The Instigator
Rosalie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,819 times Debate No: 82429
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (56)
Votes (2)

 

Rosalie

Pro

Hello all, this debate will be between Zaradi and I. This wont be opened until next week.


Resolution: "The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed."

Rules:
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics abuse
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.


Structure:First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.


Definitions:


Swearing Filter:A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs. (https://www.google.com...)


Removed:eliminate or get rid of. (https://www.google.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
Rosalie

Pro


There are 2 types ideologies of Communitarianism. 1- Political Communitarianism and 2- Philosophical Cmmunitarianism. I will be arguing on the Philosophical view point of Communitariansim that each individual has the free will to act in a way in which they choose, and in a way the benefits them.


Framework:


Communitarianism:


[1] Communitarianism is often contrasted with liberalism, a theory which holds that each individual shouldformulate the good on his or her own. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced.



Communitarianism is a learning experience. In order to learn what is good and bad, right or wrong, they must first act on it to learn for themselves. By taking away a individuals rights of free speech, we act as a Capitalist government. We can gather, by taking away an individual's rights, we rob their free will. Thus, they are not able to exercise their free will and individuals are unable to determine what is right, and what is wrong.


[2] This leads to a second premise that emphasizes the common good as an ideal. Such a premise downplays the values of individuality, autonomy, and personal rights, so prevalent in other ethical theories, in favor of a focus on the virtues and actions that support the interests of society as a whole. While this does include respect for human life and dignity, allowing for all persons to achieve a meaningful potential, the common good also calls for concern for long-term sustainability, intergenerational justice, an emphasis on active and informed citizenship, and a balance between individual and communal interests. At times, the common good may require all citizens to consider the needs of the broader community above the needs of any one individual, group, or organization.



As provided by the "Swearing Filter" definition, profanity can mean several different things to people. What is profane and not, depends on one's background, how they were raised their moral beliefs. But, if we take a look further into the word "Profane" we will see that what is Profane, comes from a religious ground. "Profane" can be defined as [3] " (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.)


There are estimated to be around 4,200 types of religions. This includes Atheism, Agnostic and Secularism. These religions don't believe there is a god, or there is no valid proof of God or they believe in science reasoning. Thus, what is profane and not is based on religious ethics, it's safe to say that:


A) What is Profane or not can vary to multiple people.


B) Not everyone is religious, so determining on what is Profane can be derived from a moral stand point not a religious one.


By providing the swearing filter, we limit people to the extent on which they can express themselves.


Surprisingly, swearing has many benefits.



Benefits


[4] Some pain theorists regard our tendency to swear after hurting ourselves to be a form of “pain-related catastrophising” – an exaggerated negative mind set which is brought to bear during a painful experience. As such, swearing is thought of as a maladaptive response, which contributes to the intensity of the pain and emotional distress. Given that it is such a common response, Richard Stephens and his colleagues at the Keele University School of Psychology set out test the hypothesis that swearing would decrease pain tolerance and increase pain perception.


They recruited 67 undergraduates, and asked to make two short lists of words – one containing five words they might use after hitting themselves on the thumb with a hammer, the other containing five words they might use to describe a table. The participants submerged one of their hands into room temperature water for three minutes, to provide a standardized starting point, then transferred it to a container of cold water and instructed to keep it submerged for as long as they could. In one condition, they were told to repeat the first swear word they had included in their list; in another, they repeated one of the words describing a table.


The researchers measured how long the participants kept their hands submerged in cold water, and asked them to rate the amount of pain they felt. Their heart rates were also recorded after they had submerged their hands in room temperature water as well as after the submersion in cold water. Contrary to their hypothesis, they found that swearing actually reduced the amount of pain felt. The participants kept their hands submerged in the cold water longer for longer, and also reported experiencing less pain, when they repeated a swear word than when they repeated a word describing a table. Swearing was also associated with increased heart rate.


Here, we can see that cussing is a benefit, and helps people control and maintain their emotions in the spur of the moment, it also increases pain.


More benefits include.. [5]


1. Pain relief. Swearing activates the so-called 'fight or flight' response, leading to a surge of adrenaline and a corresponding analgesic effect. Richard Stephens of Keele University in England found that people who swear are able to hold their hands in ice-water for twice as long. However, this only holds for people who swear a few times a day, not for so-called 'chain-swearers'. Presumably chain-swearers are densensitized to their swearing, and so not particularly aroused by it. It remains unclear whether some swear words are more effective than others. But it seems very likely.


