The Instigator
Theunkown
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Should use of profane language be more socially acceptable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,382 times Debate No: 60266
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Theunkown

Pro

*Please notify in comments to accept this debate.*
No semantical arguments.

If defenitions or resolution needs change/clarification please comment.
I am debating that use of profane language should be more acceptable in society.

Profane language shall be defined as words that are currently considered rude and socially unaceptable, even on this debating website.

Being more socially acceptable shall be defined as more people accepting the usage of profane language and not being offended by it. In other words, usage of profane language should be seen in a less negative light to be more socially acceptable.

This is not for any specific culture, just in general (every language has its own profanities).

I will present arguments in Round 2
Round 1 acceptance.
If con makes an argument in the acceptance round, then con will have to leave round 5 blank to avoid losing conduct point.

Use of profane language in this debate should not result in loss of conduct(but I cannot guarantee that people will not report arguments).
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity for this debate. I will allow my opponent to start in R2, though I will take this moment to clarify a discrepancy. Based on the definition of profane being dependent upon not being "socially acceptable," which would suggest a is/is not (meaning it either is socially acceptable or it is not, there is no sliding scale), however the definition of socially acceptable seems to indicate a sliding scale. I presume that my opponent is going to focus on the sliding scale for his arguments and I plan on doing so as well.

Thank you and lets begin.
Debate Round No. 1
Theunkown

Pro

(I wish I could use profanities in this argument but the site won't let me)

What makes profanities 'bad'?
Some might say that it is the usage of swear words to insult other people that make them bad. People can insult someone just as well with or without a swear word.

For example: saying 'even sh!t is more useful than you' is just as insulting as saying 'even poop is more useful than you'.

Some might consider swear words just plain 'dirty' (sexual related). The problem is we can convey the same message without swear words.
For example: 'I f^cked your mom' is as dirty as saying 'I slept with your mom'.

Now you, dear reader, may be thinking that the f-word way of saying it is worse, but that is because when someone saying that phrase is imagined, it is usually imagined to be someone yelling it out loud while the latter way of saying it is imagined to be calm.
But voluntarily add the same tone to both ways of saying it, you will see that both ways are just as powerful, dirty, hurtful etc.


The point is that we can convey insulting and dirty messages whether there are swear words or not, so it makes no sense to keep some words more socially unacceptable.


Profane words are useful to vent out emotions. Psychologist Richard Stephens says: "I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear,"[1]. He says this because swearing is usefull to vent out anger and releive pain[1]. Now we do not want the profanities that help us calm down and relieve pain to be so socially unacceptable do we?

Profanities help us to convey the urgency of a situation, for instance saying 'my arm is bleeding!' sounds inherently less urgent than saying 'my arm is f^cking bleeding!' even if both messages are conveyed in the same tone of voice.

Profanity can be used to convey something important and make the point stronger. Imagine yourself telling a guy not to waste perfectly good food because they are right outside an orphanage with starving kids.
If you have the noble goal of getting the guy to not waste the food, it would be more effective to say:
'They are f^cking kids and they are starving! Dont be an @rsehole and don't waste the food'
than to say:
'They are kids and they are starving! Dont be a bad person and don't waste the food'


Usage of profane words among other people make yourself appear to be honest, open, humorous and basically encourages closer bonding[2]. Words that help bonding should not be as socially unacceptable as it is today.


Bottom line is we need swearing for several things, good things and hence it should not be as socially unacceptable as it is now.


Sources:
[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Let me start by stating that there will be significant swearing in this round (and all my rounds) for the purpose of examining the swear words.

My opponent makes two points. First, that swearing can be replaced just as easily with none swear words. Second, that swearing acts as an intensifier for a statement. I will first address an inconsistency between these two and show how they counter each other, then go on to my arguments.

Let us begin with the contradiction. My opponent starts by saying that "I fucked your mom," is no different than "I slept with your mom," and he adds that when they are said in the same calm voice, that they are the same. This is implying that the F-word has no intensity on its own, that the only intensity is in the volume of your voice. He specifically says, and even underlines, that they are both "...just as powerful [and] harmful..."

