Cool, don't undermine the arguement then, by saying words make us liars. I was not attempting to show the ethics associated with words and actions, just reputing what I saw as a counter-arguement with a little logic. 1. If you couldn't spread the result, the result would be meaningless. 2. The recording of information and communication allowed you to have sufficient data to get said result. 3. Words are what makes things happen. Walk into a room full of PhD. geneticists and say nothing at all, and be sure they say nothing at all. What are the chances that they will get up with the same idea and set out to accomplish it together. If they did by some chance have the idea of curing cancer, how would they communicate what they found and how would they check each other without communication? Life survived through instinct - actions. Yes actions are important, but they aren't everything or more important. Especially in a technological civilization or just a civilization in general, words are essential. Basic concepts can be conveyed by watching the creator create. However, to create an advanced civilization communication is necessary, and once the society is created communication is needed to maintain it. The arguement that actions came first holds no merit. In the same way that the Romans came before the USSR, the newer, more advanced, and dare I say better civilization would wipe the former off the face of the earth. Of course I could just throw you for a loop and say communication is the reason for life's survival due to DNA. Life survived through the process of evolution, which better suited them for the environment. These genes were communicated amongst the organism, from one cell to another, to continue life. The genetic language was also conveyed to the off-spring of a species. Without the ability to read these codes and sequences life would have surely died. Erm. To be politically correct I'm obligated to teach the church's view of creation. God created man with speech already built in. Check mate!
That is an extremely stretched version of what the term "communication" means. Yes, you can arguably stretch the idea that far but verbage looses usefulness if we make one word mean everything. I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here, Nitrous. You seem to be debating with Sentinel that "communication" is more important than "action". I would have to say that, using the more traditional definition of communication, that only a select few species actually engage in communication. There are millions of species that simply "do things".
Regardless, my first point is what should be debated. My second, only to be examined as either a mockery of his arguement or a brain busting epiphany that maybe communication is more prevalent than we let on. However, to take the stance of defending my arguement I will say, cells, like all life forms, are alive. Their design, function, and activities are regulated by a genetic code of nitrogen bases. This nonverbal language allows the new generation to copy and repeat successful advances within the species by reading the genetic code of past generations. Though, this may not be reading in the traditional sense and this may not be knowledge to your immediate acceptance, I assure you, any form of information storage is knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge of the past is communicated to the present.
Ok this debate is really beginning to stray way to far away from its origin. On the note of your obligation to mention the Church's views I am English and therefore have no such obligation and also I refuse to argue against religion in this debate as it is only going to alienate me in the eyes of the more devout Christians on this website. Something that I do not want to do, I am very respectful of other people's beliefs even if they are not my own. Your comparison between the Romans and the USSR is frankly a poor one. Of course the USSR would win, they have tanks and planes and machines guns. If the USSR wanted to wipe the Romans off the world, which in itself would be an action, it would not be difficult. Im going to take these two quotes and the paragraph on DNA at the same time. Predicide makes a very good point when he says that your use of communication is incredibly stretched and this really undermines your argument; not mine. This genetic communication of which you are trying to pass off as the same as words is nothing of the such. The "communication" is all actions. DNA replication is nothing more than an action. I was really going as far as I could with my references to **** Erectus and **** Sapiens; it is relevant but is was basically used to undermine your whole side of the debate by saying that life has no need for words. A cheap shot but a justifiable one. Your comments on DNA are out of place and frankly look silly in this argument. I could get books and journal articles to prove my point but it should not be necessary. Your last post was largely made up of an attempt to make a mockery of my argument but you have done quite the opposite and I believe Predicide would back me up on this. Maybe now to prevent this debate degrading to a point where it is no longer a debate but contests of stubbornness maybe we should look to see where we can draw the line between this relationship; how we can best define it. I have argued my points and truly do not believe you have undermined them; it is obvious that you must not believe that I have undermined yours but to attempt to make a mockery of my ideas and how you horribly failed to do so makes your side to this debate really on thin ice here. There is a lot of good logic in your earlier posts and I think a stress on context is very important to this argument. Which made me very confused when you compared the Romans and the USSR because there is no way that can be considered in context. Ultimately though words need action. Actions do not need words. Take the Schleswig-Holstein incident in the middle of the 19th Century as a perfect example of this. The British Foreign Secretary Palmerston used words to try and save the province from German invasion, he tried to bluff because he was not actually able to do anything about it. Bismarck called his bluff, invaded and made Palmerston look stupid ultimately leading to the end of his career. Words without action have little meaning but actions without words still have the impact of the action and the consequences of that action. It may be less felt because of a lack of words but it still happens. That is the important thing here. This argument it seems has long run its course. If we continue it would only be to repeat what has been said before and I think it should be put to the rest of ForgeHub to decide what they think is the more convincing side mine or yours.