2. Power and control. Swearing can give us a greater sense of power and control over a bad situation. By swearing we show, if only to ourselves, that we are not passive victims but empowered to react and fight back. This can boost our confidence and self-esteem, and also provide the impetus for further corrective action to be taken. As Mark Twain put it, 'When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear.'


3. Non-violent retribution. Swearing enables us to get back at bad people or situations without having to resort to violence. Instead of punching someone in the face or worse, we channel and disarm our anger by swearing instead. True, swearing can also have hurtful consequences, but better a few sharp words than a sharp dagger. Swearing can also serve as a warning signal or as a marker of rank and authority, a bit like an animal's growl: "Watch out. Stop it. Or you're damn well going to pay the price."


4. Psychological and physical health. The health benefits of swearing include increased circulation, elevated endorphins, and an overall sense of calm, control, and well-being. The key is to do it sparingly and not to get angry at the same time, which would be very bad for you—as well as terribly vulgar.


By providing the filter do we not only take away freedom of speech, but we take away an option to manage stress and other emotional issues.


Counter-Plan.


Let's note that only swear words are banned. But, words that categorize a group people such as "Faggot-Nigger-Honky" are not filtered. On a philosophical standpoint, these are referred to as slurs. Thus, they are more hurtful because you are referring to someone as a faggot, a nigger or a honky. Thus, you refer to a group of people. This is called Hate Speech [7] Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality.."


This leads to my Counter argument.



When you use a cuss word, you are referring to the word, not using the words to refer to something else.


C.1 Filter words that refer to an individual specifically.


As stated above words that refer to a group of people (i.e nigger, faggot) are not filtered whatsoever. These words are much more offensive as they refer to not only the person it is directed at, but that community as a whole.


Example-


[6] Consider another example, from native English to native English. The word “retarded” comes from an Anglo-French or Latin word “retarder” or “retardere” which means “to slow” or “to delay”. It has found its way into many languages, including Italian, where it is commonly used in music. If you see “ritardano” on an orchestral score, it means gradually reducing the tempo; retarding. Likewise, in music theory, a retardation is a type of non-chord tone. In English, the word has been around for 225 years, first appearing in 1788. The term “retard” has its root in latin and appears, in various languages, related to the concept of “slow” or “holding back”. Music theory frequently uses the concept for tempo markings and chord resolutions. It was for that reason that in 1895, the word “retarded” began to be used to describe those who were “slow” due to mental handicaps. It was a perfectly innocuous word that was used as a euphemism; “Timmy is … retarded” meant the same as us, today, saying, “Timmy is … slow”. The word “retarded” was used as a replacement for offensive words such as “idiot”. It was the polite euphemism. A lot of well meaning people convinced others to use it instead of the more hurtful terms.


This is why we no longer use the word "retarded" but now its classified as "Mentally challenged" all because society turned the word into something it wasn't. Same goes for the word "Hoe". A Hoe is a gardening tool that has now been used again men and women who take part in many sexual behaviors. Same goes for the word "Bitch" which actually means female dog.


C.2 Filter as an Option.


This is pretty simple. Any member ought to have the option to "Turn on the swearing filter, or to turn off". That way people who are offended by swearing can avoid it, while others are able to express themselves and exercise their free will.


Now, to Con!


Sources:


1- http://tinyurl.com...


2- http://tinyurl.com...


3-http://tinyurl.com...


4-http://tinyurl.com...


5-http://tinyurl.com...


6-http://tinyurl.com...


7- http://tinyurl.com...



Zaradi

Con

Two things need to be made clear before I get into the specifics of the aff argument. I'll be using these in various different places as both have various implications on her arguments.

First, she's misrepresenting her own definition. It doesn't matter what different kinds of names that something goes by, i.e. whether we call it a swearing filter or a profanity filter or a cursing filter or a "naughty word" filter, if they all share the common definition of "something that removes words the community finds offensive". This means that if a community could find the word to be offensive, then it's applicable to the filter.