Then, he goes on to say that swearing can "convey something important and make the point stronger." He uses an example of starving kids to show (and we must assume an equal tone in both cases, otherwise it may not be the swear words causing the effect) that swear words add intensity to a phrase. This is in direct contradiction to his first point.

Before I go into my argument, I'd like to address one of my opponent's sources and a little argument that they tacked on at the end. First, their second source is not a scientific source. It is an opinion piece that offers no studies, and no sources to back its claim up. It just states that there are X benefits and does not support those claims. Second, my opponent suggests that swearing helps with pain. This is only slightly true. It is not the swear word itself that reduces the pain, but what it means to us psychologically, the very study that my opponent used (well, technically that their source's source used) specifically states, "Swear words lose their effect, however, if we use them too often or they no longer carry any particularly emotionality to them. That"s why a swear word used by someone who swears all the time almost seems like casual conversation to them " because it is. Someone who rarely uses the same word, however, could quickly become offended by the very same word." [1] This is going to be my main point for my argument, coming up next.

== Con's Argument ==

Let me start by saying that I am not suggesting that swear words be absolutely shunned by the populace, or that we ought to never swear. I am merely arguing that they remain at their level of social prohibition. That they should not be used in light conversation.

Intensity

It comes down to a simple understand that we can derive from economics. The law of diminishing returns [2]. For those that don't check into the source, it basically say, that the more something is produced, the less value it has. Like it or not, words do have value. Value in their meaning. As my opponent correctly stated in his round (despite contradicting himself in the process), swear words act as an intensifier for communication. They express a seriousness, intensity, and/or urgency [3][4]. That intensity is an vital part of the words and is a needed aspect of communication. We have to have a way to verbally extinguish when "shit has hit the fan." As such, certain "sentence enhancers" (as Patrick would say) can be extremely important. But they are only important if they carry the required intensity. The Law of Diminishing Returns shows us that if a word is used more frequently. it loses it's value. Is was actually supported, psychologically by my previous source [1] (meaning they actually scientifically proved this). Just consider the example. You have your friend, Steven, who swears in every other sentence he mutters, look behind you and say "Holy Butt Fucking Christ!" compared to if your Grandmother who you've never heard the words "darn" escape her lips without her apologizing profusely right afterwards, say the exact same thing. If my grandmother said that, I'd probably crap my pants right there before even looking to see what was behind me. That is explicitly because of how rarely the word is used. Maintaining the rarity of the word also maintains its significance.

As my opponent said, the words do have their value, but that value is derived completely from the fact that the words are rarely said. To maintain this value that my opponent has spoken for, we must keep the words as socially unacceptable as they currently are, if not more so.

Thank you,

[1] http://psychcentral.com...
[2] http://www.britannica.com...
[3] http://theamericanscholar.org...
[4] http://www.psychologicalscience.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Theunkown

Pro

Kudos to my opponent for her prompt response. (Quotes from Con are italicized and underlined)

Con brings up the point that I made where saying "I fucked your mom" is just as powerful as "I slept with your mom" when said in the same tone of voice.
This is implying that the F-word has no intensity on its own, that the only intensity is in the volume of your voice. He specifically says, and even underlines, that they are both "...just as powerful [and] harmful..."
Then, he goes on to say that swearing can "convey something important and make the point stronger."

Forgive me, I spoke too rashly. Of course, using swear words make an insult more insulting. The message I wanted to put across was that you can be insulting and hurtful whether there are swear words involved or not. In my hopes to emphasize mypoint I made that rash statement that insulting with and without swear words are equally powerful.


Con then brings my sources into question. She says my second source is not reliable. Fine here is another source[1] that says that "when used in a non-abusive manner, swearing enables the development of personal relationships among co-workers"
Howstuffworks is surely a reliable source. Hopefully now Con and the readers are satisfied.

I am merely arguing that they[swear words] remain at their level of social prohibition. That they should not be used in light conversation.
Con argues that swear words should not be used in light conversation. What is meant by that exactly? Does it mean...small talk or is it actually a light hearted meaningful conversation with friends? kindly clarify.


