The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

I have a class to go to in twenty minutes, but good thing I won't need half of that time.The way this debate breaks down is really simple seeing as there's only two really relevant to your decision making and I'm winning on both of them.Slurs/Swearing/Religious Contexts:Literally all of this is entirely besides the point of the resolution. She spends literally all of the debat trying to establish that there's some kind of meaningful distinction between normal swear words and racial slurs and how one needs to be censored but the other doesn't.What she fails to actually address, and by fail to address I mean I've made this argument for literally each round of the debate and she's never once put a response against why I'm wrong, is that even if she's proving that there's some kind of meaningful distinction that makes one more hurtful than the other, it's the literal definition of besides the point because they'd both still be offensive language. Look back to specifically what her definition says. For simplicity, I'll cite it again below and emphasize the important bits:"Swearing Filter:A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs."So her definition is very literally rejecting her argument is relevant. She's not arguing that one kind of swearing can't actually be viewed as offensive, but rather that one is more offensive than the other. Even if she's right, we'd still be censoring all swearing because all swearing can be offensive. This means that her religious grounds arguments are dropped, her profane vs. swearing arguments are dropped, and her racial slurs vs. cursing arguments are all dropped. My Advocacy of an Optional Filter:The first thing to note is that she doesn't respond to the reasons that I provide for why an optional filter is negating rather than affirming, so this flows solidly into my side of the debate (especially since she's giving reasons for why an optional filter doesn't work now, so she'd be turning herself in multiple different places if it didn't). She makes a bunch of arguments that all effectively say that there are too many ways around a filter for a filter to be effective. People can use symbols, talk in different languages, and all sorts of other creative things. My question to this, which she absolutely 100% drops in her last speech and makes no attempt to even respond to this in the slightest way, is very simple:Why the ever living fvck is anyone going to go through that much effort to bypass the filter if they don't have to even bypass it in the first place to post? This is the ultimate reason why an optional filter affirms and protects both sides of things in this round and she entirely concedes it in her last round of the debate. Even if those methods exist, I'm literally giving people the option to disable the filter for their personal accounts so that they can swear all they like normally without being prohibited from posting. So even if there is some kind of fancy software I could download that lets me get around swearing filters and post as if it didn't exist, I would have exactly zero motivation to actually go and get that stuff and use it when there was absolutely nothing making me from needing to use it. She asks the question of how I can know no one will still try and get around the filter, and the answer is "common fvcking sense". The only reason we type out "fvck" with a v currently is if we actually spell it correctly then we aren't actually allowed to submit the post and we have to go back and edit it out. But because I'm removing the block on posting, rather just filtering out anything that is a filtered word with a default "****" message, regardless of what the word is, then there's nothing stopping us from posting things with the correct spelling, meaning there's no incentive there to actually bypass the filter. Whats more is that if there was still some kind of incentive to get around the filter that I haven't thought of, she makes no argument as for why people would want to bypass an optional filter either. This means that you buy that no one's going ot try and sneak around the filter, and that it'll be effective at filtering out swearing. This is a game-over issue for her because if I'm actually allowing people to swear while having a swearing filter in place, then I can access her benefits of swearing just as much as she can. This means that there is precisely zero unique offense on the aff's side of the flow.So what does this mean toward the round in general?Why you're negating:Remember the ultimate framework that we're both working back toward fulfilling of communitarianism. We have to be acting in a way that has the best interests of the community of DDO at heart and valuing their interests over our own. I'm allowing those who want to swear to swear without any prohibitions on posting, meaning they can reap all the benefits of swearing, while also filtering out what the swear word actually was and censoring it, which protects those users who are offended by any kind of swearing. This means that I'm literally keeping 100% of the community in my interests and thoughts while she's excluding one group from consideration. I have the best link into communitarianism. She drops that this is the ultimate framework to evaluate the round under and that whoever has the best link into this is winning the debate. I have the best link into it. She has no offense back toward the framework that I don't also have access to, meaning she has no unique offense in the round. There's literally no way you can affirm the resolution, and I'm giving you clear offense as to how I best link into communitarianism and protect the interests of everyone, meaning I'm winning the round.