The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

So to keep myself from wanting to tear my hair out in frustration, I want to clarify on what the actual resolution is before I go into the specifics of her last round. The resolution is, as stated, that Resolved: The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be RemovedHer definition of what a swearing filter is is that it's a filter that censors out words that could potentially offend other people. Whether or not one type of swear is more offensive than another type of swear and what makes it more offensive than another type of swear is the literal definition of irrelevant to the topic. Removing the language filter would be removing the filter so that nothing is filtered. If she isn't defending this, then she's not actually affirming the resolution. This answers her religious grounds and the difference between slurs and swears arguments because they're literally besides the fvcking point. Regardless of where the origins of what is profane come from and if slurs are worse than swears for whatever reason literally doesn't actually address the argument of if we should filter them out or not. Her entire responses to these points is that I'm not understanding her argument, but then she literally just repeats the very thing that I respond to. She tried to get fancy with affirming the resolution (probably because she was debating against me and wanted to try and style on me a little), and her arguments don't actually affirm. Don't let her get out of it. So lets go through each point specifically now.Communitarianism:I love how she quotes the part where I talk about communitarianism and then says I dropped it....She doesn't actually understand what communitarianism is talking about if she's saying that communitarianism is talking about individual action. Communitarianism has literally nothing to do with "acting on what is right and wrond". To quote specifically from her cited example:"this leads to a second premise that emphasizes the common good as an ideal. Such a premise downplays the values of individuality, autonomy, and personal rights, so prevalent in other ethical theories, in favor of a focus on the virutes and actions that support the interests of society as a whole. While this does include respect for human life and dignity, allowing for all persons to achieve a meaningful potential, the common good also calls for concern for long-term sustainability, intergenerational justice, an emphasis on active and informed citizenship, and a balance between individual and communal interests. At times, the common good may require all citizens to consider the needs of the broader community above the needs of any one individual, group, or organization." Like, she literally is advocating for the exact opposite of communitarianism. Prefer my link into communitarianism because I advocate for the collective good of everyone in the community through my advocacy of an optional filter (allowing those who want to swear to swear while protecting those who are offended by swearing by filtering it for them), while she isn't even advocating for her own framework. Religious Meaning to Profane:She literally spent this entire area saying that I didn't understand her argument and re-repeating the exact text of her argument. She doesn't make a response to literally any of the three responses I made to this argument. So even if you were even slightly considering that there was a reason to buy this argument, you aren't now. Benefits to Swearing:Extend my first response that physical and mental benefits to swearing aren't actually prevented by a filter. We can still swear all the god damn time with the filter in place, meaning that I can access the benefits just as much as she fvcking can. There's nothing really stopping me from doing it in the current system. Her response is that the current system prevents you from typing it up and posting it and making it visible, but a) making it visible doesn't mean I'm not expressing myself for my own personal benefit. There's nothing in her arguments that show that others need to hear me swearing for me to feel better from swearing, but also b) cross apply her own argument that there are plenty of ways around the current filter. She's trying to argue that people can't actually post and express their swearing with the filter in place while at the same time saying that people can get around the filter in a whole bunch of different, creative ways. This puts her in a double-bind, either a) people can get around the current filter in a bunch of different ways, so having a filter in place doesn't actually prevent us from expressing our swearing and reaping the benefits of it, or b) a filter actually does prevent people from swearing and getting around it in meaningful ways. She can't have it both ways. But then third, even if you don't buy that, having an optional swearing filter (i.e. my advocacy) solves for this dilemna because I allow those who want to express themselves via swearing to express themselves while protecting those who are hurt by this kind of expression. I best allow people to get these benefits while also protecting those who find swearing to be distasteful or offensive. Difference Between Swearing Filter and Slur Filter:Extend my argument that there's literally no difference between the two. As per her own definition, a swearing filter is a filter that blocks out words that are offensive to people. Her argument of slurs being more offensive than swearing misses the point that both can be viewed as offensive regardless. As such, she doesn't even meet her own definition of what a swearing filter is with her arguments. This means that both of her proposed "counterplans" don't actually affirm the resolution as they still leave in place something that filters out language that is offensive to people. As per her own definition that she provided in the first round, she needs to remove the filter that blocks out all offensive language. Regardless of what you want to label it as (swearing filter, profanity filter, naughty-potty-mouth-word filter, etc.) is irrelevant to the fact that the name of the filter doesn't change what the filter does. If there is some kind of filter that filters out some kind of offensive language, then the resolution isn't affirmed. It can't get simpler than that.Responses to my advocacy:She makes the argument that there are too many different variations of curse words and different ways to spell out curse words and curse words in different languages that a filter is ineffective. What she doesn't realize is that my advocacy of an optional filter solves for this problem by removing the incentive that people have to actually try to bypass the filter. The whole reason why people bypass the filter now is that they can't post if they don't. My advocacy allows for them to not need to bypass the filter to post in the first place, rather that the system automatically censors the swear that they put in without actually preventing them from posting. Why would I go through the effort of finding a symbol that resembles a bunch of different letters to spell out a word that's censored when I can literally just press a button to disable the filter on my account and type out the word normally? So my advocacy solves for this problem. The incentive to get around the filter is that we can't post without getting around it. I remove that need, which removes the reason we would have to try and bypass it. This means that it doesn't matter how many different ways she can come up with to get around the filter -- no one is actually going to need to, hence no one will try.Without an incentive to try and bypass the filter, we don't actually have a reason to post fancy ways around the filter. This means that the filter will be effective at censoring swearing. Her other response is that it disables the filter for the account, so that removes the filter. But last I checked, DDO wasn't consistent of just a single account. It disables it for that account specifically, but the filter would remain on the site and on those accounts who don't disable the filter. It most certainly negates the resolution.Conclusion:Her fancy attempt at semantics is failing miserably. It doesn't matter what she wants to call the filter, because regardless she still has to remove the filter that censors offensive language. Not just some offensive language. What type of language is more offensive and where that offensive language comes from is literally irrelevant to this. Her arguments don't actually affirm because they leave a filter in place that censors offensive language. This means she's not actually removing the filter. I'm the only one attempting to link back to her framework of communitarianism. And my advocacy solves for the harms of offending people while still allowing people to access the benefits of expressing themselves simultaneously and removes the incentive that people have to bypass the filter. It's literally the best possible solution.