Once again, you have totally missed the point. You have shown time and again that you have no concept of humor or metaphor. Not entirely. That was a joke. It is OK to laugh in a debate. There are no rules against it, so feel free not to take everything so personally and seriously. It obviously wasn't a poor one because you got it. Though you failed to use it in the correct context. The main point is, even if life did arise through purely actions and civilization did, in fact, rise out of actions - it would not matter. The civilization we have now relies on words. Take what you want from that. It was a silly tangent, I even admit that myself. Though, I am capable of defending it against an arguement. Whether or not you believe the ability to read and interpret language is communication or not, does not matter. It is entirely subjective and always will be. As they say, ignorance is bliss. Subjectively, life needs no words - for some. Even if I were to admit life did not need words (which, frankly, it doesn't need words in particular but does require communication) it wouldn't matter. Because the arguement is the pen or the sword. That refers to modern civilization. Once again, take what you will from this. That isn't up to me - or you for that matter. It is up to the person who reads and interprets it. Once again, it was a metaphor. Try your very hardest to understand that. And, no, I do not believe you have undermined my arguments, however, I believe I have undermined yours. The victor always writes history to his advantage, that is obvious between you and me, because we have admitted it. References of history will do nothing in this debate. Because both sides are backed at some point or another. There is no reason to reply to this, only to spark controversy. Let's have a simple, fair vote on this. If you thought Nitrous one this debate vote 5 stars, if you think Sentinel won this debate vote 1 star. There will be no recounts. There will be no bitching about the ballot being confusing. The count will stand on its merit. Democracy shall declare the winner. The outcome shall be incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may derive it but in the end there it is. (quote from tf00t). *There have been no votes place so far on this thread. The ballot is fresh as of this post. I will not be voting.
The pen is mightier than the sword only if Chuck Norris has it! Serious... It clearly depends on the scenario. Supposedly there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which seems like a good reason to go to war.
Frankly on this issue you have not made it that clear in any way what you were saying was meant to be sarcastic. I am not a mind reader. Sarcasm is achieved mostly through tone of voice so how am I supposed to get it from reading text? I can assure you i have a sense of humour. If you want to have a reasoned debate, let your arguments speak for themselves and stop patronising me. If you believe I have misinterpreted something, say so, but resorting to condescending comments is pretty senseless. To criticise my use of an actual event to back up my case when you are using metaphors to back up yours. You have given no real evidence to back up what you have been trying to say, which in itself seems to be changing every single post. I have provided quotes and examples to try and strengthen my argument and as a paramount you need to be clear in what you are debating. You simply are not; it seems that you are just trying to pull points wildly just to save face. I have to quote Predicide to really sum up my view on your side of this argument. “I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here, Nitrous.”
The church part was sarcasm or rather an attempt at humor. You took it personally, that is the only portion I have attempted to be funny to "liven" things up. In criticizing the teacher is hoping to teach. Metaphor is not the correct term in this debate, analogy is. I'm sorry for the confusion, and I'm sorry for patronizing you. I would like to point out why I feel that a historical reference does no good in this debate. Historical references hold no merit in this debate for the reason that both sides are supported by history. It would only be a debate to see who could find the most and the best references. Contest this, if you will. I would also like to point out my "metaphor" (analogy ) does hold more merit than your reference in these ways: You made the point that life, the greatest achievement of this planet, requires actions. I agreed with you and then disagreed in a somewhat playful manner (it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, though I didn't let that on too well). However, after I agreed I made, my now infamous, analogy. What I meant by it was, that no matter how life arose, through words or actions, it arose, and this life now has a civilization. This advanced technical civilization requires communication to stay afloat, coupled with actions. However, it is my opinion without the words telling what the actions to do, you would not have a functional society, at least on the scale we have it today. If I did not make myself clear in this, please say so and I will revise it ASAP. To quote Sentinel: "There is a lot of good logic in your...posts." I, in no way, took that out of context. (Please laugh)
Lol that did make me laugh. Very clever in removing the word earlier See problem with internet forums is that things like sarcasm are a pain in the arse to try and convey to people without being completely obvious which sort of defeats the point then! Yeah metaphor really was not the right word to use I have to agree. This is really what I was hoping to see with your post. I completely agree with you that the person who finds the best references will have an upper hand in the debate but I am going to say that so far I have the best references, at least in the number of references (its a pure number game and I have more) but also in the quality of the references in my opinion. You have not really made much of an attempt to find external support for your argument but rather put forward your own opinion and hope that it stands. This is where I feel my argument is certainly stronger in many ways, even if people disagree with my argument they will have to admit it is better supported. Ignoring my quotes and historical references the paragraph I wrote on life being the greatest achievement is not a reference but purely a matter of opinion. To be a reference I would have to have found and use it via an external source which I have not. It is simply my opinion. I think you are 100% correct in saying "This advanced technical civilization requires communication to stay afloat, coupled with actions." The relationship between the two is undeniable and unbreakable. Without words then the society we live in today would struggle to survive as it currently does but it does not mean that it would not exist in my opinion. It would merely be different; for better or worse we