It is not the swear word itself that reduces the pain, but what it means to us psychologically
Swear words lose their effect, however, if we use them too often or they no longer carry any particularly emotionality to them.
Con's primary argument is based on this and I must say that this point is very true, that is why I am not arguing black and white social acceptability and saying that swear words should be 100% acceptable. I only argue that profanities should be more acceptable than they are now.

For example on this website. Allowing swear words in debates without conduct penalty would help many debaters put their point across the board. It will also make the debates more lively and interesting and it will seem more like actual people with proper emotions debating.

Another example would be high school, swearing is not acceptable in schools but of course teens do utter swear words, if heard, could lead to punishement. My question is why? Why should they not be allowed to swear? Ok, in classrooms it could disrupt the learning environment but surely during the breaks when all they do is eat and have a chat with friends. Even during that casual environment swearing is looked down upon, by the adults anyway, which is wrong because then it ruins the casual atmosphere of breaktime, it ruins the time kids have to de-stress from hours of sitting in a classroom.

I am certainly not saying that profanity should be used all the time or that its usage should be significantly increased, that will ruin its speacial place in society, but the amount of unacceptability is a bit too high.




Sources:

[1]http://money.howstuffworks.com...;
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for their speedy round. I will quickly dive into this.

First, my opponent backs up on their contradiction. This is conceding this point so I will move along. While he does still state that one can still be insulting without swear words, I have not claimed that they can't, though my opponent has already admitted that the insults are not going to be as strong without the swear words.

Let us go into the main point for my opponent, "development of personal relationships." My opponent has accepted that the previous source was only an opinion piece with no listed studies to back it up and has provided a new source [1]. This is much more of a legitimate source, as the article does list an actual study to base off of. However, the article does have some flaws that need to be expressed.

The first to address is the method and scope of the study. From my opponent's source, "Baruch and Jenkins [the researchers] hung around a mail-order warehouse and watched the effect swearing had on the workplace environment." This is a very unscientific method as they only visited a single employment environment (a warehouse, which would be entirely different from an office or a sales floor). You cannot rationally take the experiences from a single warehouse and apply them to all fields of employment or society.

However, even if we do accept it, it comes back on itself to show that it does not support my opponent. "Baruch and Jenkins found that swearing improved morale among workers, there were definite situations where foul language isn't appropriate in the workplace. Swearing in front of customers or high-level management are two examples of counter-productive swearing, the researchers found...Rather than relieve stress, swearing in these situations seems to impregnate the air with tension." The researchers come back to say that swearing is not a flat out good thing, and it is often harmful (to the stress levels).

Lastly, the study actually comes back to support my side of the resolution. Still, from the same source, "If an employee uses foul language in his everyday life outside of work, then this represents part of the employee's personality." This basically says that when people swear a lot socially, they should be able to swear a lot at work, since that will let them be themselves (which is less stressful for them). However, the flip side is also true, that to those that swearing is not part of who they are, that swearing is harmful to their stress (this goes in line with what was observed around managers, whom the study said swore less). As such, if a group of people is mixed with "swearers" and "non-swearers" then the swearing will cause stress and tension between co-workers and be a negative factor. We can expand this from "work place" to "society." If you have a society that is mixed, then swearing will cause stress, not alleviate it. Of course, when in small groups that are all similar, then you can enjoy the benefits, but doing so is not currently socially unacceptable (since that social environment accepts it).

Let us now go back to my arguments.

== Law of Diminishing Returns ==

My opponent basically just agrees with me, saying, "Con's primary argument is based on this and I must say that this point is very true..."

My opponent then goes on to say that he only wants swearing to be a more socially acceptable, not 100% acceptable. However, he cannot make that claim while saying I am write. The Law of Diminishing Returns explicitly refers to the very next unit of the goods (in this case, swear words), not just the 100% extreme. Increasing swearing by any degree will be affected by the law of diminishing returns. So even a slight increase in the social acceptability of swearing would decrease the value and intensity of those words, which my opponent agreed with.

At this point, since my opponent said I was right, I don't have much more to add or defend.