Second, words find subjective meaning through how the community perceives the meaning of the word. We can go all day talking about words that were originally defined one way but used in another way, but the argument misunderstands the entire process of communication[1]. When communicating the person talking (the sender) talks to the other person (i.e. creates a message), where the other person (the receiver) hears the speech and interprets the message using communally understood norms. If I ask someone to pass me the ice, and by ice I'm referring to a bowl of soup, the person I'm talking to isn't going to understand what I'm talking about.

With that, let's go to the actual case.


Communitarianism:

I concede that we should evaluate the round under who's best respecting the community's interests. The round will break down to who better accesses the framework.


Religious Connotation to 'Profane':

First, this literally has no bearing on the resolution. Refer back to my first observation.
Second, you don't have to be religious to get offended by swearing. I can get just as offended with someone who tells me to go fvck myself if I'm not religious compared to if I was religious.
Third, even if we derrive what we consider to be swearing from religious norms, that doesn't actually mean anything in terms of how you evaluate the round. Fvck suddenly doesn't become not a cuss word because we're thinking of things in a religious perspective now. There's literally no impact to this argument.
Fourth, even if this is true and profanity varies based upon personal perspective, there's still a common list of words that we all agree are curse words that are socially accepted on from a wide variety of different perspectives. Just saying that these aren't curse words because you don't view them that way ignores the way that communication actually works. Refer back to the second observation.


Benefits to Swearing:

First, this entire list of physical and mental benefits to swearing is non-unique to the affirmative. It's not like having a swearing filter prevents people from swearing. It just censors the swearing. This means that I can access these benefits just as much as she can.
Second, the swearing filter doesn't actually preclude people from expressing themselves. If I just really want to say fvck and there's a swearing filter in place, that doesn't actually prevent me from saying fvck.


Counterplan:

I'll go into the specifics of the two different ideas in a second, but to address them both right here -

Neither of the counterplans actually affirm the resolution. If we're filtering words that reference individually specific words but not words that aren't specific to individuals, then the filter would still exist. And if we're making the filter something that's optional for people to use but able to be turned off if desired, the filter would still exist. She's supposed to be affirming that we're not filtering anything at all, i.e. removing the filter. If the filter still exists within the system, even in an altered state, she doesn't actually affirm.

This is a game-over mistake from her because none of the rest of her evidence actually gives her any kind of way to garner offense. Benefits to cursing aren't unique to her because the filter here on DDO doesn't actually prevent us from cursing (I've done it four times so far, she's done it once), which means we're both able to use the offense. Which means we have the same links into communitarianism.

So what the debate literally comes down to is her alternatives leave the filter in place. If the filter's still in place, and we're still actually achieving all of these benefits, then you negate the resolution. If she's not advocating for complete removal of the filter, then some kind of filter would still exist, which means that she wouldn't affirm the resolution.

But, lets go to the different ideas individually.


Filter words/slurs that are specific to an individual:

First, this doesn't limit itself to just racial/ethic/sexist slurs. I can be specific to an individual by telling them to go fvck themselves and be specific to an individual. There are ways to make any kind of swearing specific to an individual, meaning we don't actually remove anything.
Second, a slur doesn't have to be targeted specifically at an individual to be offensive.
Third, this is literally her advocating we include words into the filter that aren't included currently. There's no possible world in whcih this affirms.


Create an Optional Filter:

There's no possible world in which this affirm the resolution.

First, this literally doesn't remove anything about the filter at all. The filter as it exists remains in place in it's entirety.
Second, just making it optional to use doesn't actually remove the filter. If anything this negates the resolution as a way to protect the interests of people who get offended by swearing as well as enable those who don't get offended by it.

This means that I'm going to be turning this specific counter-plan in my favor. My advocacy is as follows:
  • Update the filter with words that aren't included in the filter but should be (i.e. discriminatory slurs, common curse words that somehow aren't included).
  • Censor any word that is caught within the filter to be "****", regardless of the word that was filtered.
  • Make the filter optional and able to be turned off. By default it will start on, and individual users would need to disable the filter via their account settings.


This negates because we're still filtering curse words, and adding more words to the list of words being filtered. This also better links to her standard of communitarianism because I'm doing more than just protecting the interests of those people who want to express themselves via swearing, because I'm also protecting the interests of those who get offended or hurt by swearing and allowing them a safer place to interact.


Summary:

You evaluate the round under what's best for the community's interests. I'm best protecting community interests by protecting those who find swearing to be offensive as well as enabling the rights of those who don't view swearing to be offensive, thus protecting and benefiting both sides of the community. She only helps one side, at best.

