I have a number of hobbies. One of them is fencing, as a joke. I once fought with a pen against a sword. I broke my thumb.

The pen is not mightier than the sword.

It has been said that history is written by the winners. Supposing this we are left with implication that though the pen may be a great product for social change it serves mostly at the behest of the sword.

People say "the pen is mightier than the sword. Writing and words hold greater power than arms." I beg to differ. Actually, the sword is much mightier than anything. By sword I don't literally mean a 'sword' as in 'Oh, in a fight a pen is no match for a sword!' Even though that's true, that's not what I'm arguing. The word sword symblifies arms of any kind. The one with the bigger sword will always be victorious, no matter how powerful the opponent's pen is. By pen I mean culture, arts, literature. With a bigger sword, you inherit the products of the pen. You may claim them as your own. The one with the pen must do what you say, or they die. You have the power of life and death. With swords, things are forced. With swords, people must obey your every command if they value their lives. Swords have shaped this very world, and the ones with bigger swords have forced their cultures unto their prey to eventually make the world we live in today.

I negate the resolution: The pen is mightier than the sword. Intelligent humans probably would agree that if you took into perspective what written or spoken insult is, that is quite pathetic compared to the sword. Any intelligent human would also realize that others opinions really shouldn't affect them if they are of stable mind and personality. Any insult spoken or written is just a product of human behavior developed over centuries. For instance the middle finger was invented during the Hundred Years War. When a French bowman was captured by the British, they would cut off his middle finger, so that even if he did escape, he could not use a bow anymore. When French bowman escaped with there fingers intact, they would flick the British off in a "you didn't get my finger" retaliation. Somehow, today's society converted this into the phrase "f* off". This is just one example of how insults communicated in a non-physical manner are just misinterpreted trinkets of history. Insults come and go as well, almost in a cyclic process, deeming them inconstant. This is opposed to physical abuse or contact as a result of anger, which is evident all over the animal kingdom, including human society. "The sword" has always been apart of history. It is clearly more effective in warfare, as demonstrated with Korea's nuclear weapon stockpiling, the Iraq war, and the war in Palestine. You don't see soldiers screaming "your mom" at the enemy do you?

I therefore continue to negate the resolution because of "the pen's" inconstancy, inertness, and pathetic stature when compare to the sword.

The pen is not mightier than the sword.The lead up to the Iraq war had a number of journalists and level headed people facing the war mongering jingoism of the Bush administration. If the pen were mightier than the sword, should not the cooler heads have prevailed.

It is believe that pen is not mightier than swords in the fact that you can fight with a sword and injure someone severely very quickley and it doesn't take much to kill with it but if you try to kill someone with a pen, the person you're trying to kill has to be pretty retarded if they can't defend theirself. they can also sex...................... love