My opponent brings up an example of high school and swearing there. However, this falls under the realm of the employment. You have an environment that has some people that are non-swearers, and some that are. Because it is mixed, the action of swearing causes stress on others and negatively effects their ability to learn. If a group of "swearers" is in a private area with no non-swearers (so that there is no one to be harmed), then their swearing is not socially unacceptable (because the entire social group is 100% accepting of it).

Thank you,

[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Theunkown

Pro

Con starts of her round talking about my sources. She states that the method used by the researches in my source used a very unscientific method as they only visited a single employment environment

Do I really need to show more studies for every single environment? The amount of sources that prove that swearing in workplace helps improve relations with co workers and that it de stresses the workers is overwhelming.[1][2]


Swearing in front of customers or high-level management are two examples of counter-productive swearing,... swearing in these situations seems to impregnate the air with tension

This is because Swearing is too socially unacceptable. If it was more socially acceptable it is obvious that there would be far less tension since the high level management will be less 'discriminatory' towards the swearers.


This basically says that when people swear a lot socially, they should be able to swear a lot at work, since that will let them be themselves (which is less stressful for them)
My opponent says this but then continues to say that the flip side is also true, that to those that swearing is not part of who they are, that swearing is harmful to their stress.

Swearing at work relieves stress for those who do swear in everyday life. Ok we both agree here, but my opponent implies that if swearers swear then that makes the non swearers uncomfortable. Non swearers will only be uncomfortable when they themselves swear (hence why they do not swear). So as long as nobody is forced to say (or not say) profane words, there is little problem with the stress levels.

Even IF we were to agree with Con here (not saying I do) and say that swearing makes non swearers uncomfortable, that is because the non swearers feel that those words are too socially unacceptable. If swear words were more socially acceptable then the non swearers will not be as stressed.

Increasing swearing by any degree will be affected by the law of diminishing returns. So even a slight increase in the social acceptability of swearing would decrease the value and intensity of those words, which my opponent agreed with.

This is not necessarily true. If a person says a swear word once a day increases his swearing to twice a day or even thrice that is technically a huge degree of change, doubling or tripling the amount of swearing (respectively) but I seriously doubt that the value and intensity of the words will change.

If a group of "swearers" is in a private area with no non-swearers (so that there is no one to be harmed), then their swearing is not socially unacceptable
Then a teacher walks in, gives detention and stresses the kids (to some degree). And besides, why do swearers have to go into a 'private area' just so they can relax in a casual environment? This just goes to show how socially unacceptable swearing is, which is too high.

And what about a website like DDO? Like I said in round 3, allowing swear words in debates without conduct penalty would help many debaters put their point across the board. It will also make the debates more lively and interesting and it will seem more like actual people with proper emotions debating.



Sources
[1]http://www.theregister.co.uk...
[2]http://www.marketwatch.com...;
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for their quick round and again, will dive right into this.

First, let us go over the sources again. From the previous round, I attacked that a study from University of East Anglia (which is the one study that his source used) as an incomplete source that looked at only a tiny segment and could not rationally be stretched into all work or social environments. My opponent has not disagreed with my attacks on the study. Instead, my opponent has simply stated that the evidence is "overwhelming" and provided two new sources. However, if we stop and look at both of these new sources, we find that they both base all their finds off of the same study from the UEA. My opponent has only provided more sources to an already defeated study.

== Swearers and Non-Swearers ==

My opponent actually starts by attacking his own sources (though they have already been attacked) when he makes the claim that swearing causes stress to non-swearers only because swearing is socially unacceptable. This is applying a double standard and hypocritical. The reason that swearing can be stress reducing in a group that swears is because that is who they are, that is their personality. However, one must also accept that the trait of being a non-swearer is also a part of who they are and their personality. You cannot just go tell non-swearers to change their personality any more than you can tell swearers to go change theirs.

In the next quote, it seems that my opponent misunderstood me. Looking back at my round, I can see how there was the misunderstanding. It is not having non-swearers do the actual swearing that is harmful to their stress, but when swearing occurs in general (meaning someone swears around them). It causes their stress to rise and halts or even undoes the bonding processes. This was supported by the limited scope of the study regarding managers. It was talking about when swearers swear around management, not when management swears.