None of her arguments actually affirm the resolution. All of her arguments are either offense that I have just as much access to under my advocacy as she does, or they just don't affirm straight up because she doesn't actually remove the filter. I'm the only one advocating for their side of the debate.

And, don't let her stand up and explain how she only has to remove certain words from the filter because a) that doesn't remove the filter in the first place, b) it misunderstands how we determine what words have meaning, c) it misunderstands the way communication words in the first place, and d) it misrepresents her own definition.



Sources:

[1] - http://study.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Rosalie

Pro

"First, she's misrepresenting her own definition. It doesn't matter what different kinds of names that something goes by, i.e. whether we call it a swearing filter or a profanity filter or a cursing filter or a "naughty word" filter, if they all share the common definition of "something that removes words the community finds offensive". This means that if a community could find the word to be offensive, then it's applicable to the filter."


My opponent must have not understood my argument on profane. I specifically argued that a cuss word is not describing someone, it is in reference to something. My opponent seems to think that the whole DDO community is prone to be offended by swear words, which is in fact not the case. If he wants to win this argument, he must prove that the DDO community as a whole is offended by all profane words.


Second, words find subjective meaning through how the community perceives the meaning of the word. We can go all day talking about words that were originally defined one way but used in another way, but the argument misunderstands the entire process of communication[1]. When communicating the person talking (the sender) talks to the other person (i.e. creates a message), where the other person (the receiver) hears the speech and interprets the message using communally understood norms. If I ask someone to pass me the ice, and by ice I'm referring to a bowl of soup, the person I'm talking to isn't going to understand what I'm talking about.


This happens all the time. My opponent argues that A) Something can be perceived a different way and B) People will get offended.

Let's face it, it's a debating website. Members get offended every other hour. This is just like when somebody runs a K in a debate. One person may understand the meaning of the K and someone's may misinterpret it. Does this mean that DDO should make a rile banning K's?


Communitarianism:

"I concede that we should evaluate the round under who's best respecting the community's interests. The round will break down to who better accesses the framework."

My opponent clearly ignores my "Communiratianism" case. He ignored my argument that in order for members to understand what is right and wrong, they must act on it. Instead, he drops the case and goes on to rebut my other points.


Religious Connotation to 'Profane':

"First, this literally has no bearing on the resolution. Refer back to my first observation.
Second, you don't have to be religious to get offended by swearing. I can get just as offended with someone who tells me to go fvck myself if I'm not religious compared to if I was religious. "

Once again, my opponent misinterprets my argument on profane. I specifically said that word "Profane" definition is based on religious ground.
Third, even if we derrive what we consider to be swearing from religious norms, that doesn't actually mean anything in terms of how you evaluate the round. Fvck suddenly doesn't become not a cuss word because we're thinking of things in a religious perspective now. There's literally no impact to this argument. So, incase my opponent missed the whole "Profane" argument here it is:

As provided by the "Swearing Filter" definition, profanity can mean several different things to people. What is profane and not, depends on one's background, how they were raised their moral beliefs. But, if we take a look further into the word "Profane" we will see that what is Profane, comes from a religious ground. "Profane" can be defined as [3] " (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.)

There are estimated to be around 4,200 types of religions. This includes Atheism, Agnostic and Secularism. These religions don't believe there is a god, or there is no valid proof of God or they believe in science reasoning. Thus, what is profane and not is based on religious ethics, it's safe to say that:

A) What is Profane or not can vary to multiple people.

B) Not everyone is religious, so determining on what is Profane can be derived from a moral stand point not a religious one.

As stated, some people don't perceive words to be profane, while others do. This has to do with religion and the way one was raised.


Benefits to Swearing:

"First, this entire list of physical and mental benefits to swearing is non-unique to the affirmative. It's not like having a swearing filter prevents people from swearing. It just censors the swearing. This means that I can access these benefits just as much as she can.
Second, the swearing filter doesn't actually preclude people from expressing themselves. If I just really want to say fvck and there's a swearing filter in place, that doesn't actually prevent me from saying fvck"

But it does prevent you from typing it, and posting it, and making it visible for others to see.


