The sword is mightier than the pen.

RE: Only One Country Has Physical Dominance Coveny claims that because there is one country / government that is MOST dominant (i. e. , the USA) no other government can exhibit dominance. That is silly. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are just a few examples of countries that hold power because they are backed by military might and could significantly threaten world peace, even though none of them have the mightiest military. Con will not be able to deny that the USA is very much concerned with the military going-ons of countries like North Korea and other enemies, even though the USA has far more power. Thus the sword (military might) provides one with significance and influence, even if one is not the strongest. RE: Countries That Have No SwordI challenged Con to find a country that existed without a military. However note that in the last round (in the last paragraph) I explicitly stated this: "Governments could not exist unless there was physical force to back up every law and legal document. Otherwise, the government could only exist insofar as other people allow it to. " Ergo, countries with military power or any force behind it must *allow those nations to exist* . .. but if a side with more power did NOT want those countries to exist, they would simply use their dominance to eradicate them or ignore them entirely, and they wouldn't be legitimized. A number of polities have sought diplomatic recognition from the international community as de jure sovereign states, but have not been universally recognized [1]. So basically more powerful and influential countries (with significant militaries) do not acknowledge them as legitimate states. Similarly, "In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the contested entity, making the description of the country's de facto status problematic" [1]. In other words, once a country with a significant military DOES recognize a territory as being legitimate, then it has weight. We see this with Iran legitimizing Palestine. Without the backing of a country with a military (like Iran) then Palestine might cease to have any global significance. That is true of all the countries Con listed. They include seven of the world's 10 smallest independent countries by land area. "Traditionally [those countries] weren't subject to invasion," explained Peter Stearns, a George Mason professor who edited the 2013 book Demilitarization in the Contemporary World [2]. But just in case, the standard for most of these countries is to have military arrangements with bigger, stronger countries who offer them militaristic protection [3]. For example, Bolivian President said Costa Rica did have an army: the United States military [2]. Further the journalist Robert Beckhusen has argued that Costa Rica has a commando team that is a "military force in all but name. " Iceland "is under the wing of NATO, and different member states take turns guarding Iceland's air space. Monaco is protected by France, Italy looks after the Vatican, and Andorra was smart enough to sign an agreement of protection in case of invasion with both of its neighbors, France and Spain" [4]. I could go on to detail the arrangement of each country, but the point here is one I already reiterated in the last round: countries that do have physical power (the sword) make the rules. So while it's nice that 22 or 23 countries exist without militaries, the fact isn that every single one of them ONLY exists because countries that could completely wipe them off the face of the Earth allow them to exist. Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that Con has in no way, shape or form proven that "the sword could not exist without the pen" which is nonsensical. The concept of aggression to exert dominance does not exist BECAUSE of the pen. In the animal kingdom, physical dominance is how different species (including humans) behave to compete for resources and mating opportunities [5]. When humans evolved into the species we are today, we did not initially have government or written and verbal language. That did not come until years later [6]. Even militaries in today's context do not exist because of government; rather governments exist because of militaries (or militias). We see that with the USA as one example. The USA only exists a nation specifically because a militia FOUGHT for independence, and the military established an entirely new government. The USA government would not exist if not for people fighting for its existence through physical force! Thus I have defeated Con's point that the sword could not exist without the pen, and this example (the creation of the USA government after war) proves it's the other way around. RE: "The Pen Is Only Mighty Because of the Sword"Con asks "Are all your actions motivated by fear of the sword? " He argues that only sociopaths need violence to be decent. However I never said that physical force was the ONLY motivating factor that humans have. Yet just because we are motivated by things other than violence, does NOT prove that violence isn't a more effective motivator than words. When someone asks, "Is there a gun to your head? " they are implying that having a gun to your head (i. e. the threat of death) is the only thing that would or should motivate you to do something in particular. Obviously when someone is put in danger, they do things that they absolutely would not do if they were not in harm. For instance, a bank teller would have no reason to give a bank robber money just because the robber used his words. Yet if a bank robber had a gun to the teller's head, that would be effective at persuading the teller to give him the cash. In short, Con's point about "mutually beneficial" transactions proves nothing. First, not all transactions are mutually beneficial (i. e. the bank robber scenario) and we can see plainly how physical dominance is more powerful / effective in those scenarios. .. and second, just because we don't always need force to motivate us, doesn't mean force isn't a far more effective motivator (on balance) than words alone. Penn Jillette has no desire to rape or kill, and neither do I. Yet Penn Jillette will not thwart any rapists or killers by saying "stop. " He could stop them, however, by fighting back if need-be. .. which is precisely why Penn Jillette is a big fan of the second amendment [7]. Now why would anyone need to bear arms if words alone were EFFECTIVE at protecting people and their rights? Clearly people recognize that the capacity for physical force empowers people. RE: Managing EmployeesObviously happy employees are more productive, and I never said otherwise. What I said is that employees don't NEED to be happy in order to be productive. My opponent has completely failed to address my example proving this point: slavery. I noted that slave owners had more physical power (weapons, etc. ) over slaves, thus they were able to sustain an institution like slavery - even though slaves out numbered the masters. It took WAR and military might to end the institution of slavery. Words alone did not (could not) free the slaves, and owners were very successful even though the slaves were miserable. RE: The Nirvana FallacyCon claims that I have utilized the nirvana fallacy which is wrong. This fallacy refers to comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. Yet Coveny has failed to specify any things I've compared that are unrealistic. Instead, his rebuttal is that "there is always someone bigger" meaning physical force does not offer security. To illustrate this, he gives an example of noting the colonists defeated the British. Of course this is ironic for several reasons. First, it backs up MY point that the sword created the government (USA) and not the other way around. And second, he is just explaining that one group was more physically dominant than another! So yes, while dominance is transient - meaning you never know who will become more powerful next - here Con seems to acknowledge that having physical prowess DOES give someone power in the first place. RE: MachiavelliPlease extend my argument on Machiavelli: he explains that people will become disloyal if circumstances warrant, thus the need for exerting dominance. Maintaining the state requires obedience of the people. I explained that obedience is maintained through law/order/the sword. RE: Kim Jung UnCoveny dropped my argument. My point is that people (like the USA) all over the world are afraid of Kim Jung Un getting nuclear powers, even though we have far more nuclear powers and could beat him in a war. This proves that one having significant military might gives them power and influence, even if they aren't the MOST powerful. Thus Con's remark that "having physical force is ineffective unless you are the strongest" is completely and utterly wrong. I have proven this many times throughout this debate, and North Korea is just one example. The world is highly afraid of terrorist groups like ISIS, even though by comparison ISIS is infinitely smaller and significantly less armed than, say, the USA. RE: Advocating Violence Con is wrong - I do NOT have to advocate the use of violence. I only have to prove that violence is more effective than words. Let's go back to my bank robber example. I recognize that threatening someone with a gun is MORE EFFECTIVE at achieving a desired result (stealing money from a bank). However I do NOT advocate using violence to rob a bank. I'm simply saying that the threat of violence is more effective than words alone, and that is my only burden in this debate. ConclusionIt's been fun, but I have annihilated every one of Con's arguments. All of my strongest arguments remain uncontested. SOURCES: . http://www.debate.org...