cannot know because we do not live in such a reality. We both seem to agree, going on your reply, on the importance of the action in being the instrumental factor of the start of life and such. Though it seems you are somewhat reluctant to say it. However if do feel that to pursue this line of argument basically puts you up the creek without a paddle, if life did not exist because of its actions; words could never have come into being, and is a rather anti-climatic way to end this debate. So maybe we should look to focus our attention on something different. The more recently we look back into history the more important words have become but where in history can we truly say that words became a realistic challenger to the importance of actions? Oh by the way I will amend the quote I used in my last post. "I do now understand what you are trying to argue here Nitrous" Until your last post your argument was a bit all over the place but I do understand now that you are trying to argue that words are more important than actions in the context of the current day. Frankly we are both right for different reasons which is probably why this debate has gone on for so long lol I will just to be annoying add in another two references to end my post. On the 20th of March 2003 the second Gulf War began. In the months building up to this date the UN and a large number of the general public world wide complained and tried to prevent the war from happening. According to French academic Dominique Reynié between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against war in Iraq, the demonstrations on February 15, 2003 being the largest and most prolific. The US, Britain and a few other countries chose to ignore the protests of these people and invaded Iraq with the US government announcing that “Diplomacy had failed”. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” My take on this: Words were used to try and deter the US from its planned course of action. Words can and were ignored. In many situations words are powerless to those who will not listen. Actions are powerful because they cannot be ignored. On September 11th 2001, al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and attacked targets on mainland America. Look at the world around us today. The War on Terror causing the deaths of thousands of people across the globe. The cost of war has had incredible and has had undeniable effects on the world economy and, whilst not being the sole cause of, has certainly helped shaped the current world economic crisis. 9/11in America, 7/7 in London, the Madrid bombings. It all stems from the actions of al-Qaeda on September 11th 2001. Personally I think this is a scary reminder of how powerful actions are
"It all stems from the actions of al-Qaeda on September 11th 2001." Or maybe it stems from America's wordy support of Israel? At any rate, neither can be undermined though one can be made to appear more influential. The act of protesting did not deter the U.S. Actions and words failed, no need to blame it on one of them. However, it is at this time I would like to shift the debate for future users to the real subject. The subject was not "Do actions speak louder than words" the subject was "The Pen, Mightier than the Sword??" Taken in the quote's original context, you find that it means can speeches or peaceful means of negotiation gain the upper hand more quickly than rioting or war(note - that's how I interpret it). Use the civil rights movement. If blacks had gone about burning cities, this would have built white hate against them. Instead Martin Luther King Jr. used speeches and peaceful protest to show their ignorance. His words undermined the actions of racist whites. In line with English heritage, you could identify William Wallace who used actions to gain back his land rather than politicians who were easily bribed. Both work equally. It depends on the context of the scenario.
My point of view is with no war then each country will find out that they can do what ever they wish to one another and they will just walk away.This will be more then chaotic,Imagen Canada they can just take your farm land and you are forced to just say alright and try to shove each other out of the way,War of any scale is more then just in portent,The end result is that war of any scale is required once and awhile....
I always hear actions speak louder than words which I believe is true. Imagine if you're married. You're having an angry argument with the spouse. You keep yelling and yelling and finally you stop. Eventually you go back to your usual ways (depending on how each other feels). Now, lets back that up and replay it. You keep yelling and yelling and finally, you strike your spouse. That smack or punch or whatever it was could cause a divorce, a suing, loss of your children, or even mental pain (because you never thought you would do that). Usually after a physical fight, people break up. My wife and I yell enough to wake the dead, but we both know that if we ever stuck each other out of anger, we would split up. Secondly, as my psychologist teacher said: "A small country could declare war and no other country would hear. Although, if they launched missiles or killed the other countries citizens, that country would know and retaliate."
Totally agree with Juggernaut on this. Actions do speak louder than words, because if someone attacked someone, and say killed them, that would be in the news and the newspaper. If someone said "I'm going to kill you" that wouldn't be all over the news. And now for something I've been wanting to say for a very long time: "Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword, obviously never encountered automatic weapons."
hmmm, im going to say one thing. If Iraq decided to attack Israel, and America wanted to stop them. We would say, "oh no your not" Then what?
America went to war against the Taliban! Not Iraq, the Taliban are trying capture Pakistan, Pakistan is a weak country with a weak government and horrible military. Pakistan has Nuclear weapons. The Taliban are Anti-Americans, guess which country will get nuked if the Americans did not come in. Also, if you want to debate the war go on another thread. This is about the pen(words and diplomacy) mightier than Swords(War and weapons)
Not really. If you say you are going to kill someone, it will be perceived as a possible threat. It could be publicized because it could have potentially hurt someone. EX: Bomb threats at schools or other threats like that are on the news. But what you said isn't really the point. It isn't whether or not someone said they are going to kill someone or they did. It is about diplomacy vs actual warfare. My opinion is that diplomacy should come first, because it resolves conflict without death. Also, diplomacy can speak much louder than fighting if it is effective. If you make a good case, how can anyone argue with you? Of course, if that person is pig-headed and won't listen, then you fight them.