"Neither of the counterplans actually affirm the resolution. If we're filtering words that reference individually specific words but not words that aren't specific to individuals, then the filter would still exist. And if we're making the filter something that's optional for people to use but able to be turned off if desired, the filter would still exist. She's supposed to be affirming that we're not filtering anything at all, i.e. removing the filter. If the filter still exists within the system, even in an altered state, she doesn't actually affirm."

Let's note, we are arguing that the **SWEARING** filter should be removed. A swearing filter is a swearing filter. Its blocks out profane words. My opponent seems to think, and claims that if we have any other sort of filter, this it's automatically considered to be a swearing filter.



Filter words/slurs that are specific to an individual:

First, this doesn't limit itself to just racial/ethic/sexist slurs. I can be specific to an individual by telling them to go fvck themselves and be specific to an individual. There are ways to make any kind of swearing specific to an individual, meaning we don't actually remove anything.
Second, a slur doesn't have to be targeted specifically at an individual to be offensive.
Third, this is literally her advocating we include words into the filter that aren't included currently. There's no possible world in whcih this affirms.

My opponent again, misunderstands my argument. He states that " I can be specific to an individual by telling them to go fvck themselves and be specific to an individual" This statement doesn't *describe* someone. It isn't in reference to someone. It's basically telling someone they should go to this. I argued that slur words are more offensive than swearing words because a slur describes someone in a negative way, and a group of people as a whole.


Create an Optional Filter:

First, this literally doesn't remove anything about the filter at all. The filter as it exists remains in place in it's entirety.
Second, just making it optional to use doesn't actually remove the filter. If anything this negates the resolution as a way to protect the interests of people who get offended by swearing as well as enable those who don't get offended by it.

My opponent seems to ignore my whole argument which distinguishes the difference between a *Swear words * and a *slur*. I have shown and proven that slur words can do much more damage and offend someone much more than a swear word because a swear words does not describe someone. So yes, we should remove the *SWEARING* filter, and replace it with a *SLUR* filter.



This means that I'm going to be turning this specific counter-plan in my favor. My advocacy is as follows:

  • Update the filter with words that aren't included in the filter but should be (i.e. discriminatory slurs, common curse words that somehow aren't included).

What about people who don't speak English, or they do, but use Google translate to come up with a swear word? Does this mean you are willing to go through every language spoken, and filter all of their profane words?

  • Censor any word that is caught within the filter to be "****", regardless of the word that was filtered.

Okay, but members could still use "Sh!t" or "Fuc%" Are you suggesting you try to filter all of these symbol combinations to try and filter something that is offensive to many?

Make the filter optional and able to be turned off. By default it will start on, and individual users would need to disable the filter via their account settings.

And this is basically my counter plan. By turning off the swearing filer, the filter exist. but by turning it on, it's then removed off of one's account.


My opponent tries to come up with multiple counter plans. But obviously they would take way to much work and time to do. Who has the time to filter all of theese words and combinations and languages? This could take up to years.


Summary...

My opponent clearly drops my Communitarian case. He also didn't not comprehend the clear difference between a profane word, and a slur.

He also seems to get confused on what a filter actually is. He seems to think that any type of filer, is a swearing filter. Let's think of we somehow had a plagiarism filter, does this mean it's a swearing filter?

All of my opponents counter-plans would fail for the reasons provided above. There is NO way to filter all profane words in the English language, and in many other languages. Also note that my opponent argues we should filter censored words. This is impossible because of all symbol combinations.

Example:

F*ck

F%ck

Fu*ck

etc..

Zaradi

Con

So to keep myself from wanting to tear my hair out in frustration, I want to clarify on what the actual resolution is before I go into the specifics of her last round.

The resolution is, as stated, that Resolved: The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed

Her definition of what a swearing filter is is that it's a filter that censors out words that could potentially offend other people. Whether or not one type of swear is more offensive than another type of swear and what makes it more offensive than another type of swear is the literal definition of irrelevant to the topic. Removing the language filter would be removing the filter so that nothing is filtered. If she isn't defending this, then she's not actually affirming the resolution.

This answers her religious grounds and the difference between slurs and swears arguments because they're literally besides the fvcking point. Regardless of where the origins of what is profane come from and if slurs are worse than swears for whatever reason literally doesn't actually address the argument of if we should filter them out or not. Her entire responses to these points is that I'm not understanding her argument, but then she literally just repeats the very thing that I respond to.

