The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
cheesedingo1
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,914 times Debate No: 22467
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

InVinoVeritas

Con

If people on a given side of a formal debate were to implement profanities (e.g., n-word) in derogatory manner, then they should lose the debate because of it.

I am con, and my opponent is pro. First round is for acceptance.

Thank you.
cheesedingo1

Pro

I am glad to accept this f*cking debate about using profanities and I look forward to a b*tchin' debate. I think that using profanities, while informal, should not cause an automatic loss.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Con

Uh, sorry, but that's my side. I stated the resolution in the intro and then stated I was con. :P
cheesedingo1

Pro

My oponent beleives that profanity should not cause someone to lose an argument just because they cursed or used profanity.

"(e.g., n-word)"
My oponent says that stating the derogitory term for a black person doesn't mean that they should lose an argument. So my oponent is saying that someone can have free will do morally offend not just the oponent, not just the audience and voters, but everyone who see's their argument. The n-word is a word used to put down and offend not just black people but anyone, and accusing your oponent of not just being black, but offending them if they are, is morally frowned apon. My oponent is saying that its ok to do that, and it's ok to be racist. I beleive quite the contrary. If i were to see someone call another human that in a FORMAL DEBATE (as stated in his first round) it seems only right to vote that person to lose by his acts disrespect and offense.

My first round was showing how ridiculous it is to allow cursing and profanity into a debate. I stated that as my argument to show that cursing makes one look quite unintelligent. Wouldn't you agree that my first argument was very sloppy, crude, and seemed immature? I was mocking my oponent by showing my slopiness and saying how his support of the con to the resolution should be deemed ignorant.

Has everyone noticed that when one tries to type up a curse word, Debate.com doesn't allow it? HMM, I WONDER WHY? Probably because IT SHOWS POOR CONDUCT AND IT OFFENDS PEOPLE AND IS MORE NOTICABLE THAN AN ALL CAPS RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Debate.com doesn't allow cursing because it wants a friendly environment not built on offending and angering people, which my oponent appears to want. I, on the other hand, don't.

I hand it over to my oponent.
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Con

CA:

"So my oponent [sic] is saying that someone can have free will do morally offend not just the oponent [sic], not just the audience and voters, but everyone who see's [sic] their argument."
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.

"My oponent [sic] is saying that its ok to do that, and it's ok to be racist."
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."

"My first round was showing how ridiculous it is to allow cursing and profanity into a 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.

"Has everyone noticed that when one tries to type up a curse word, Debate.com [sic] doesn't allow it?"
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.

---

Arguments:

AI: Arbitrariness
The idea that a word is offensive or not is completely subjective. 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. In a debate, in which the goal is to discover a superior logical argument for or against a given resolution, such subjectivity only takes away from the purpose.

AII: Purpose
The purpose of a debate is to affirm or negate a resolution; this is, of course, I assume, a statement that the opponent can agree with. The opponent could argue against this (the resolution of "the purpose of a debate is to affirm or negate a resolution"), but it would make no sense, because, intuitively, the opponent would be solely initiating such a debate in order to negate this resolution; this would, of course, make the argument fall apart.

Anyway, by implementing criteria that are completely unrelated to this purpose completely takes away from the debate, since, by definition, a debate relies upon such a purpose to be pursued.

---

Thank you.

cheesedingo1

Pro

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. His arguments are weak, only supported by himself, so I see no other way than to vote PRO.


Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Con

CA1:
"Cursing is shown to displease people. If you curse at someone, its intention is to offend them, which completely undermines my oponent's case."

Cursing is not shown to displease people in all cases. It may displease the opponent, but it does not displease many others. Moreover, if you curse at someone, it's intention is not always to offend him/her (e.g., oftentimes it is used in a facetious, playful manner.) Hence, this does not undermine my case. These arguments brought up by my opponent are extremely overgeneralized and, if anything, contribute to my argument over the matter of arbitrariness.

CA2:
"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.
"

Affirming this resolution in no way implies the "support" of the use of profanities or whether or not it is, in general, "okay" to use racial slurs. I have not established a standpoint on these issues anywhere in this debate, so the opponent is committing a Straw Man fallacy. The opponent fails to show how he logically "deduced" such claims from my arguments.

CA3/AI/AII:

Debate: (n) a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. [1]

N****r: (n) (usually offensive) a black person

Debate, based on established definition is meant to depict this specific format. Naturally, when there are opposing viewpoints, the viewpoints of one side can be said to be a resolution. The goal, hence, of the debate is to determine whether or not the resolution is valid. Regardless of emotional response to the word, "debate" has an established definition.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have a derogatory word such as the n-word, which I am using as an example here. The objective meaning is "black person." What is wrong with that? Nothing. The controversial aspect of the word is the "offensive" label that it assigned to it. But this label does not affect its objective meaning; it just affects its lesser connotations. The objective meaning of the word will be understood by virtually all speakers of Standard English; however the subjective connotations of the word will vary based on context and individual mindsets. No one is offended by the n-word if it is used within a Ku Klux Klan meeting, since it is accepted there. Furthermore, African American vernacular allows for the use of the n-word like many use "dude" or "man." These are extreme examples that simply show that, overall, arbitrariness exists.

So we have established that "debate" has a general objective meaning, aside from anything arbitrary (e.g., my salivating when I see a new argument posted on one of my debates.) From this meaning, we solely derive that the purpose of a debate is to validate or invalidate a resolution. Arguments are established and a decision is made on whose is stronger.

