Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

I thank Imabench for his reply. I apologise if my tone of last round was seen as condescending or aggressive. I can see how my intention to clarify the state of the debate could be seen otherwise. Again, I apologise to Con if I seemed arrogant earlier.That said, some statements of Imabench were somewhat incorrect. For example, the rules are quite clear in allowing counter arguments in round 2, 3 and 4. While I don’t expect everything to be countered, that doesn’t mean my arguments don’t stand...Anyhow, let’s get onto the debate.Releasing Anger?So far in this debate I’ve tended to argue that there are other avenues of releasing anger. Given the effectiveness of these avenues, swearing isn’t really necessary except in situations of great anger. Indeed, Freud argued that there were other ways to ‘get it out of your system’, such as a psychotherapist, that would allow a dangerous build up of emotion to be vented without transgressing social norms or making yourself ill. [1]However, we have both missed the trees for the forest. Now, I can understand if readers consider the following a new argument and disregard it due it’s timing, although I contend that it’s a rebuttal, but enlightenment is our goal here. Basically, Con is advocating the hydraulic theory of emotion.Ever heard somebody say not to ‘bottle your feelings up’ or that you could ‘burst under pressure’ ? They’re endorsing this view. Freud (to simplify) argued that since the mind was being consistently replenished with mental fluid, so it would eventually have to be ‘bled’ and emotional expression was the normal way to ‘discharge’ fluid. [2] He also argued that a build up would eventually seek discharge through ‘other, even less palatable means’ . Starting to see how Con is advocating this view? Well, let’s get to problems with the theory that he’s implicitly endorsing. Also, remember that Freud argued there were other ways to release anger besides emotional expression.“Psychologists are increasingly realising that the hydraulic theory of emotion is too simplistic... On occasion it can be positively harmful [referring to the spontaneous expression of emotion]. Recent evidence has pointed to the possible dangers of talking about one’s emotions at the wrong time.”[3]Now, this evidence concerns the psychological therapy of debriefing given to victims of trauma. However, before you ignore this completely, debriefing assumes a hydraulic theory of emotion; it’s based on the same underlying idea of expressing or talking about negative emotions in order to let them dissipate harmlessly, rather than being ‘bottled up’ for the future. However...“If the hydraulic theory of emotion were correct, we should expect to find that those who undergo debriefing immediately after a traumatic event would suffer fewer long term symptoms than those who received no counselling. According to psychologist Jo Rick, however, things are the other way round: debriefing actually makes things worse. In one study of road accident victims, she found that those who had undergone debriefing had more flashbacks and more fear after the accident than those who had not.” [4]Various other studies about the harms of debriefing. [5, 6] There’s more as well.The point is thus – if debriefing doesn’t work as the hydraulic theory of emotion would predict, why believe the theory? If a theory’s predictions fail to come true you disregard the theory.Also, evolutionary theory raises questions about the plausibility of the hydraulic theory of emotion. Dylan Evans puts this quite nicely “if different emotions evolved to motivate different kinds of action, it is hard to see why they should ‘build up’ like some waste product when not ‘discharged’, let alone why they should be capable of being ‘released’ by completely unrelated actions.”I think I’ve provided a strong case to disregard the hydraulic theory of emotion, and with it the very idea of having to release anger. Furthermore, even if Con proves the validity of the hydraulic theory of emotion’s validity, he runs into the issue that various other ways exist to release anger, as I have argued previously, that are nearly as effective. Furthermore, Freud actually argues for other methods ‘without transgressing social norms’, as swearing does.Now to other points.Other Con argumentsDue to character limits, I’ll just leave my argument on humour as is. I’ll also leave my argument on gender standards as is for the same reason Readers can decide whom is more persuasive. On the Kevin Rudd issue, Con said “you argued that they make people less civil I argued that they let people better express themselves and thus the effects cancel out.” The effects don’t cancel out here. One person (Mr. Rudd) expressed his anger, which was all fine and all, however, the entire nation’s newspaper quality was severely weakened due to his tirade for about a weak. Also, Mr. Rudd set a bad precedent. There are other effects besides civility as well. Do the effects cancel out!? I don’t think so.On the ‘Now, you’re both mad and no better off point’ , Con replies with the standard advocacy of the hydraulic theory of emotion. Besides my attacks on the theory, I don’t actually see what this contention has to do with my point. I was arguing that making more people mad can result in a negative, but Con replied arguing about the original angry individual, which misses the boat on the overall negative.Now to recap some of my points.My argumentsWe both agree on the matter of civility. The issue of doctors and police having their judgement impaired was shown in R2, and I’ve argued for Kevin Rudd’s anger release being an overall negative. I’ve discussed that swearing is poor at clearly expressing a depth of meaning. I also discussed that perhaps the widespread use of swearing means that the acts represented by the words have become tolerated (although this implies swear words are even partially used for their meaning) . This was outlined, and broadly agreed to in R2.I’ve discussed the issue of swearing creating distinctions in character, be it class barriers or gender standards. I’ll let readers decide the validity of each side’s arguments on these issues.I then made a crucial point with my tragedy of the commons analogy – swearing, on a larger scale, can create a society not desired, even if it results from actions benefitting individuals.At other points I discussed matters like the connotations of swearing, the issue of one making another mad and so forth. Mostly these matters were addressed with the ideas found in the hydraulic theory of emotion.This round I’ve illustrated many flaws with the hydraulic theory which Con must support for his arguments, both evidence based and thought experiment styled. Furthermore, even if the hydraulic theory is supported there are numerous other methods (Freud even recommends other methods besides emotional expression) to release anger that will do the job in a vast majority of situations.ConclusionI ask readers to consider what both of us have said and make an informed, quality judgement. Try not to bring prior opinions about swearing into consideration, as I can imagine that the idea of not swearing is anathema to some.I also want readers to take particular note with the words ‘on balance’ and their implications.Finally, let me thank Imabench for debating this interesting topic, and MIG for facilitating the tournament that led to this debate.Sources1 – Dylan Evans, Emotion – A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, pg. 54-592 – Ibid3 – Ibid4 - Ibid5 – http://www.bohrf.org.uk...6 – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...