The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

Two things need to be made clear before I get into the specifics of the aff argument. I'll be using these in various different places as both have various implications on her arguments.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.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. With that, let's go to the actual case.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.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. 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. Fourth, even if this is true and profanity varies based upon personal perspective, there's still a common list of words that we all agree are curse words that are socially accepted on from a wide variety of different perspectives. Just saying that these aren't curse words because you don't view them that way ignores the way that communication actually works. Refer back to the second observation. 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.Counterplan:I'll go into the specifics of the two different ideas in a second, but to address them both right here - 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.This is a game-over mistake from her because none of the rest of her evidence actually gives her any kind of way to garner offense. Benefits to cursing aren't unique to her because the filter here on DDO doesn't actually prevent us from cursing (I've done it four times so far, she's done it once), which means we're both able to use the offense. Which means we have the same links into communitarianism. So what the debate literally comes down to is her alternatives leave the filter in place. If the filter's still in place, and we're still actually achieving all of these benefits, then you negate the resolution. If she's not advocating for complete removal of the filter, then some kind of filter would still exist, which means that she wouldn't affirm the resolution. But, lets go to the different ideas individually. 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. Create an Optional Filter:There's no possible world in which this affirm the resolution. 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. 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). Censor any word that is caught within the filter to be "****", regardless of the word that was filtered. 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. This negates because we're still filtering curse words, and adding more words to the list of words being filtered. This also better links to her standard of communitarianism because I'm doing more than just protecting the interests of those people who want to express themselves via swearing, because I'm also protecting the interests of those who get offended or hurt by swearing and allowing them a safer place to interact. Summary:You evaluate the round under what's best for the community's interests. I'm best protecting community interests by protecting those who find swearing to be offensive as well as enabling the rights of those who don't view swearing to be offensive, thus protecting and benefiting both sides of the community. She only helps one side, at best.None of her arguments actually affirm the resolution. All of her arguments are either offense that I have just as much access to under my advocacy as she does, or they just don't affirm straight up because she doesn't actually remove the filter. I'm the only one advocating for their side of the debate. And, don't let her stand up and explain how she only has to remove certain words from the filter because a) that doesn't remove the filter in the first place, b) it misunderstands how we determine what words have meaning, c) it misunderstands the way communication words in the first place, and d) it misrepresents her own definition. Sources:[1] - http://study.com...