On Balance, the Pen is Mightier than the Sword.

In keeping with the general format, I am going to list my opponents arguments based on the order in which they were presented and in what order they were said. So to start off with, I would like to draw the judges' attention to her first argument off my first point, which I will label 1.a. and the next 1.b. in hopes of keeping the flow organized. 1. A. The example of the worst case scenario of a playground skirmish. Lets honestly look at this as a worst case scenario. If every fight on the playground left a child a paraplegic then I am sure everyone of us would be in a wheelchair. Its the idea that NOT all, in fact very few, conflicts end in such a crippling action, but yet there very likely the potential for serious harm beyond the physical. What about the situations where no one is shoved or struck, but words are exchanged? Is there not damage done when people exchange harsh words? I find that my opponent's arguments take out the consideration of the mental health of the people involved and only deals with the physical harm. Bones can be mended, scars can disappear with a little help from a bottle of Neosporin, but there is little treatment for the harm dealt to the mind. Just because words to not harm some one physically, does not mean that one is not harmed by them. The long-term emotional damage from verbal conflicts has a substantial effect on things beyond what can be visually seen. 1. B. Her argument about how teasing has no long term effect. Against this I am going to ask the judge the same question. Have words had long term effects on you? Judges, I ask you to consider the idea of who you are today. Do you think that words had no effect in shaping you into who you are today? If you honestly believe that words in the form of teasing or harassment did not influence your life whatsoever then I must say that maybe it has never been considered in retrospect. Words are dealt with on a daily basis, and thus words shape you in ways that are likely not even considered. That was the basis of my argument in the first place, that words have much more long lasting consequences than one realizes. Next lets go to 2.a., her argument about WWII where "violence solved violence." I must take this time to point out that all though Hitler killed himself in the end, it wasn't violence that pacified the remaining loyal German men, but the fact that treaties were signed, new laws were formed and a different order was established. Violence may have led up to this point, but it was the power of words that eventually quelled and resolved the conflict. So in that sense, violence did not solve violence, it only made it easier for words to solve violence. On to 2.b. the arguments about the example of the Psychopath and the Pacifist. I agree that violence has the potential to lead to the results my opponent states. BUT it more often then not will never achieve the ends it desires. In the case of the Psychopath, you find there are more stories of murders or people who have done cruel and inhumane things, be educated about their actions and thus feel guilt and remorse or in the least decide to discontinue their present ways. Lets take the example of Attila the Hun. Violence did not quell his actions, but only fueled his desire for power. But it was the words of Pope Leo I that stopped the barbarian from continuing his devastation of Europe. Basically what I am trying to say is that in this situation, words are more successful and thus mightier than violence. On to 2.c. The argument that "I will not strike unless struck first." In sense, she is agreeing with me here. This example proves my point in that she explains how words explode into violence and only then does violence create violence. The fact is, what caused this conflict and lead to the eventual "violent action"? Words did, because words were being used as a weapon. People steel themselves with powerful and hurtful words more often then violence because words themselves hold sway over the situation. I may be going out on a limb here, but the fact of the matter is that WORDS are controlling the situation. Why do you know you should not randomly attack some one? It is because some one TOLD you not to because it would break rules or laws. Thus words create order. The laws, which were formed by WORDS control and prevent violence and anarchy from breaking loose. I need not prove that words are 100% effective here, but that words do have the power to control violence. Against 2.d. her example of how actions cause conflict, I would first like to say that again, words are used to prove her point. What I mean is that when situations get out of control and things occur that are not what we desire, we more often then not result to using words instead of violence. When some one scratches your car, do you immediately go out and attempt to physically harm that person? No. More than half the time we use words as the next course of action. We rather talk ourselves out of the anger by venting and complaining, or if we witness the crime we demand answers and may or may not use words to harm at this point. This is something I stated in the beginning of the debate and I find is one of the general themes of my arguments, that words have versatility. But I will elaborate more about that in my closing. Next lets look at 3.a. The idea that fighting can educate you. I will concede that fighting has the potential to do these things and there is no sense in arguing that it is impossible for some one to learn something from fighting. On the other hand, what I would like the judges to do at this point is weigh in the educational potential of words versus violence. Do you honestly think that we could learn such a wide range of things through violence as we do through words? Pull this idea at the end of the round, judges, for I feel this should be a deciding factor in the whole debate. IF we are to assume that knowledge is power, then which means do we gain more "power" in this sense? Is it through fighting and violence or through words and the variety of forms of education that spring forth from it? Now let us move to 4.a. the argument "The idea that Words can control violence but Violence can never control words." Ok, so possibly the word never is not appropriate. Allow me to rephrase that in a manner more fitting to the realm of reality. The fact is that words are rarely if ever controlled by violence. Even in the situation of torture, violence is prone to failure simply because the one being tortured still has the ability to lie or withhold the truth. Lets take the example of protesters, them being a perfect example of when words and violence often clash. If you use violence on the protesters, do they give in and say "Ok, you're right, my thoughts, ideas, and words are not worth it anymore"? More often then not, people will die proudly for what they believe in and the fear of violence does not overpower the desire for individuals to express themselves. Thus I see again that violence fails to control words. Also, my opponent presents the idea about the "possibility" of violence dealing with the problem of some one annoying you. I find this argument should hold no weight either way, for the fact is words just as well as violence has the "possibility" to achieve the end desire. And so judges, I would like to draw your attention specifically to one key argument of this round. Look to idea of the versatility of words that was only lightly refuted by my opponent. Words have the potential to educate, to harm, to change and to create more things than violence could ever hope to accomplish. Violence has the ability to destroy, to harm or to escalate itself, but never can it solve nearly as many problems nor can it hope to create as much as words can. I find this to be a strong issue for all 3 of you to consider when you weigh in which you find to be mightier.