The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

"First, she's misrepresenting her own definition. It doesn't matter what different kinds of names that something goes by, i.e. whether we call it a swearing filter or a profanity filter or a cursing filter or a "naughty word" filter, if they all share the common definition of "something that removes words the community finds offensive". This means that if a community could find the word to be offensive, then it's applicable to the filter." My opponent must have not understood my argument on profane. I specifically argued that a cuss word is not describing someone, it is in reference to something. My opponent seems to think that the whole DDO community is prone to be offended by swear words, which is in fact not the case. If he wants to win this argument, he must prove that the DDO community as a whole is offended by all profane words. Second, words find subjective meaning through how the community perceives the meaning of the word. We can go all day talking about words that were originally defined one way but used in another way, but the argument misunderstands the entire process of communication[1]. When communicating the person talking (the sender) talks to the other person (i.e. creates a message), where the other person (the receiver) hears the speech and interprets the message using communally understood norms. If I ask someone to pass me the ice, and by ice I'm referring to a bowl of soup, the person I'm talking to isn't going to understand what I'm talking about. This happens all the time. My opponent argues that A) Something can be perceived a different way and B) People will get offended. Let's face it, it's a debating website. Members get offended every other hour. This is just like when somebody runs a K in a debate. One person may understand the meaning of the K and someone's may misinterpret it. Does this mean that DDO should make a rile banning K's? Communitarianism: "I concede that we should evaluate the round under who's best respecting the community's interests. The round will break down to who better accesses the framework." My opponent clearly ignores my "Communiratianism" case. He ignored my argument that in order for members to understand what is right and wrong, they must act on it. Instead, he drops the case and goes on to rebut my other points. Religious Connotation to 'Profane': "First, this literally has no bearing on the resolution. Refer back to my first observation. Second, you don't have to be religious to get offended by swearing. I can get just as offended with someone who tells me to go fvck myself if I'm not religious compared to if I was religious. " Once again, my opponent misinterprets my argument on profane. I specifically said that word "Profane" definition is based on religious ground. Third, even if we derrive what we consider to be swearing from religious norms, that doesn't actually mean anything in terms of how you evaluate the round. Fvck suddenly doesn't become not a cuss word because we're thinking of things in a religious perspective now. There's literally no impact to this argument. So, incase my opponent missed the whole "Profane" argument here it is: As provided by the "Swearing Filter" definition, profanity can mean several different things to people. What is profane and not, depends on one's background, how they were raised their moral beliefs. But, if we take a look further into the word "Profane" we will see that what is Profane, comes from a religious ground. "Profane" can be defined as [3] " (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.) There are estimated to be around 4,200 types of religions. This includes Atheism, Agnostic and Secularism. These religions don't believe there is a god, or there is no valid proof of God or they believe in science reasoning. Thus, what is profane and not is based on religious ethics, it's safe to say that: A) What is Profane or not can vary to multiple people. B) Not everyone is religious, so determining on what is Profane can be derived from a moral stand point not a religious one. As stated, some people don't perceive words to be profane, while others do. This has to do with religion and the way one was raised. Benefits to Swearing: "First, this entire list of physical and mental benefits to swearing is non-unique to the affirmative. It's not like having a swearing filter prevents people from swearing. It just censors the swearing. This means that I can access these benefits just as much as she can. Second, the swearing filter doesn't actually preclude people from expressing themselves. If I just really want to say fvck and there's a swearing filter in place, that doesn't actually prevent me from saying fvck" But it does prevent you from typing it, and posting it, and making it visible for others to see. "Neither of the counterplans actually affirm the resolution. If we're filtering words that reference individually specific words but not words that aren't specific to individuals, then the filter would still exist. And if we're making the filter something that's optional for people to use but able to be turned off if desired, the filter would still exist. She's supposed to be affirming that we're not filtering anything at all, i.e. removing the filter. If the filter still exists within the system, even in an altered state, she doesn't actually affirm." Let's note, we are arguing that the **SWEARING** filter should be removed. A swearing filter is a swearing filter. Its blocks out profane words. My opponent seems to think, and claims that if we have any other sort of filter, this it's automatically considered to be a swearing filter. Filter words/slurs that are specific to an individual: First, this doesn't limit itself to just racial/ethic/sexist slurs. I can be specific to an individual by telling them to go fvck themselves and be specific to an individual. There are ways to make any kind of swearing specific to an individual, meaning we don't actually remove anything. Second, a slur doesn't have to be targeted specifically at an individual to be offensive. Third, this is literally her advocating we include words into the filter that aren't included currently. There's no possible world in whcih this affirms. My opponent again, misunderstands my argument. He states that " I can be specific to an individual by telling them to go fvck themselves and be specific to an individual" This statement doesn't *describe* someone. It isn't in reference to someone. It's basically telling someone they should go to this. I argued that slur words are more offensive than swearing words because a slur describes someone in a negative way, and a group of people as a whole. Create an Optional Filter: First, this literally doesn't remove anything about the filter at all. The filter as it exists remains in place in it's entirety. Second, just making it optional to use doesn't actually remove the filter. If anything this negates the resolution as a way to protect the interests of people who get offended by swearing as well as enable those who don't get offended by it. My opponent seems to ignore my whole argument which distinguishes the difference between a *Swear words * and a *slur*. I have shown and proven that slur words can do much more damage and offend someone much more than a swear word because a swear words does not describe someone. So yes, we should remove the *SWEARING* filter, and replace it with a *SLUR* filter. This means that I'm going to be turning this specific counter-plan in my favor. My advocacy is as follows: Update the filter with words that aren't included in the filter but should be (i.e. discriminatory slurs, common curse words that somehow aren't included). What about people who don't speak English, or they do, but use Google translate to come up with a swear word? Does this mean you are willing to go through every language spoken, and filter all of their profane words? Censor any word that is caught within the filter to be "****", regardless of the word that was filtered. Okay, but members could still use "Sh!t" or "Fuc%" Are you suggesting you try to filter all of these symbol combinations to try and filter something that is offensive to many? Make the filter optional and able to be turned off. By default it will start on, and individual users would need to disable the filter via their account settings. And this is basically my counter plan. By turning off the swearing filer, the filter exist. but by turning it on, it's then removed off of one's account. My opponent tries to come up with multiple counter plans. But obviously they would take way to much work and time to do. Who has the time to filter all of theese words and combinations and languages? This could take up to years. Summary... My opponent clearly drops my Communitarian case. He also didn't not comprehend the clear difference between a profane word, and a slur. He also seems to get confused on what a filter actually is. He seems to think that any type of filer, is a swearing filter. Let's think of we somehow had a plagiarism filter, does this mean it's a swearing filter? All of my opponents counter-plans would fail for the reasons provided above. There is NO way to filter all profane words in the English language, and in many other languages. Also note that my opponent argues we should filter censored words. This is impossible because of all symbol combinations. Example: F*ck F%ck Fu*ck etc..