Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

I thank Imabench for his reply.With that said, I wish to remind readers that the resolution uses the words ‘on balance’. Essentially, I need only argue that the negatives are greater than the positives; I don’t need to argue against the existence of positives, although I can.Also, let us also remember the word ‘influence’ . While immediate impacts are important, if swearing promotes social dynamics that lead to something like irrationality over the longer term then it’s a negative influence.Anyhow, to the debate.Dropped ArgumentsImabench has, to my best understanding, completely conceded the following:1. All examples of swearing and their impacts (bar the video of Kevin Rudd, but he conceded the impacts of that)2. Swearing helps promote different gender standards3. Foundational aspects of swearing arguments (he does say that there are long term beneficial effects by betraying morality and rationality, yet otherwise he completely conceded this section)4. That swearing isn’t civil / polite and the nature of my introductory scenario5. Swearing doesn’t describe accurately in a literary sense (he does argue about emotion and such, yet the actual meaning of the words being less accurate was conceded)I think readers really ought to just realise the depth of what Imabench has conceded as negative impacts. Readers, do remember the impacts I listed in R2. These concessions result in swearing being agreed to have many major negative impacts / influences on society.Con CountersCon did counter some of my points. Let’s go through these.Anger releaseI will agree swearing can, for some people, be an effective way of releasing anger. However, it is actually such a good thing to release anger?If somebody is having a bad day and they complain about it do the people they talk to feel any better? Often not, indeed, they may often feel worse! Telling the world that ‘I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!’ (see the movie Network for the quote) tends not to restore confidence and happiness. You’re mad and you complain to somebody who gets mad about the same thing. Guess what? Now you’re both mad and no better off.Also, let’s think about the long term view here. One can become calmer by learning to not just release anger on a whim. I don’t swear, and it’s part of the reason that I (I believe) keep a level head and don’t get ultra angry. Certainly, I don’t let anger take me to violence, madness or anything of the such. Not letting things faze you so easily and being rational are both good things, and the release of anger is not conducive to either. Not that I reject the Romanticist school of thought by any means though.Of course, other words besides swear words release anger, and I ask my readers when they need to release such a large amount of anger that no other words besides swear words will do? I fear that such situations are very few in number. I am never at the stage where I am utterly crippled by my lack of swearing.So, Con’s main argument is only valid in situations of the need to release extreme anger, and frankly, the other considerations far outweigh this potential (if that) benefit. Let me ask you if what swearing results in with regard to the short term outweighs the longer term disadvantages. Then tell me that there aren’t any other ways to get these advantages. I rest my case.Making a pointSwearing makes a point, brutally. Need we remember the negatives associated with these words?Again, there are alternative ways to make a point using milder words (replace Con’s expletive on this example with ‘blazing’ and you have made the point just as easily) .I also want to stress the idea that brutally expressing points and not having people develop the patience to discern finer points and subtleties is not necessarily a positive. Do you want a rational, calm listener who actually listens to everything or the fellow who needs something shouted in his face? Also, swearing might make a point, but it could well be a vague point. Expressions, tone and such all convey a point, yet the specificity of a point can be called into question when compared to language.Again, swearing promotes a certain style of actions which we don’t want.Class barriersI said here that these barriers were in part due to perception of lower classes swearing. Therefore, the barriers are real and imaginary, so it’s really a case of which barrier to deal with. Dealing with swearing deals with the perceptions that create the imaginary barrier.The question is, yet again, are there other effective ways to do what swearing does? Yes. Do these other ways propagate the negative perceptions associated with swearing? No.Examples of negative effectsWell, Con rather conceded to the effects here, however, he said one counter “As for the politician, looks like he was also directing his frustration at people and expressing all the stress he was going through”Con is right in that Mr. Rudd was expressing his anger, however, this is a poignant example of how Con is missing my point. My point was that the media swarmed over this statement and it totally distracted from proper news and policy discussions in the media for a good week. Given that policy discussions are more beneficial for society than Mr Rudd’s tirade, one could conclude that his action was a negative. Also, the prime minister sets a bad example on the international stage for Australia. The point is simple – Mr. Rudd’s outburst may have relieved anger for him, yet it certainly didn’t result in a greater good for society. The Tragedy of the CommonsWhile this hasn’t been discussed as a point per se so far, this warrants discussion, and I’ve alluded to the idea many times so far.The tragedy of the commons is basically (specifically, it tends to apply to limited resources) a situation where multiple individuals act rationally in their own self interest, and this leads to the depletion of a resource, even though it is clearly in no one’s favour to let this situation to occur.Let us apply this to swearing.Swearing tends to be something which an individual does. Perhaps, like Con suggests, one does it to release anger, make a joke etc. If we grant Con’s arguments for this thought exercise, it is clear that individuals may consult their self interest and swear. However, on a larger scale swearing can create an environment with more anger, less civility and so forth. This environment can deplete resources like happiness. Henceforth, swearing can lead to a worse situation, just like The Tragedy of the Commons.EntertainmentThis rather falls under the scenario stated above. Regardless, one can have humour of a similar quality by substituting out the swear words. Also, I ask, does this outweigh the noted negative impacts of swearing?Disbelief or shockSwearing is good at expressing disbelief or shock. The question is, do we wish to express such things by way of swearing? Are there perhaps more appropriate ways of doing so? Perhaps ways that are less likely to aggravate a situation?Swearing has connotations, and these connotations can often elicit reactions which are not preferable. Imagine person X swears at person Y expressing shock over something Y did. Y may not be so happy...ConclusionI just want to remind readers the full extent of the arguments from R2 dropped by Con. I also want readers to try and look at the longer term influence of swearing and things like the Tragedy of the Commons. Nevertheless, I’m sure readers understand what has been said so far.I look forward to Con’s reply.