== Law of Diminishing Returns ==

My opponent simply disagrees with the law of diminishing returns without providing justification for it. Quite literally, they only say, "I seriously doubt that the value and intensity of the words will change." I've already provided sources that explain the principle of LDR, as well as a college study that links it directly to the effects of swearing (in the case of the study, my [1] from R2). My opponent cannot just say "I seriously doubt that" as a complete refutation.

== Example situations ==

In the school situation, if their actions are harming others, they should either not engage in the harmful actions, or take those actions to a place where they will not harm others. It is as simply as that.

In the DDO situation, my opponent again contradicts themselves. Back in R2 and R3, my opponent argues that swear words only add intensity to a message, but that you can still make the message without them (his particular examples are for dirty or insulting messages, but it applies to all). Now he is saying that some messages cannot be made without swear words. Even if we dismiss the contradiction, the point he attempts to make is wrong. We are engaging in debates and attempting to use logic to defend and refute. Emotion has no benefit to logic and is often harmful to it. This is why won of the most common logical fallacies is the appeal to emotion. We don't want more of that (though it would make it easier).

As we go into the last round, I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to the summaries.
Debate Round No. 4
Theunkown

Pro

Con says that my source is all relating to the same 'defeated study' (defeated due to small sample of people and environments) however, she herself says that her point about non swearers finding usage of profanity stressful was supported by the limited scope of the study regarding. It would be a double standard and hypocritcal to say my study is defeated but Con's limited scope study is reliable.

Let us analyse why non swearers feel uncomfortable with the usage of swear words. I assume that the non swearer group is fine with normal words, but they are only uncomfortable with swear words. Well this means there has to be some fundamental difference between swear words and non swear words. The obvious difference is that swears are socially unacceptable. Hence, when someone swears around higher authority, some people feel uncomfortable.
It does not take a genius to realize that the social unacceptability of certain words cause some people to be stressed or atleast feel uncomfortable.
So, if we make swearing more socially acceptable, then that stress will be reduced.


My opponent simply disagrees with the law of diminishing returns without providing justification for it

I did not 'simply disagree' with it. Let me revisit that point. The example I gave was that a person uttering a swear once a day was increased to twice a day, the lessening of the swear's intensity and usefulness is insignificant, if present at all. So if swearing was made a little more acceptable, it is not necessarily true that the usefulness will have a significant drop.


We are engaging in debates and attempting to use logic to defend and refute. Emotion has no benefit to logic and is often harmful to it

True, however without emotion, the readers feel disconnected (for me anyway) and that is detrimental to convincing someone (and the debate gets less lively). But that is just my opinion and this is to be argued at another time, another debate.


In the school situation, if their actions are harming others, they should either not engage in the harmful actions, or take those actions to a place where they will not harm others

Swearing among friends in a casual environment during breaktime in the cafeteria does not harm the teachers. The only detriment there is to allowing swearing in high schools (in casual free time, just like in the outside world) is that it is detrimental to people who want to look like a 'badass'.

I rest my case


Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate topic. It is always nice to engage in fresh and unique topics. Although this is the last round, there are new things that have been said in just this round that I have not been previously given the opportunity to address, along with that, my opponent only stated that R5 must be left blank if an argument was made in R1. Since no argument was made, the rules of this debate allow me to use my R5.

== Sources ==

Pro is correct that the study was defeated because of its limited scope. The purpose of the non-swears being stressed (which is self evident and my opponent never challenged, so I had no need to provide additional sources) was to show that even if the source was legitimate, it still works against my opponent. It was simply to show that my opponent failed their burden on multiple levels.

== Analyze non-swearers ==

My opponent did not directly comment on what I said about non-swearing being part of a non-swearer's personality. And claims (against his original source and with no additional sources) that they are only stressed by swearing because it is socially unacceptable. This does not rationally fit because of what I previously said last round. Swearing have a high level of personal unacceptableness to non-swearers, while it does not have a high level of personal unacceptableness to swearers. This is why it is a part of each of their personalities. The social aspect is merely the sum of the individuals. As I said last round, it is irrational to tell one group that they have to change and the other does not.