She tried to get fancy with affirming the resolution (probably because she was debating against me and wanted to try and style on me a little), and her arguments don't actually affirm. Don't let her get out of it.

So lets go through each point specifically now.


Communitarianism:

I love how she quotes the part where I talk about communitarianism and then says I dropped it....

She doesn't actually understand what communitarianism is talking about if she's saying that communitarianism is talking about individual action. Communitarianism has literally nothing to do with "acting on what is right and wrond". To quote specifically from her cited example:

"this leads to a second premise that emphasizes the common good as an ideal. Such a premise downplays the values of individuality, autonomy, and personal rights, so prevalent in other ethical theories, in favor of a focus on the virutes and actions that support the interests of society as a whole. While this does include respect for human life and dignity, allowing for all persons to achieve a meaningful potential, the common good also calls for concern for long-term sustainability, intergenerational justice, an emphasis on active and informed citizenship, and a balance between individual and communal interests. At times, the common good may require all citizens to consider the needs of the broader community above the needs of any one individual, group, or organization."

Like, she literally is advocating for the exact opposite of communitarianism. Prefer my link into communitarianism because I advocate for the collective good of everyone in the community through my advocacy of an optional filter (allowing those who want to swear to swear while protecting those who are offended by swearing by filtering it for them), while she isn't even advocating for her own framework.



Religious Meaning to Profane:

She literally spent this entire area saying that I didn't understand her argument and re-repeating the exact text of her argument. She doesn't make a response to literally any of the three responses I made to this argument. So even if you were even slightly considering that there was a reason to buy this argument, you aren't now.



Benefits to Swearing:

Extend my first response that physical and mental benefits to swearing aren't actually prevented by a filter. We can still swear all the god damn time with the filter in place, meaning that I can access the benefits just as much as she fvcking can. There's nothing really stopping me from doing it in the current system.

Her response is that the current system prevents you from typing it up and posting it and making it visible, but a) making it visible doesn't mean I'm not expressing myself for my own personal benefit. There's nothing in her arguments that show that others need to hear me swearing for me to feel better from swearing, but also b) cross apply her own argument that there are plenty of ways around the current filter. She's trying to argue that people can't actually post and express their swearing with the filter in place while at the same time saying that people can get around the filter in a whole bunch of different, creative ways. This puts her in a double-bind, either a) people can get around the current filter in a bunch of different ways, so having a filter in place doesn't actually prevent us from expressing our swearing and reaping the benefits of it, or b) a filter actually does prevent people from swearing and getting around it in meaningful ways. She can't have it both ways.

But then third, even if you don't buy that, having an optional swearing filter (i.e. my advocacy) solves for this dilemna because I allow those who want to express themselves via swearing to express themselves while protecting those who are hurt by this kind of expression. I best allow people to get these benefits while also protecting those who find swearing to be distasteful or offensive.


Difference Between Swearing Filter and Slur Filter:

Extend my argument that there's literally no difference between the two. As per her own definition, a swearing filter is a filter that blocks out words that are offensive to people. Her argument of slurs being more offensive than swearing misses the point that both can be viewed as offensive regardless. As such, she doesn't even meet her own definition of what a swearing filter is with her arguments. This means that both of her proposed "counterplans" don't actually affirm the resolution as they still leave in place something that filters out language that is offensive to people. As per her own definition that she provided in the first round, she needs to remove the filter that blocks out all offensive language. Regardless of what you want to label it as (swearing filter, profanity filter, naughty-potty-mouth-word filter, etc.) is irrelevant to the fact that the name of the filter doesn't change what the filter does. If there is some kind of filter that filters out some kind of offensive language, then the resolution isn't affirmed. It can't get simpler than that.



Responses to my advocacy:

She makes the argument that there are too many different variations of curse words and different ways to spell out curse words and curse words in different languages that a filter is ineffective.

What she doesn't realize is that my advocacy of an optional filter solves for this problem by removing the incentive that people have to actually try to bypass the filter. The whole reason why people bypass the filter now is that they can't post if they don't. My advocacy allows for them to not need to bypass the filter to post in the first place, rather that the system automatically censors the swear that they put in without actually preventing them from posting. Why would I go through the effort of finding a symbol that resembles a bunch of different letters to spell out a word that's censored when I can literally just press a button to disable the filter on my account and type out the word normally?