Also, we established that the n-word's objective definition is harmful. The arbitrary undertones of the word, however, is what could carry controversy. But we must remember that the judge(s) of a debate may have perspections of a word that vary from one another. Should they judge based on their subjective emotional responses to words? Of course not. A judge, by definition, conducts a trial (or, in our case, a debate) impartially [2], without putting his/her emotional responses or personal ideals into the picture. Allowing judges to judge based on the use of words with SUBJECTIVELY offensive meanings only adds an extra dimension of subjectivity to a decision that is meant to be as objective and impartial as possible.

In conclusion, a side that uses profanities in a derogatory manner in a debate setting should not lose as a result. The opponent believes that the extra subjectivity is acceptable, but through establishing definitions, I showed that it is not in the best interest of a debate, since the judgment would be unjust.

Furthermore, do not take away conduct points from the opponent for his swears in the first round. After all, the resolution has been indubitably affirmed. :)

Thank you.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

cheesedingo1

Pro

if you curse at someone, it's intention is not always to offend him/her (e.g., oftentimes it is used in a facetious, playful manner.)

Um.... Playful manner? how can you playfully curse at someone? Woman:"F*ck you!" Man: "Haha, no, F*ck YOU!" Woman: "Hahahaha!"...... Does that make any sense? How can one curse at someone in a "playful manner"? Besides in a possibly sexual way, I see no way how that's possible. Cursing is used to show displeasure about something, not when they're happy about something. There is no "playful manner" in cursing.

Oh, and this is something that all of the audience should know: The defenition of derogatory. The defenition is: Showing critical or disrespectful attitude. My oponenent says that the intention is not always to offend him/her. Well, he is completely, 100% going against the resolution now. It says that profanities in a derogatory manner ARE MEANT TO OFFEND AND SHOW DISRESPECT TOWARDS. This is by biggest point because of how he is contridicting himself so much my saying this. He's saying the intention is not always to offend them, but he says THE POINT IS TO OFFEND THEM IN THE RESOLUTION. Since he is going against himself, I win this point without a doubt.
I looked Derogatory up in my dictionary, for my source. For some reason, dictionary.com isn't working right now.

The opponent fails to show how he logically "deduced" such claims from my arguments.

I deduced this, because his standpoint is that one can use profanity and not lose a debate, therefore making it allowable to curse and offend people at free will without losing a debate. Using the N-word is a use of profanity, therefore allowing the use of that word at will. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how i've "deduced" such claims.

These are the only two attacks my opponent made on my case, the rest I assume he agrees with and they remain strong.

No one is offended by the n-word if it is used within a Ku Klux Klan meeting, since it is accepted there. Furthermore, African American vernacular allows for the use of the n-word like many use "dude" or "man." These are extreme examples that simply show that, overall, arbitrariness exists.

Well, my opponent, I guess, is saying that using the n-word is ok to say, according to the KKK. How in any way is the KKK a role model?!?!?!?! We shouldn't fallow the KKK and their ideas about morals. They're crazy and want to KILL ALL BLACK PEOPLE! http://answers.yahoo.com... in any way is that moral?!?!?!??! I beleive by stating this, my opponents argument is invalid and should be thrown out.

You see, ladies and gentleman, this debate is now about the morals of using profanites. My opponents main argument is about how different judges will have different views, but this is a debate about how someone should lose when cursing, and if it is morally right or not, not about the different views on other debating voters, no matter how morally structured they are, which destroys his case on arbitrariness. I have explained how cursing is immoral, which is my criterian for this debate. That is all.

I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate and thank him for backing up my points about my first round shoutout.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I have a feeling that someone (whose name may or may not start with a "T" and end with an "i) did not read the debate.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
If I was convinced by PRO that profanities should = lose, then I should automatically give the vote to CON. If I was not convinced, I should give the votes to CON.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
are you saying I sucked?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I like my opponent's final argument, in which he claims that the KKK is "immoral," and therefore my argument should be thrown out. His conclusion is founded on his arbitrary perception of morality. Priceless.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
Haha thanks I never could spell that
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Lol, "opponent" is spelled with two p's... just for future reference.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Correct.
Posted by Anayansi 5 years ago
Anayansi
So your position is that if a participant in a formal debate uses profanities, they should not lose the debate. Am I correct?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
InVinoVeritascheesedingo1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seemed to come down to the purpose of a curse word, and Pro was able to present a stronger case because he convinced me that by its very nature a curse is offensive. Conduct vote because "The opponent deduces this poorly thought-out idea without basis"-usually I'm all for all out mudslinging and insults but that sentence seemed outside the spirit of this debate and insulting. If one thing shouldnt be tolerated here its being condencending
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
InVinoVeritascheesedingo1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Args. tied. Pro cussed, thus the conduct. Pro also argued the wrong side number 1. Also countering guy below untill he provides reasons for the conduct point.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
InVinoVeritascheesedingo1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor-to-average-quality debate. The only key issue was the subjectivity of cursing. Con pointed out that judges interpret these words differently, meaning the debate is less objective. Weak argument as this is true of any word really. Pro's counter was that judges should interpret the debate one way ie not the KKK way. Even weaker argument, and it came out way too late, and it was never really specified how debates should be morally interpreted. Narrow neg win.