The sword is mightier than the pen.

I'll make the opening round quick. The pen is mightier than the sword = writing is more effective than military power or violence. The word effective means successful in producing a desired or intended result. I will be arguing that physical force is better and more reliable at producing a desired result than writing, or the intent to persuade through rhetoric. Note that I do not have to argue that physical dominance is always preferable or moral - merely that it is more EFFECTIVE than verbiage alone. I'll start by acknowledging the provocative and transformative power of words. Indeed they can be powerful, crippling, devastating or awe inspiring. They are incredibly useful tools to communicate. It is how this country's founding fathers created a document like The Declaration of Independence, which contained ideas that would lay the foundation for one of the most impressive legal systems of governance the world has ever known. It is how peace treaties that ended wars have come to fruition. It is how rights have been dictated to the world. It is not, however, how rights are established. Words alone are not responsible for the Declaration of Independence, or for upholding a legal system of governance amidst a chaotic and violent world. They are not how peace treaties are implemented or how law and order is actually upheld. Instead it is might: the power for physical dominance that compels people to EFFECTIVELY carry out the ideas and instructions that are written by the pen. Laws and rights that are written in global documents are only significant because they can be defended by force if need-be. If there is the belief or reality they could not be defended by force, then they would be nothing more than words that people do or do not have to care about. I could theoretically create my own country; all I would have to do is declare that I've made one. Perhaps I could write it down with my pen. But simply writing that down would do nothing insofar as having any real world impact with my words. On the other hand, if I wrote that I had my own country and I had the capacity to defend that notion with my sword (or nuclear bomb in this day and age) then it would have very real impact. If I could use physical force to carry out my idea, that strength would make me powerful whereas simply writing down words would not. One might argue that words are effective at "actually convincing" people of an idea. But what does that have to do with being effective? If my goal is to manage workers to produce 100 widgets, it doesn't matter if I've convinced the workers that they should do so. If I had the physical power to dominate and oppress or suppress them, I could get them to effectively make the widgets whether or not I've convinced them and my goal would be achieved. After all the pen is a gamble in its utility, but having the force to control others certainly provides for effectiveness. That is how an institution like slavery came about -- and it took military might and physical dominance to bring it down. Words alone did not do so; they couldn't do so. It took winning a war to end that institution. .. and then people got to write down the new law of the land; law that was established through force. In The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli famously states "Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present. "Rather than advocate the use of cruelty for its own sake, Machiavelli explains that it is necessary in the interests of the ultimate end of statecraft to flex one's military prowess. Based on his assessment of human nature, this is not only the most effective way to maintain order but the virtuous course of action; order could not be maintained otherwise. Machiavelli explains that people will become disloyal if circumstances warrant. The prince's ultimate goal is to maintain the state, which requires obedience of the people. From these two points, it follows that between benevolence and cruelty, the latter is the more reliable. By simply writing a document, a prince or governor could not simply will people into compliance. People might become passionate about a cause, even willing to fight and die for something based on being moved by one's words. Yet having to FIGHT they will, in order for the words to be effective at change. Again I'll go back to slavery as an example. It wasn't enough that powerful writing inspired people to change an institution. It took military might to transform and idea to reality. Thus the sword (physical prowess) is ultimately more effective than the pen.