So my advocacy solves for this problem. The incentive to get around the filter is that we can't post without getting around it. I remove that need, which removes the reason we would have to try and bypass it. This means that it doesn't matter how many different ways she can come up with to get around the filter -- no one is actually going to need to, hence no one will try.

Without an incentive to try and bypass the filter, we don't actually have a reason to post fancy ways around the filter. This means that the filter will be effective at censoring swearing.


Her other response is that it disables the filter for the account, so that removes the filter. But last I checked, DDO wasn't consistent of just a single account. It disables it for that account specifically, but the filter would remain on the site and on those accounts who don't disable the filter. It most certainly negates the resolution.


Conclusion:

Her fancy attempt at semantics is failing miserably. It doesn't matter what she wants to call the filter, because regardless she still has to remove the filter that censors offensive language. Not just some offensive language. What type of language is more offensive and where that offensive language comes from is literally irrelevant to this.

Her arguments don't actually affirm because they leave a filter in place that censors offensive language. This means she's not actually removing the filter.

I'm the only one attempting to link back to her framework of communitarianism. And my advocacy solves for the harms of offending people while still allowing people to access the benefits of expressing themselves simultaneously and removes the incentive that people have to bypass the filter. It's literally the best possible solution.
Debate Round No. 3
Rosalie

Pro


Thank you to Zaradi for a great debate.


Before I conclude, it should be made clear that I'm not trying to impress Zaradi in anyway. He simply says that I'm trying to be fancy with my arguments because I'm debating him of all people. Honestly, I don't care who I debate. Whatever I debate, and whomever I'm debating, I put my all in it. You're no special than anyone else.


I'm going to keep this short, because the conclusion is pretty obvious.


Conclusion:


As provided by the swearing definition ":A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs"


I simply distinguished the difference between a "Slur" and a "Profane" word. I argued and proved how a "Slur" is more offensive than a "Profane" word because a "slur" refers to a group of people in a negative way. Whilst a "Profane" word is referring to its self, and it does not describe someone.


My religious argument suggested that people whom are religious may fine words to be more profane than others. Thus, we should have an option to whether or not one decided to turn on the filter, or not. The member has the option to remove the filter if they are fine with profane words. But the member should also have the option to turn it off. So, if they did decide to turn it off, the filter is removed--off on that particular account.


Let's note that my opponents counter plans wouldn't work. He simply states that "What she doesn't realize is that my advocacy of an optional filter solves for this problem by removing the incentive that people have to actually try to bypass the filter"


There would STILL be the issue of members coming up with combinations such as:


F*ck


Fvck


Sh!it


My opponent seems to think that members won't use cuss words, or different combinations because "no one is actually going to need to, hence no one will try"


And do we know this for a fact? Members STILL use symbols in order to bypass the filter. So, his plan wouldn't work.


Let's also note that my opponent dropped my language argument. That some members are able to speak another language, and cuss. They can easily bypass the filter using bad words in French, Spanish..etc.


Let's ALSO be aware, that there are many free downloadable programs tha allow members of sites to bypass any filter.


I will not provide these links because it would be disrespectful. But, you can do your re-shearch if you wish.



So, in conclusion, there is NO point of the filter. Members can easily bypass it, use symbols, different combinations, and still get their point across. The only thing the filer DOES do, is take away one's free will.



Vote Pro.


Zaradi

Con

I have a class to go to in twenty minutes, but good thing I won't need half of that time.


The way this debate breaks down is really simple seeing as there's only two really relevant to your decision making and I'm winning on both of them.


Slurs/Swearing/Religious Contexts:


Literally all of this is entirely besides the point of the resolution. She spends literally all of the debat trying to establish that there's some kind of meaningful distinction between normal swear words and racial slurs and how one needs to be censored but the other doesn't.

What she fails to actually address, and by fail to address I mean I've made this argument for literally each round of the debate and she's never once put a response against why I'm wrong, is that even if she's proving that there's some kind of meaningful distinction that makes one more hurtful than the other, it's the literal definition of besides the point because they'd both still be offensive language. Look back to specifically what her definition says. For simplicity, I'll cite it again below and emphasize the important bits:

"Swearing Filter:A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs."

So her definition is very literally rejecting her argument is relevant. She's not arguing that one kind of swearing can't actually be viewed as offensive, but rather that one is more offensive than the other. Even if she's right, we'd still be censoring all swearing because all swearing can be offensive.