"However, one must also accept that the trait of being a non-swearer is also a part of who they are and their personality. You cannot just go tell non-swearers to change their personality any more than you can tell swearers to go change theirs." - Me, R4.

== Law of Diminishing Returns ==

My opponent only disagreed with it. He then gave a hypothetically that doesn't show anything other than what he thinks would happen. The LDR is well established and known, and I've already provided studies that show that it applies to swearing (my [1] in R2) that my opponent never disagreed with.

== Emotions in debating ==

"But that is just my opinion and this is to be argued at another time, another debate." - my opponent

Agreed.

== Swearing in Schools ==

My opponent is speculating on if teachers are legitimately stressed and harmed (many would argue that stress is not a true "harm" but that has been the measuring by both sides for the entire debate) or not by swearing. I will not go into this, but just point out that there is no evidence that they are not being harmed/stressed and would refer readers back to my R4 statement where I explained how they are similar to the work place environment.

== Brief Recap of Debate ==

All of my opponent's sources were taken to the point where he was either arguing against them himself (as he did in his R5) or shown to support my case.

I showed that swearing is effected by diminishing returns and so any benefits that it offers gets reduced when it is used more.

My opponent could not provide any sources, evidence, or logic that countered that.

I would like to thank all that took the time to read this debate and offer you an enjoyable song [warning for language, though it is technically a love song] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/4:

Pro argues that "usage of profane language should be seen in a less negative light to be more socially acceptable." Pro, obviously, had the BoP and started in R2.

Pro argues that "People can insult someone just as well with or without a swear word", using as an example that saying "...'even sh!t is more useful than you' is just as insulting as saying 'even poop is more useful than you'.

Pro also argues that " 'I f^cked your mom' is as dirty as saying 'I slept with your mom'. "

Pro appeals to the reader, claiming that when someone uses the "f-word", it is "usually imagined to be someone yelling out lout while the latter way of saying it is imagined to be calm." He says "add the same tone to both ways of saying it, you will see that both ways are just as powerful, dirty, hurtful, etc."

Now, this is a sort of gambit--an appeal to *us* as voters. And, to be quite honest, it very much fails here. The word itself has connotations, and Pro seems to be completely ignoring that. Even if I imagined the LATTER as being the shouted one, and the FORMER being the one said calmly (a step beyond what Pro asked for), I do not naturally agree with Pro--it is not "just as powerful". Of course, that's me injecting somewhat--but that's specifically what Pro asked me to do.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/4:

Pro says "The point is that we can convey insulting and dirty messages whether there are swear words or not, so it makes no sense to keep some words more socially unacceptable." Ignoring connotation, rhetorical force, and emotional impact is, to say the least, an interesting gambit on the part of someone who's in a debate. Until Con brings it up, of course, it's not relevant per se, *since* Pro ignored it, but...I don't see this going well for him, since it's going to be an easy avenue for Con to go down.

This is even more so undercut in Pro's next argument, where he argues that profane words are useful to vent out emotions--here specifically bringing up the emotional impact of the words, despite having ignored it in his previous bolded sentence. Pro also argues that swearing can help bonding.

The first question that came to mind as I read Pro's case, just prima facie, was to wonder whether swearing's status as a "taboo" thing is specifically *why* it's useful for vehemence, emotional venting, and bonding. Pro didn't pre-emptively bring up this obvious point, instead turning the floor to Con.

Con summarizes Pro's argument, that the information content that provide can be provided even without swears, and that swearing acts as an intensifier. He argues that's contradictory, given Pro's argument that both swearing-phrases and non-swearing-phrases are "just as powerful", and given that he claims that "swearing can "convey something important and make the point stronger"", saying that it directly contradicts Pro's first point, which seems quite valid.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/4:

The proverbial money shot that Con presents is: "It is not the swear word itself that reduces the pain, but what it means to us psychologically, the very study that my opponent used (well, technically that their source's source used) specifically states, "Swear words lose their effect, however, if we use them too often or they no longer carry any particularly emotionality to them. That"s why a swear word used by someone who swears all the time almost seems like casual conversation to them " because it is. Someone who rarely uses the same word, however, could quickly become offended by the very same word.""

