Incredible debate, very enjoyable. But I am amazed that neither of you flat out made the following analogy directly:

The pen= peace
The sword= war

Had I been a contestant, I would have made that right away and argued from that standpoint. And of course I would have never accepted a debate position to argue that war is mightier than peace.

Which is mightier: peace or war. That's just my take on it, and it in no way affects the tremendous effort made by both parties here. As I said in the comment thread, it was an unwinnable debate really from the start given two competent opponents, and I would have to vote TIE. Awesome you two!

The danger of that position, in my mind, when I was deciding which angle to approach from, was having to defeat the perception that peace is merely the absence of war, which would have had me arguing that nothing is more powerful than something.

Arguing that peace is more than the absence of war necessarily leads one (as far as I can tell) down one of two paths: utopian cooperation (dangerous) or peace through enticement- soft power, which is more or less where I went.

I cut out the middle man because starting out with the defintion of pen=peace and then moving on into soft power could create the appearance, at least superficially, that I had lost ground and been forced to redefine the pen as something considerably closer to the sword than it really is (which, come to think of it, happened anyway, thanks to my shrewd opponent).

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The danger of that position, in my mind, when I was deciding which angle to approach from, was having to defeat the perception that peace is merely the absence of war, which would have had me arguing that nothing is more powerful than something.

But is it not interesting that peace is what ultimately results from war? Peace is the default state. It is the state in which the pen can flourish.

Well, I think it was a very well fought debate. I'm astounded by the amount of information presented, and wish I had the time to read it more thoroughly. Sorry to say guys I think it pays to be a little more clear and concise.

As usual, I am late to the debate. No pun intended.

Much did depend on the definitions of "pen" and "sword". The differing examples gave great material for thought. Perhaps both are needed for the goals of a civilized world. It was easy for me to see Dr. King and George Washington as "swords" which came from or led to the use of the "pen".

[edit on 2/16/2008 by Mahree]

[edit on 2/16/2008 by Mahree]