There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

Intro Many thanks to feverish for taking the debate. As for the rules, I merely wanted to discourage people without the time for a serious debate and those who would use semantics. Voters, you don’t have to follow the rules to the dot if it makes for fairer voting. Also, as my opponent mentions, he need only provide 1 reason to swear. I take this to mean a point of his, rather than the rarest of exceptions, in the spirit of a good debate. Of course, I realise that it is a bit unfair to do that at this point in the debate, so voters can vote against me for that if they see fit. Specifically what I mean is that I’m not arguing against ridiculous cases like where a person knows no offensive words other than swear words. Emphasis / Anger Release My opponent mentions an example – “I am very annoyed” allows me to illustrate some key points. 1. Emphasis is relative In this example and the counter he gives below, it is clear that people express themselves through different levels of word choice. Naturally, the harshest words they know are the ones they use when expressing the maximum possible anger that they express. Now, obviously if a person does not know any swear words, they will not use any. Critically however, they will still be expressing the maximum amount of anger that they can express. It is because people can express the anger of swear words through other words that it is clearly not required for swear words to be used to express anger. Other words can be used. 2. It is the action involved (eg. Shouting) , rather than the words themselves Imagine you’re angry. If you shout, exclaim, etc. you will typically relieve yourself of anger, regardless of the words used. Of course this might be subjective, so I’ll leave this as is. Emergency Firstly, I’d just like to remind my opponent that I’m not defending formal language, but simply non-swearing language. Now let’s move on to my opponent’s example (“Look out!”): 1. Swear words waste time in critical situation Imagine a car is racing towards someone and you shout out 1 of 2 things – “Look out!” or “Look out!” plus a swear word. Which is faster? “Look out!” of course. This waste of time is unnecessary. If I’m in the situation of con, but say in an ambulance the only things worth saying as warnings (eg. “Look out!”) or actually diagnosing problems. Swearing just wastes precious time. 2. Swearing is not necessary Clearly, the idea of swearing in this case is to elicit a reaction, provoke a response. If this purpose can be achieved through other means, then swearing is not needed. Imagine you are answering a maths question and have 2 ways to solve it. Does it matter which method is used if you get the right answer, your purpose in this case? No, of course not. In the same way a person will react to a shout of “Look out!” just as they would with a swear word added. They both achieve their purpose. Literature The main point of this argument - the effect of swear words, I address in general, so I won’t cover that here. As for rhyming purposes, I think that there would be vanishingly few cases where no alternative to a swear word could be found, so I think this point pointless. Arousal While there are rare instances where swearing arouses, there are better terms to use. In a case of A or not A, there must be reason to say not A. A in this case being not swearing. Group Identity Okay, this is a case where I’ll say that if there is no reason to swear, people will typically not swear. Ie. If no one is ever taught a swear word, then no such situation where vulgar language is needed for group identity is found. I have to say that this is idealistic, so I’ll leave it up to voters as to whether they interpret this as being the present, or given the implementation of a lack of swearing. Intentional Offense Okay, here we both agree that swear words are meant to offend and hurt others. The question is whether it is right to do so. Clearly, suggestive meanings or deeply offensive words are an insult to a person, and may make them feel threatened, a violation of the right to safety. Therefore, it is not right to swear. 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. Conclusion I’d firstly like to remind voters and my opponent that it is my opponent’s burden to provide a reason to swear, my burden is to successfully counter all proposed reasons. Having said that, I think I’ve done a reasonable job refuting, although by no means a perfect one. Still, swear words are effectively unnecessary. Other offensive words that don’t violate basic rights exist. I remind voters to look at my example from round 1 where I gave the 3 ways of speaking. My opponent must provide a case where swearing has a reason that the other 2 do not have. And with that I’ll turn it back to feverish.