This means that her religious grounds arguments are dropped, her profane vs. swearing arguments are dropped, and her racial slurs vs. cursing arguments are all dropped.



My Advocacy of an Optional Filter:

The first thing to note is that she doesn't respond to the reasons that I provide for why an optional filter is negating rather than affirming, so this flows solidly into my side of the debate (especially since she's giving reasons for why an optional filter doesn't work now, so she'd be turning herself in multiple different places if it didn't).

She makes a bunch of arguments that all effectively say that there are too many ways around a filter for a filter to be effective. People can use symbols, talk in different languages, and all sorts of other creative things.

My question to this, which she absolutely 100% drops in her last speech and makes no attempt to even respond to this in the slightest way, is very simple:

Why the ever living fvck is anyone going to go through that much effort to bypass the filter if they don't have to even bypass it in the first place to post?

This is the ultimate reason why an optional filter affirms and protects both sides of things in this round and she entirely concedes it in her last round of the debate. Even if those methods exist, I'm literally giving people the option to disable the filter for their personal accounts so that they can swear all they like normally without being prohibited from posting. So even if there is some kind of fancy software I could download that lets me get around swearing filters and post as if it didn't exist, I would have exactly zero motivation to actually go and get that stuff and use it when there was absolutely nothing making me from needing to use it.

She asks the question of how I can know no one will still try and get around the filter, and the answer is "common fvcking sense". The only reason we type out "fvck" with a v currently is if we actually spell it correctly then we aren't actually allowed to submit the post and we have to go back and edit it out. But because I'm removing the block on posting, rather just filtering out anything that is a filtered word with a default "****" message, regardless of what the word is, then there's nothing stopping us from posting things with the correct spelling, meaning there's no incentive there to actually bypass the filter.

Whats more is that if there was still some kind of incentive to get around the filter that I haven't thought of, she makes no argument as for why people would want to bypass an optional filter either. This means that you buy that no one's going ot try and sneak around the filter, and that it'll be effective at filtering out swearing.

This is a game-over issue for her because if I'm actually allowing people to swear while having a swearing filter in place, then I can access her benefits of swearing just as much as she can. This means that there is precisely zero unique offense on the aff's side of the flow.

So what does this mean toward the round in general?


Why you're negating:

Remember the ultimate framework that we're both working back toward fulfilling of communitarianism. We have to be acting in a way that has the best interests of the community of DDO at heart and valuing their interests over our own. I'm allowing those who want to swear to swear without any prohibitions on posting, meaning they can reap all the benefits of swearing, while also filtering out what the swear word actually was and censoring it, which protects those users who are offended by any kind of swearing. This means that I'm literally keeping 100% of the community in my interests and thoughts while she's excluding one group from consideration.

I have the best link into communitarianism. She drops that this is the ultimate framework to evaluate the round under and that whoever has the best link into this is winning the debate. I have the best link into it. She has no offense back toward the framework that I don't also have access to, meaning she has no unique offense in the round. There's literally no way you can affirm the resolution, and I'm giving you clear offense as to how I best link into communitarianism and protect the interests of everyone, meaning I'm winning the round.
Debate Round No. 4
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: See RFD: http://www.debate.org......

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is well past the statute of limitations for moderation, as it has been over 5 months since the voting period ended. The "case" for removal given in the comments would not be sufficient reason for removal in any instance.
************************************************************************
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 9 months ago
Dragon_of_Christ
MODERATOR!! HERE IT IS!!

This is my case that the vote is illogical and should be removed.

////////////

Hello, i'm Rosalie's lawyer.

To change something is to get rid of the previous thing and submit a new version.

Rosalie proves it should be changed in which process it would be removed and replaced.

Removal is part of the process.

Rosalie wins and YYW's vote is illogical.

The vote should be removed.

-DoC-
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
I see debates about proposals for modifications to the site often. Within these debates there seems to be the unstated premise that DDO should do what is in the best interests of the community of users. The site should do what's in the best interests of the site's owners.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Thanks for reading and voting YYW! :)
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
I will vote on this
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
A few people said they we're going to vote.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
Why is voting on this site so fvcking bad.... I'll try to get around to this before time's up.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Disregard that comment. It was a terrible joke.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
You're welcome.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Thank you...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
RosalieZaradiTied
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: See RFD: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/77952/
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
RosalieZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: test