There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

As Pro has rightly pointed out, his choice of resolution left him an almost impossible task in this debate; people clearly have reason to swear, or it wouldn't be anything like as widespread as it is. I think it's commendable for a teenager in the modern world to attempt to abstain from swearing. I think we can both agree that excessive swearing can often be unnecessary and people's reasons for swearing are not always admirable ones. Since my opponent has pretty much conceded that he's lost the debate, I won't stretch things out too much, and will just respond briefly to his final points. Definition It seems we're both in agreement that we're discussing swearing in terms of offensive language. I only brought out the dictionary because of those two seemingly oxymoronic statements in the last round. Emergency I maintain that while shouting itself may well gain someone's attention, shouting swear words is almost certainly going to be more effective. Arousal Similar to above, the question is the extent of the effectiveness, the greater the level of arousal the better. If swear words are more arousing, there is reason to use them. Group identity Pro apparently has little to say in contention of this point, other than that "if the resolution was implemented . .. this situation wouldn't occur. " And: "It's a case of how voters see this, although I understand my opponent's view here. " This point is apparently conceded. Intentional Offense Regarding the comparable threat level of "I'm gonna kill you" versus "I'm gonna fvcking kill you", Pro says: "The difference is that one implies killing a person, and the other implies killing a person and forcing intercourse. " This is clearly not the case. To imply the latter one would need to say: "I'm gonna fvck and kill you". In the original example "fvcking" is used as an adjective, with no literal implication and purely for the purpose of emphasis. Also fvcking in the literal sense would not automatically imply force, the term for that is "rape", which is not considered a vulgar term, any more than "kill" is. There is no "additional violation of rights" here. An explicit threat may violate someone's rights, but whether it is delivered politely or not makes no practical difference. My opponent has not shown at any stage of the debate how swearing itself inherently violates anyone's rights. Literature This is another point that my opponent apparently concedes by not addressing my arguments. His point about poets wanting to be read and driving off readers with their "lack of civility" relies on the assumption that all such literature is created with profit as it's main incentive, rather than truth or beauty. I think this is a subject for a separate debate. Anger Release The fact that my opponent doesn't believe that swearing would help him personally withstand a pain threshold test for any longer does not diminish the fact that the studies show it does help some people. The truth of his belief is in any case unverifiable over the internet. Emphasis Pro acknowledges that most people, including himself, have a knowledge of swear words. He then claims that "if a person doesn't actually use a word it shouldn't be counted as the word that expresses their maximum possible anger. " This seems to contradict the quote from the study referred to in the Anger Release section: "Swearing is emotional language but if you overuse it, it loses its emotional attachment. " It is clear that swearing is in fact at it's most effective when employed by those who generally abstain from it. Conclusion There seems to be little to add here. Pro admits that "con has pretty much demonstrated that there are instances where swearing has some reason to be used" and if that doesn't concede the resolution, I don't know what would. Thanks again to Logic_on _rails and to readers.