Expletives Should Never be Used

Similar to my R4 argument, I shall first refute and defend my opponent's arguments and my own, respectively. Then, I shall present my concluding statements. Refutations/Defenses1. With regards to Pro's sentiments about the multiple-perspective argument, he is indeed contradicting himself. He says that my argument that any phrase can be considered offensive is invalid, but then turns around and says that any expletive can be considered offensive and discriminatory. He then uses a red herring in the form of talking about how debate works. Not only that, but he says that it is ludicrous for me to think that expletives aren't offensive when used for discrimination; but this is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The issue that he is pushing is that expletives should never be used, not discrimination. His statement would be akin to saying "It is ludicrous to believe that knives aren't deadly when they're used for murder. " Of course, but he's drawing an automatic correlation that ALL expletives are used for are discrimination, which is clearly false, as I have demonstrated in previous rounds. He then says that he has indeed defended his claims--this is a flat out lie. All he has presented is heresay evidence and hypotheticals, with no true sources or real-life examples to back up these claims.2. I think at this point my opponent is just acting dishonest. He claims that I have not defended my position--indeed, he is being the true hypocrite. I have rebutted his heresay claims AND presented counter-examples,with sources and evidence to back my claims; he has not. He then again resorts to his speech about debating. He says that he's said why children hearing expletives are bad before--in fact, he just stated why in this last round. Not only this, but this is also a bare assertion. He then challenges me with the idea that expletibes will spread among children. To this, I still remain firm that it is the parent's responsibility. And not only that, but if a child hears an expletive, as they most definitely will, why care? Apparently Pro hasn't shown why, as all he's said is that they are horrible, but with no real examples or solid evidence to prove it. Lastly, he says I should refute his arguments--which I have, as I have shown before.3. I will admit that this was a typo by me. I wsn't calling expletives art, but what i MEANT to say was "who says expletives don't add anything to art? " Apparently Pro says in his usual vehement and unfounded way. He claims this is founded in the same principle that he first said was invalid. Thus, the same contradiction. And, again, he relies on the "what if," idea. While this might work for other resolutions, I hope the voters will see that to suggest a complete removal of something requires more than a what-if: it needs concrete examples.4. Pro here claims that there is some fabled quote, but can't seem to find it that will support his claim. Unfortunately, this real example was never brought forth, and to believe it exists based on heresay is illogical. He then decides to pass judgement on the whole set of words--again, with no support. ConclusionOverall, I hope that you the voters will see the sheer fallacy in my opponent's arguments, which, as I have indicated, are pure heresay, unfounded and, to be honest, misdirected. Not only are the arguments he gave very weak, but they are more directed toward a bannign of discrimination, not expletive words themselves. While his lack of support is bad enough for his case, I have presented at LEAST one case (artistic expression) with evidence to back it up, if not MORE, that justifies the use of expletives in at least some cases. In other words: He didn't support his resolution, I reuted it and provided counter-examples. Thus, the resolution is negated. Thank you.