It seems to answer the obvious quesiton that came up, and demolish Pro's case.

Con argues that their current level of social acceptance is correct, arguign that making them more socially acceptable is to get "diminishing returns" from them.

Now, there is a possible defeater to this argument, that I can see; but Pro has to present it.

Pro's R2 is an attempt to respond to Con's points. I could give a further blow-by-blow, but I think it suffices to say that his counters are not compelling.

Pro almost concedes when he agrees that Con's primary point is "very true". I don't think he realizes that, because he immediately launches into arguing that allowing more swearing on DDO would give vehemence to the arguments--but he never addresses Con's point regarding *overuse*.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/4:

Pro then asks why high school students aren't allowed to swear--again, ignoring Con's point.

Pro finishes by saying that "the amount of unacceptability is a bit too high", but hasn't really given us any reason to think that.

Con's next round is a response to Pro. Again, a blow-by-blow seems hardly necessary.

Pro attempts again to respond in the next round but, once again, his rebuttals fail.

Con reiterates some of his responses. He also notes that the "new" sources from Pro really are only reiterating his initial source. This, btw, is where Pro lost source points to me. Trying to claim your evidence is "overwhelming" by repeating a single small study of a single workplace is not compelling. It's not dishonest enough to warrant conduct, but...sourcing seems an appropriate place to penalize. Con notes that Pro's arguments work against him, particularly in regards to DDO.

In the final round, Pro only makes a short attempt at countering. Con reiterates many of his points.

In the end, after reading this it was an easy vote. Con gets arguments, for having made the case that the values Pro presented *relied* on swearing's status. Pro gave no grounds that supported the idea of making it more socially acceptable, and contradicted his own arguments. Con also gets sources, as he gave sources, and I'm inclined to penalize Pro for the way he repeated while claiming he was giving "overwhelming" evidence.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
For the lines of transparency, I have gone down the list of most active voters and sent PMs to all on the list (that have been online in the last 6 months) requesting that they consider voting.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ore has really interesting arguments.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
I would love to debate this with you.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
I might consider this. This is something that I actually strongly support (as con), though I fear for the amount of time I can dedicate to it.
Posted by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Gordontrek: Because "redskins" is demeaning to a specific group of people, which most swear words are not.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Please define "socially acceptable"
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
TheunkownOre_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't do enough to show the benefits of swearing being socially acceptable outweigh the cons. Every pro he brought up seemed to be countered by a greater con. Warehouse workers cussing made for a less stressful work day, but it made customer interactions worse as well as increased tension in tense situations. Another thing that needs to be considered as well, is that pro pretty much admitted that if foul language was more socially acceptable it wouldn't work as well as a stress reliever and to add emphasis to a point. Pro defeats his own resolution.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
TheunkownOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TheunkownOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had good arguments, however some of them went against his stance. Con had sources to back up his arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TheunkownOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate all around. There wasn't very many s&g errors, but con had quite a few grammatical errors so that point goes to Pro. I found that con's contentions of non-swearers and law diminishing weren't properly refuted and this would mean con wins 2/3's of the main contentions giving con the victory. I can go more in depth in this RFD if either debater wishes it.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
TheunkownOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A good debate on an interesting subject. Con's most compelling argument was that more common use of profanity would debase the currency, undermning the benefits of it's current level of use. I think Con had the sources to back that up. Pro's position seemed to me to establish that profanity at current levels had benefits, so we ought to presume that more would be better. con agreed to current benefits, so it was about the arguments for increased acceptability. Con had the better of that. Pro did indeed contradict himself, as Con argued. Con had a few more typos than Pro, but not enough to interfere with following the debate. I wonder Con's use of "their" for "his" was a simple mistake or an obscene use of political correctness. No matter, I was warned there would be swearing.