instigated the truce. Had not we physically stopped our enemy, they never would have just "given up" and given in to our demands. It was our violent attack that forced them to concede. So at best (and that's being generous) I will note that again this point ends in a tie. It also answers his 4A point. 2B. My opponent says, "the only way violence controls violence is through death" which is untrue. For instance say two deaf people who don't speak engage in a physical dispute. Person #1 strikes Person #2 and #2 falls to the ground obviously hurt. Person #1 used violence to achieve his desired result. After his accomplishment he decides to walk away. This is an example of violence controlling violence without the use of words. In a historical context, similar types of scenarios existed between warring peoples. Consider warring tribes who fought over land, food or money. It is pretty obvious to each clan why they would be fighting each other without the exchange of dialog. If these two groups fought each other and one group blatantly triumphed over the other, obviously the losing side would retreat and the fight would be solved/ended without any necessary use of words. In response to my attack of the Atilla the Hun example, I am not surprised that my opponent responded so passionately. I too would have been embarassed had my own example come back to bite me. He tries to be clever here when he asks, "Lets be honest here, Con, do you really think that [a flaming sword] is what persuaded him to negotiate peace?" No, I don't. I think it was the gold - the money - that Pope Leo gave Atilla that convinced him to have mercy on the people. But what does that have to do with the pen being mightier than the sword? Nothing. All it does is prove that money is mightier than the pen in this case... 2C. My opponent points out, "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." Yes, that is all you have to do, Pro. But unfortunately you have not been sucessful with that throughout this entire debate... 2D. I have already agreed that words are more versatile than violence; my argument is that they are not mightier. Now I have noticed a loophole to this theory, however, my opponent has not pointed it out and therefore it cannot be weighed in the decision. In fact all he has done is compare words and violence to a game of poker here in which he states that violence is an Ace and words are like a pair. Good analogy, except for the fact that it doesn't make any sense. For instance Pro doesn't explain WHY words are a pair and count for 2 cards whereas violence only counts for 1 card. In that case I disagree that words are 2 cards and I will provide my own example: Violence is an Ace and words are some other random card in the deck. Whatever the card may be, say a King, it will not overpower or trump that Ace. In fact the best case scenario for my opponent is that the random card was also an Ace, which it very well might be. But an Ace doesn't beat an Ace; they are of EQUAL value... like the pen and the sword are of equal value. 3A. In terms of Alexander the Great, Pro attempts to argue that words were the most important aspect of education. I disagree. Alex had to learn and be educated on warfare, fighting techniques, etc. in order to command the most powerful army of that time. Words are important but during that day and age the value and significance of words was MUCH less than it is today. For instance Alexander's teacher could have told him that he presided over the weakest army of all time and that to attempt to conquer other peoples would be a huge mistake. Of course that was not true, but neither the teacher nor Alexander could prove otherwise without the actual action and presence of fighting in order to know a definite truth. This is not so with all scenarios, especially in modern day society. However my point is that there are other aspects of education in addition to words... In conclusion, violence is more harmful than words. I can say "I want you to die" but would you actually die from that statement? No. However if I shot you in the head, you would probably die. In fact the likelihood that you would die from someone violently attacking you as opposed to damning you with words is pretty obvious... I would also like to point out that my opponent did not address my question regarding legalities. I had asked if words were mightier than violence, howcome violent behavior/attacks against others are outlawed whereas we have freedom of speech? He failed to address this very important point. I would like to end this debate by re-stating my stance against the resolution. I maintain that the pen is NOT mightier than the sword; at best they are of EQUAL value and often go hand in hand (eg. ending a war). However in this debate I have even given more examples to prove how violence is mightier than words...