The debate "Pen is mightier than the sword." was started by
February 26, 2016, 4:31 am.
By the way, NaggingNut is disagreeing with this statement.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Pugsly posted 1 argument, openparachute posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Rhetorician posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
healthywhealthy, PoliticsAsUsual, RyanWakefield, PsychDave, Sally, barman, danielle, Pugsly, fadi, openparachute, supercat and 5 visitors agree.
NaggingNut, xaveragexjoesx, Rhetorician, lawyerlady, inkaanabi_20, R_o_h_i_t, Anjali, Austin7779 and 6 visitors disagree.
the pen approves or vetoes treaties that send men into battle with their swords.
When a group of men can learn from books which was written. The men may make new ways of fighting. For example. they may be the first to make steel. then with the power of the pen they may also recruit a group of men. Which will them to fight better and longer.
The pen is not mightier for it comes after what is said or persuasive appeals. This ordinary means that the pen represent mere ceremony or policy already deliberated upon placing speech as superior. I say ceremony for pen as it must only reinstate what was discussed leading the recording, contracting, agreement that then lead to logistical arrangements for sword. Of course one would contest that raw barbarism introduced through the sword can precede the eloquence of less direct violence, perhaps through something like imperialism (slaughtering a defenseless or misunderstood people) but still there would seem more the case that language and intentions compels most greatly before physical transgression. Otherwise there couldn't be stability anywhere in the social world except in the recesses of volcanic eruptions, peaks of avalanches, hurricanes, and other natural catastrophes. thank you