There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

Intro / Rules A few rules that should be followed by any challenger: 1. Any forfeit by either side should be counted as a loss of all 7 points by the voters to the person who did not forfeit. 2. No stupid, ridiculous / semantical interpretations - ie. 'There is a reason - I wish to swear allegiance to God ' 3. It is expected that my opponent understand what 'swearing' in a conventional sense is. 4. No unnecessary swearing in this debate (only allowed in the actual case of making arguments, I'm not going to be strict here) 5. It is expected that CON will present an argument(s) for swearing, otherwise he loses, it is PRO's job to then attack this argument. 6. Because I'm looking for an argument against swearing in particular, I'd appreciate if my opponent not use sourcing extensively, sources shouldn't be important in this debate. 6. Failure to observe the above by either PRO or CON results in an automatic 7 point win to the other person (like 1) Okay, the above should be pretty clear to all readers. On a side note, I was originally going to also add 'and should be avoided' , but then I believe I'd be hounded by burden of proof issues. So, because I want to take a different direction to what would have happened under 'avoided' I'm doing this. My arguments are below. Also, can people wait 24 hours at least after this debate is posted before posting their first round (I'm busy) . If you don't I'd like voters to award the conduct point to me, as it will severely reduce my time to argue. Anger Release I'm going to preempt my challenger and say that swear words are not necessary for anger release. Let's take a fictional scenario where you've got a geography assignment due the next day: 1-Swearer's choice of words : @@@@ (not typing here) ! Geo's due tomorrow 2-Non-swearer : Blast it! Geo's due tomorrow (or shoot, heck, what in the blazes etc.) 3-Polite person : What a nuisance. Geo's due tomorrow. (or anything polite) As you can see from 1 and 2, they both release anger in a short, sharp exclamation (that's why there's an '!') , resulting in the same release of anger. The difference between the 2 is other arguments below - ie. the meaning of swear words, politeness etc. Now, of course 3 is politer than both, but it doesn't release quite the same anger. But the point with 2 and 3 is that they both require greater discipline than 1, via the control needed to not swear, this discipline is a positive. The meaning of swear words As my opponent should be aware of, as requested by the rules - swear words have very offensive, often suggestive meanings. This offense can often be taken literally by the one who the words are intended for. By contrast, the words found in (2) can not be taken as badly, definition wise for the victim of the words. Also, swear words that are suggestive can be felt as an invasion of privacy and are disconcerting for many. This is a negative, because it can violate people's right to feel safe etc. , and by contrast example 2 does not allow for this eventuality. Also, although not explicitly covered by this topic, religious proclamations also fall under the point of definitions. Also, such religious exclamations may offend believers, and such offense can not be found nearly as readily in 2 or 3. Politeness I think it goes without saying that the level of politeness found in 1 is low. 1 is crude, vulgar slang that should be avoided. It is more polite to speak in a manner of 2, and if possible, 3, where language is very polite and non-offensive. Of course, the discipline and such required to stay in 3, and not lapse into 2 is rather difficult to obtain. But, I see nor reason for 1. The main reason to lapse into 2 is anger release. Conclusion Since it is Con's job to provide a reason to swear(1) over forms of non-swearing(2,3) and not provide a case for 1 being on the whole better than 2 or 3, which I don't think an opponent could do, I'll rest my case. Con needs to provide a case before I continue.