There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

Intro Thanks to Feverish for staying with the debate (the main reason for the beginning rules). As I said last round and will clarify here, I'm trying to argue based on something along the lines of – swearing has no advantage over any other form of communication (2 vs. 3). Obviously if 3 merely was a mimic of 2 it would contain a reason, yet not a good reason. I understand that this could be interpreted as a confession, but I'll be doing this in the interest of a debate. I utterly destroyed things with a poor resolution. I think it's clear that there's a definitions debate here. Also, on the definition of swearing, http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (under ‘Thesaurus') "profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger. I probably should have chosen profanity as the word, but that can't be helped. Also, I'm not fighting against religious swearing, I'm against vulgar swearing. Vulgar - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (1st definition) ‘Crudely indecent'. Also on the point of obscene - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (1st definition) - ‘Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.' I think that should clear all definitions and make it clear that something like ‘shoot!' doesn't fit the definitions listed. I apologise for clarifying late, I hadn't thought it would be a major issue (my point about semantics in R1). Emergency The maths analogy is meant to indicate that if 2 methods both achieve the desired result, then it doesn't matter which is used with regards to the purpose. If both swearing and non-swearing achieve the purpose, then there is no reason to swear (see intro on arguing about advantages). I also find it hard to see how shouting at someone over a critical issue would not be as effective as swearing. If anything the swearing might discourage people from helping because they could take offense. Still, it's up to voters as to whether these situations could happen where swearing is helpful. Arousal My point here is simple. Let's say you can use a swear word or a non-swear word to raise arousal. If the non-swear word helps arouse your partner then it doesn't matter whether the other word is habitual. Clearly, the purpose is to arouse, and so if not swearing achieves this then swearing is not required. Group Identity As I said last round, if the resolution were implemented (people didn't swear because they realised there was no reason), this situation wouldn't occur. It's a case of how voters see this, although I understand my opponent's view here. Intentional Offence I'll address my opponent's last example here. The difference is that one implies killing a person, and the other implies killing a person and forcing intercourse. The difference is an additional violation of rights. There's no real reason supplied here by my opponent for the extra word. I'd argue that a threat to one's life is paramount, so swearing doesn't achieve the purpose of threat because one's life is in danger. Literature I don't really have much to say here, I hadn't thought of it near the debate's start. I'll merely say that a poet wishes to be read, and if a lack of civility drives readers off then it does not matter that the purpose is better put forth. Anger Release This goes back to the point of what one's maximum anger release is caused by. If I were to withstand such a test, I wouldn't swear, the thought wouldn't occur so it wouldn't really help me. Also, at the end of the BBC article was an important idea ‘Swearing is emotional language but if you overuse it, it loses its emotional attachment.' At the very least, an overdose of swearing is ineffectual. Emphasis Last round I said ‘if a person does not know any swear words.' As con rightly pointed out, I am aware of swear words as nearly everyone is. What I should have said was that if a person doesn't actually use a word it shouldn't be counted as the word that expresses their maximum possible anger. Conclusion I'm well aware that I've provided a very lacklustre response. But in all fairness, con has pretty much demonstrated that there are instances where swearing has some reason to be used (by some people, one might consider the lack of civility more important say). I apologise to Feverish for not putting up more of a fight, but I'm afraid that I created a mountain to climb for myself in the resolution. Still, that's not to say I'll be swearing anytime soon. Thanks to Feverish and voters, leave RFDs please (proper ones).