DDO should NOT ban profanity.

Some Nonsense: CON says: “This is an argument about banning profanities only. ” YYW says: Bullsh! t! CON has consistently proposed that the metric for banning words should be their potential to be offensive. His condemning words: “Profanities could be used to directly insult members of DDO, causing them harm. ” While his original reasoning may only (at this present time) apply to profanities, his the slopes of his logic are slippery indeed. Applying the same (slippery slope reasoning, from his third argument presented in Rd. 2), indeed here “the floodgates are open” to ban the entire english language! What comprehensive bullsh! t! Because “the floodgates” to imprudently, impractically, unjustifiably, intolerably and irreducibly ban the whole of the English language, my opponent’s arguments fail on all counts. He is obviously smoking crack. I ask you, judges? How could you give a win to a crack user? To quote a random 1980’s nobody: “Crack is wack. ” Give the win to YYW (pro) and say no to drugs. CON says: “Undressed arguments” from the last round” were left undressed. YYW says: Bullsh! t! CON has this fettishistic obsession with the inherently offensive nature of some words. What nonsense! Words have no “inherent” meaning. Words are given meaning by what a majority of people consider them to be, and again, their meaning varies by context. CON uses the “N” word as a prime example. I say bullsh! t! Where two brothas’ in the hood be talkin’ at each odda, and Jerome say some sh! t like: “My nigga, how’s it hangin’? ” and Bad Bad LeRoy Brown is all like “It’s hanging down down low, my nig, all the way to the ground! ” There is nothing inherently offensive about that interchange whatsoever, in the context it was presented (an African American urban neighborhood, for example, between two young African American males). CON wishes to impose his linguistic nazism on Jerome and Bad Bad LeRoy Brown as if he knows better than they do about what words are or are not offensive! The audacity! I favor linguistic freedom, and support the right to employ any word of anyone’s choosing from the whole of their respective lexicon, however spicy said word may or may not be. CON says: “This is a site for civil discussion. ” YYW says: BULLSH! T! and RACIST BULLSH! T, at that! CON would choose to segregate words based on what he calls “inherent” offensiveness, and among the words that he considers to be “inherently offensive” are the aforementioned “N” word. Jerome and Bad Bad LeRoy Brown are as civilized as you and me, but my opponent has the audacity to call them and the words of their culture “uncivilized. ” This unfettered racism and prolific intolerance is as offensive as it is inappropriate in this, the year of 2012. But I, YYW, have a dream! I have a dream that this linguistic Jim Crow’ness may be forever purged from the rules and regulations of DDO! I have a dream that Jerome and Bad Bad LeRoy Brown will be able to use the words of their respective culture without fear of reprisal from linguistic racists like my opponent! Let freedom ring from the political forums to the personal forums! Let freedom ring in every debate without exception! Let freedom ring throughout the fruited plains of DDO! I have a dream today! CON says: “As a practical matter, allowing profanities increases the workload for moderators. ” YYW says: BULLSH! T! BULLSH! T! BULLSH! T! If we let freedom ring (as I have described above) throughout the fruited plains of DDO, there will be no need for moderators. We will be advancing freedom in a way that I described in my first round syllogisms. In support of freedom, I quote the great philosopher John Lennon: “you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one! ” I have a dream that a brotherhood of man may unite behind the principle of freedom of speech. Where there are no rules, there is no need for enforcers of any kind! In such a brotherhood, no moderators would be required. We would be self regulated by ourselves, and live in perfect harmony. Btw, my opponent hasn’t demonstrated how banning profanity would necessarily make DDO members more prone to harass other members than they are now. Why? Because he can’t. But, he thinks that you all will, and so as judges, how can you give a win to someone who thinks that you are all prone to verbal violence! I love and trust the members of DDO, and believe that we have no need for moderating! The moderators themselves would be free! Free at last! Free at last, my brothers we would be free at last! CON says: “Freedom of speech only applies to public places, not private websites. ” YYW says: BULLSH! T! (And that my opponent needs to take a course in constitutional law, lol) The fundamental idea of the first amendment right to freedom of speech is the notion of free expression, what John Milton described in Paradise Lost as “the marketplace of ideas. ” It is to protect the freedom of that marketplace that the framers of the US Constitution took every measure to protect the right and liberty of the people to freely discuss without fear of reprisal any idea or principle, in any way that is not obscene, that they may choose. If my opponent knew anything about free expression, he would have taken the time to read Miller v. California, where the Supreme Court of The United States held that the word “f***” is constitutionally protected by the first amendment. He would further recognize that the precedent of RAV v. St. Paul (the case he cited) has long been abandoned as bad law, and what hasn’t been abandoned has been narrowed and constrained in favor of unfettered free speech, pursuant to evolving social toleration and norms of social exchange. The “fighting words” doctrine was finally abandoned in totality by Snydar v. Phelps (2011), which held that laws designed to quash free expression of any kind are inherently unconstitutional. My opponent should read up on his legal jurisprudence. In conclusion: Throughout the course of this debate, we have learned that my opponent is a racist crack addict who doesn’t know how to properly make legal arguments. My arguments and responses have been bathed in freedom of speech, the life blood of a functioning democracy. I support the right to use any word that anyone so chooses, because words are the means to meaning and for those who avail themselves to listen, facilitate the enunciation of truth. The outcome of this debate compels an affirmative ballot.