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

The opponent deduces this poorly thought-out idea without basis. A word does not inherently have the power to offend "everyone" who is exposed to it. People who feel that they should be offended by it will act offended by it, and those who feel otherwise will not. D1: How can my oponent say this? This is way more poorly thought out than man. "A curse word does not have to power to offend 'everyone' who is exposed to this? " Where can my oponent prove this? Cursing is shown to displease people. If you curse at someone, its intention is to offend them, which completely undermines my oponent's case. It was never stated whether racism, specifically, is "okay" or not. This a debate over whether the implementation of profanities (used in a disparaging manner) should be allowed in a debate, not whether racism is "okay. " D2: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. If otherwise, I would like clarification in my oponents next debate. Whether or not someone finds the usage of profanities to be "ridiculous" is a strictly arbitrary matter. Arguments in a formal debate context should be judged on objective logical soundness, not based on subjective interpretations of words that are deemed unacceptable by cultural norms. D3: My oponent is contradicting himself. Isn't the defenition of "formal" set on cultural norms? My oponent is saying that as long as you have good content, you can act as "ridiculous" as you want. Its only an "arbitrary matter", so If I went on a mad rampage right now and cursed and offended every race, religion, and famous person known to man, but I had good content in it, its ok. And on that thought, isn't good contnet on ones opinion too? My oponent is basing his poor thought out argument purely on his own standards for all of these defenitions. His argument has no weight to it, because he only bases his accusations on me from his perspective, not the perspective of the majority of people. I do not know of this "Debate. com" that the opponent refers to, but I do know that DDO's rules do not necessarily reflect the way things should be. Moreover, this debate is about the necessity of repercussions for fowl language use in a debate, not whether or not people participating in a formal debate should be enabled to use such language through censorship. D4: My oponent is being a hair-splitter, he knows what I meant by debate. com. And he avoiding my attack on his case by saying "DDO's rules do not necessarily reflect on the way things should be". What argument does he have for this? What is his defense? Nothing. It's just his opinion with no weight again. Now for my attacks on his case:AI: A judge may deem a word offensive and make a side lose because of it; but a different judge could find a word to not be offensive at all and not make the side lose. I see in no way how this is relevant to his argument. If it is about the judges choice and how judges choose differently depending on opinions, then his argument could well support me as well, if the judge DOES find it offensive. AII:My argument for this is the same as D3. It all depends on ones opinion. Basically, my oponent has twisted the resolution into his own opinion of things, and not what the general public thinks, which has no weight whatsoever.