In a debate, a side that uses profanities in a derogatory manner should lose

CA1: "Cursing is shown to displease people. If you curse at someone, its intention is to offend them, which completely undermines my oponent's case."Cursing is not shown to displease people in all cases. It may displease the opponent, but it does not displease many others. Moreover, if you curse at someone, it's intention is not always to offend him/her (e.g., oftentimes it is used in a facetious, playful manner.) Hence, this does not undermine my case. These arguments brought up by my opponent are extremely overgeneralized and, if anything, contribute to my argument over the matter of arbitrariness. CA2: "My oponenet is supporting the use of profanities and saying they are allowed, therefore he accepts it to be ok to call people the N-word. That is what I have deduced."Affirming this resolution in no way implies the "support" of the use of profanities or whether or not it is, in general, "okay" to use racial slurs. I have not established a standpoint on these issues anywhere in this debate, so the opponent is committing a Straw Man fallacy. The opponent fails to show how he logically "deduced" such claims from my arguments. CA3/AI/AII: Debate: (n) a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. [1]N****r: (n) (usually offensive) a black personDebate, based on established definition is meant to depict this specific format. Naturally, when there are opposing viewpoints, the viewpoints of one side can be said to be a resolution. The goal, hence, of the debate is to determine whether or not the resolution is valid. Regardless of emotional response to the word, "debate" has an established definition.On the other side of the spectrum, we have a derogatory word such as the n-word, which I am using as an example here. The objective meaning is "black person." What is wrong with that? Nothing. The controversial aspect of the word is the "offensive" label that it assigned to it. But this label does not affect its objective meaning; it just affects its lesser connotations. The objective meaning of the word will be understood by virtually all speakers of Standard English; however the subjective connotations of the word will vary based on context and individual mindsets. No one is offended by the n-word if it is used within a Ku Klux Klan meeting, since it is accepted there. Furthermore, African American vernacular allows for the use of the n-word like many use "dude" or "man." These are extreme examples that simply show that, overall, arbitrariness exists. So we have established that "debate" has a general objective meaning, aside from anything arbitrary (e.g., my salivating when I see a new argument posted on one of my debates.) From this meaning, we solely derive that the purpose of a debate is to validate or invalidate a resolution. Arguments are established and a decision is made on whose is stronger. Also, we established that the n-word's objective definition is harmful. The arbitrary undertones of the word, however, is what could carry controversy. But we must remember that the judge(s) of a debate may have perspections of a word that vary from one another. Should they judge based on their subjective emotional responses to words? Of course not. A judge, by definition, conducts a trial (or, in our case, a debate) impartially [2], without putting his/her emotional responses or personal ideals into the picture. Allowing judges to judge based on the use of words with SUBJECTIVELY offensive meanings only adds an extra dimension of subjectivity to a decision that is meant to be as objective and impartial as possible. In conclusion, a side that uses profanities in a derogatory manner in a debate setting should not lose as a result. The opponent believes that the extra subjectivity is acceptable, but through establishing definitions, I showed that it is not in the best interest of a debate, since the judgment would be unjust. Furthermore, do not take away conduct points from the opponent for his swears in the first round. After all, the resolution has been indubitably affirmed. :)Thank you. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...