DDO should NOT ban profanity.

This is an argument about banning profanities only. This is not a debate about banning all words in the English language as my opponent claims, and I have not called for such a ban. This argument by Pro is an irrelevant straw man and a distraction. This is a debate about a particular and small set of words that have an extreme potential for being used in a harmful and offensive manner. It is unfortunate that non-curse words can also be used to do harm, but that is beyond the parameters of this debate. This is also not a debate about banning joke debates, insane opinions, devil’s advocate arguments or even trolling. There is a difference between allowing joke threads and insane debate opinions and allowing the use of language which can, in some instances only[1] be used to directly harm members of the DDO community. Furthermore, the banning of profanities at least forces DDO users to be a little more creative in insulting each other which makes it harder and thus decreases, at least somewhat, the instances of flagrant abuse and harassment of DDO members on the site. I extend the unaddressed argument from the last round that some words are inherently offensive. My opponent argues that the potential for harm of profane words depends only on the context in which they are used. However, my opponent has chosen to defend ALL curse words in his argument and therefore his “context argument” is false for at least those profanities which cannot be used in a non-offensive manner in any context (as I pointed out in my last round). For example, there is no possible use of the profanity and ethnic slur “N word” in which it would deemed completely harmless. There is quite a list of ethnic slurs that are included in the definition of “profanity” that similarly cannot be used without being deemed offensive and harmful. For Pro’s argument that profanities do not cause harm, Pro would have to include ethnic slurs which were ignored in his last round. This is a site for civil discussion. Dear readers and voters, my opponent claims that because I am new to this site, that I cannot argue that it is a site meant for dignified and civil discussion. First I would note that I have technically been a member of this site for a year. Second, I refer my opponent to one of the most famous debates on this site: “THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL”[2] During the trial bluesteel, the prosecutor arguing in favor of the resolution to ban the notorious banned votebomber and verbal abuser Izbo10, noted several important points about DDO. First quoting the then President of the site: "the core value of this site is the integrity of honest debates. " Profanities add little to nothing to the integrity of honest debates. The prosecutor also noted how Izbo10 on several occasions used profanity laced tirades against members of DDO such as "double r before fvcking voting on debates and whining that i am discussing rks argument you might have wanted to figure the fvck out that guess what the debate was about rk's argument. Fvcking moron. " And calling members of DDO “f***tards” on several occasions (even during his trial). This kind of language, as argued by bluesteel during the trial, degrades the quality of the site. This is exactly the kind of conduct that banning profanities would help prevent. Furthermore, there is a difference between allowing joke threads and insane debate opinions and allowing the use of language which can be used to directly harm members of the DDO community. As a practical matter, allowing profanities increases the workload for moderators. If moderators have to be on the lookout for every single offensive and harmful use of profanities it would increase their workload. As being a moderator is a voluntary position, and DDO wishes to encourage members to volunteer as moderators, it is practical for DDO to decrease their workload. Note that this point was also raised in the Trial of Izbo10. The constitutional right to freedom of speech applies only to public places, not private websites. Note the text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” DDO is not Congress, it is a private website that is free to set the parameters for how much freedom of speech they wish to allow. Additionally, "fighting words" are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Profanities in general have an enormous potential to be used as fighting words. The "reason why ﬁghting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. ”[3] Such uses are not protected by the First Amendment. DDO is not “the internet. ” DDO may be *on the internet* but it is not *the* internet. DDO is a website accessible through the internet. The fact that profanities are allowed and indeed should be allowed on the internet, does not mean that they should be allowed on DDO. It’s the same reason that while free passage is allowed on open public property, such as streets and parks, it does not mean that people are allowed to come into your private property and do whatever they wish. DDO is free to decide what language to allow and what language to prohibit within the site. As I noted in my last round, Pro is still welcome to go to any other site with looser standards than DDO and use as much offensive and harmful profanity as he wants. Contrary to my opponent’s unsupported allegations I do not in fact hate truth. Pro cites to the movie V for Vendetta in an attempt to prove that I somehow hate truth, yet it’s extremely difficult to make the connection between what my opponent states, and the argument that I somehow hate truth. Furthermore, my personal feelings on truth or the value of profanities is not the subject of this debate. This is yet another example of my opponent taking his arguments beyond the parameters of the debate and into the realm of irrelevance. The quote of the French Constitution was merely to show the relationship between freedom and laws. I merely pointed to the text of the constitution because of the statement “the natural rights of each man [have] no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. ” I did not mean to imply that the French Constitution governs DDO. However, in law it is possible to cite to secondary or persuasive authority that may not be law within the jurisdiction, but that nonetheless can be pointed to for its logical or intellectual value. Such as when an American Court in New York looks at a decision from California or England on an issue that is new to the jurisdiction of New York but that has been decided in California or England. I see no reason why I should not be allowed to cite to a document that makes a logical statement and use it in support of my arguments. Furthermore I used a statement from John Stewart Mill for basically the same reason and Pro did not object. Conclusion. Some words included within the category of “profanity” cannot be used for anything other than harm, but Pro proposes allowing ALL profanities. The potential harm to DDO members through the use of profanities greatly outweighs any potential usefulness they might have. Banning profanities does not in any great way undermine DDO members. I urge voters to uphold the core values of this site for integrity of honest debate. Vote Con! [1] See the argument about ethnic slurs. [2] . http://www.debate.org.... [3] R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377 (1992).