DDO should NOT ban profanity.

My opponent seeks to preserve “the dignity and civility of DDO.” Perhaps this is because he is new here, and is thus far unaware that there is neither dignity, nor civility to DDO. Some Irrefutable Evidence: DDO members (myself included) have insane opinions, so insane that they could be neither dignified, nor civil. Source: http://www.debate.org... DDO members generally agree that Nutella is the only reason to live. For all DDO members who are out of Nutella, suicide must be imminent. Suicide is neither dignified, or civil. Source: http://www.debate.org... DDO members frequently go on the internet, which is a vast array of pornography and advertisements. Advertisements are neither dignified or civil. Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com... DDO members endorse mass murder by arguing that the United States was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mass murder via nuclear bomb is neither dignified, nor civil. Source: http://www.debate.org... How could people with insane opinions, who live only for Nutella and it’s hazelnutty goodness, who frequently expose themselves to unsolicited advertisements and pornography, who favor mass murder, possibly be dignified or civilized? Simple! They couldn’t! I would argue that is because DDO members are neither dignified or civilized in any possible way that they are so bloody freaking awesome, but that’s just me. I love and accept DDO members as they are. My opponent, by contrast, wishes to encroach on the free and unfettered expression of DDO members by recasting DDO according to the parameters of “dignity and civility.” I scoff at such nonsense! Scoff, I say! *scoffs* My opponent charts a litany of reasons why profanity should be banned. Fvck that! Among the reasons CON explores to attempt to justify banning profanity: Profanity’s potential to be used to “directly insult members, causing them harm.” My opponent’s confusion of how words convey meaning is staggering. The mere word “@ss” or “bitch” alone does not have the potential to directly insult or cause harm. For example, the sentence “The @ss is in the barn.” could easily refer to a donkey in its appropriate place of residence. Similarly, the sentence “The b!tch is sick.” could refer to an a female member of the canine species who is presently ill. As such, I have proven beyond any doubt that words take on meaning based on the context in which they are used. Ergo, the words themselves are not what is offensive, but rather the meaning they are intended to convey. (Behold! My opponent’s “Inherently offensive” argument is VANQUISHED!) HOWEVER, my opponent suggests that we ban words based on their POTENTIAL to cause harm to other members, rather than their actually causing harm. What preposterous nonsense! Any words have the potential to cause harm by being offensive! For example, the phrase “Your life is meaningless because you are a failed abortion.” has TREMENDOUS potential to cause offense! Given, the sentence is conspicuously devoid of profanity, but I can hardly think of a more offensive thing to call a person than “a failed abortion.” If preventing harm by banning words that have the potential to cause offense is an appropriate way to regulate content, what would my opponent propose? Ban the word abortion? What would the right-wing religious members of the site have to debate about if we banned the word abortion? What would feminists have to demand the right to? DDO would simply implode. Additionally, my opponent naïvely asserts that “banning profanity does not unduly infringe on the free exercise of ideas on DDO.” I refer my opponent to the “failed abortion” example. If my opponent wishes to ban words on the basis of their potential to be offensive, he is summarily obliged to ban the comprehensive sum of the English language -without exception. But why? (you may ask) The answer is simple! ALL words in the english language have the inherent potential to be offensive, they must only be arranged by a person with the intent to insult. Even the most basic words have the potential to be offensive, one must only use them with the due diligence of insulting creativity. And I must say, DDO members are among the most creative people I have ever known. Should we all ban ourselves because we all have the potential to be offensive? I should hope not! (It seems that my opponent is WRONG! Banning profanity, by his standard of “potential” for offense” DOES -in fact- unduly infringe on the free exercise of ideas on DDO!) My opponent’s proposal to ban all words that have the potential to cause harm by being offensive, is furthermore offensive to the most basic notion of truth. Yes. My opponent hates the truth. But YYW, how can this possibly be the case? To explain, I invoke the chilling rhetoric of the great philosopher “V” from “V for Vendetta.” Read below: “Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.” Source: http://www.imdb.com... Because my opponent wants to ban all words that have the potential to be offensive, and ALL words have the potential to be offensive, it may be logically deduced that my opponent wishes to ban all words. Words, which might I add, “offer the means to meaning” that are “the enunciation of truth.” My opponent assails the very concept of truth in his ludicrous attempt to ban profanity. How could a policy that assails the very concept of truth NOT infringe on the free exercise of ideas on DDO? How could banning the comprehensive sum of the english language NOT undermine the members of the DDO community? How could “intelligent debate” possibly occur under such rhetorical tyranny? Finally, my opponent argues that “the rights of one person end where the rights of others begin.” I agree wholeheartedly! The right of one DDO member to -repeatedly- call another DDO member a f*ckhead (as one DDO member did here: http://www.debate.org...) should not be infringed! All DDO members should enjoy the right to call each other f*ckheads without restraint! Why? Because it is the buggering, motherf*cking internet, damnit! It’s the c*nting internet! It’s not elementary, middle or high school! It is not law school or moot court! It is the assdou*heing internet, where the free exchange of ideas -however profane- OUGHT not be infringed! Employing the Rawlsian notion of justice as fairness, whereby the rights of all persons are consistent with each individual being afforded an equal and adequate volume of rights, it is natural and proper that every member of DDO should enjoy the unrestrained opportunity to call one another f*ckheads forevermore, because NO person has any right to enjoy the right NOT to be offended. Regulating content on the basis of personal offense (or the respective potential herein), is absurd. Where the content of ones posts are regulated under such a scheme, a party must only feign indignation to invoke the censorship of another. If in a just system, rights are to be distributed to ensure that each person enjoys an equal quantity of them, regulating speech on the basis of the potential for personal offense presents tremendous potential to overwhelm the right to free expression of one, because such a person’s free expression might infringe on another’s invented right NOT to be offended. I fear for the horror of such a world. Oh, and btw. the French Constitution (however French or constitutional it may be) holds no water in the high courts of DDO. In Conclusion I have a dream, that one day profanities and common vernacular will be used side by side with one another in the posts of DDO members! I have a dream that the long enduring discrimination against profanity will end, and that freedom of speech will ring throughout the land without restraint! I have a dream today! Peace and love, YYW