There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

Thanks for the response. I don't think Pro's rebuttals really hold much weight. Bear in mind I don't need to prove that swearing is in any way virtuous, nor that it is absolutely essential. If someone can achieve a specific intended purpose through swearing then they have a valid reason to swear, and by demonstrating at least one instance of this, I have upheld my burden. I'm a little puzzled by a couple of statements made by my opponent in his last round: "Other offensive words that don't violate basic rights exist." "ridiculous cases like where a person knows no offensive words other than swear words." I don't want to be abusive in any way by bringing in defnitions at this late stage, but it seems that there is some confusion of what swearing is, so let's refer to the dictionary. http://en.wiktionary.org... It is clear that we are not talking about swearing in the sense of taking an oath, so the remaining definition is simply "offensive language". The term "vulgar" was used by Pro in the resolution, and with this context can only refer to offensive language, "An offensive or obscene act or expression" http://en.wiktionary.org... What is offensive is of course subjective, but I really don't know what "other offensive words" my opponent is referring to. Obviously one can offend someone else without swearing, but if the isolated words themselves are inherently offensive, they clearly qualify as swear words. Since Pro is apparently advocating use of offensive language, it appears he's conceding all arguments. Emphasis Pro's rebuttal here seems based on the peculiar notion that a more limited vocabulary can be preferable. He talks about "if a person does not know any swear words" which seems highly unlikely for any English speaking adult. Even my opponent, a teenager who disapproves of swearing is obviously aware of many swear words himself. Pro acknowledges that "the harshest words they know are the ones they use when expressing the maximum possible anger" and since most people know some swear words he is apparently recognising a reason for their use. That some people may not know swear words and therefore make use of different words in no way negates the fact that most people have reason to employ more offensive terms for emphasis. Anger release Pro insists that shouting is key but hasn't addressed my argument that shouting "fvck! sh1t! cvnt!" releases far more anger than shouting "drat! blast! bother!". There is in fact scientific data confirming that swearing is more effective than use of milder language to release anger in situations such as when dealing with pain: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... Test subjects who were permitted to swear endured ice water for almost half as long again as those who kept a civil tongue. Emergency I will admit that in some situations the extra time taken to swear may be counter productive, but I maintain that in other cases, the use of swearing can be far more likely to grip the attention of the person being addressed. Pro uses an analogy of a maths test, saying that two different ways of solving a problem are both valid solutions. As I see it, this supports my own case more than his. There can be valid reasons to swear, even if it is not the only way to achieve the desired result. Literature I don't see any response here to my general point about poets not using words without good reason. The idea that there are other word choices just doesn't cut it here; poets need to use precision in their choice of words and censoring them limits their ability to express themselves. As far as rhyming goes it is not a matter of finding any old word that rhymes, it is a case of expressing a meaning the best possible way using words that do rhyme. Substituting a word like "cvnt" for another rhyming word like "front" would severely diminish the meaning of the passage. Arousal Pro accepts that swearing can cause sexual arousal, whether other terms might be "better" is irrelevant. If swearing is an integral and habitual part of a couple's sexual activity, then substituting for non swear words will not have the same results. "In a case of A or not A, there must be reason to say not A. A in this case being not swearing." Eh? So, in the case of not swearing or not not swearing, there must be a reason to say not not swearing? The double negative obscures any implied logic here for me. Could one not also say that there must be reason not to swear? Group identity Pro seems to accept that his notion of people not being "ever taught a swear word" is unrealistic. I would say it is also irrelevant as the vast majority of people know many swear words. I don't really see a rebuttal to my point here. Intentional offense Pro says "here we both agree that swear words are meant to offend and hurt others", this is not quite what I said, I don't feel such an intention is inherent to swearing at all, but I do think it is a valid reason why some people swear. Pro says "The question is whether it is right to do so" No. Look at the resolution. Right and wrong is not the issue, the issue is whether people have a reason or not. If someone wants to offend someone and they know swearing will achieve this, then that is a reason right there. "If one wishes to offend someone one can shout and such, so long as one does not violate their right to safety. Swearing drastically increases the amount of times where safety can be verbally threatened." There is no logic in this. Swearing =/= threats. There is no difference of threat in saying "I'm gonna kill you" or saying "I'm gonna fvcking kill you", whether it is right to threaten someone is not relevant to the debate. ___________ I'm out of characters, so I'll hand back over and conclude next round.