The Instigator
Pro (for)
56 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
84 Points

The swearing filter on DDO should be removed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 22 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,624 times Debate No: 92670
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (122)
Votes (22)




I will argue that there should be no restrictions on what words we can use on DDO. First round is acceptance.

Resolution: "The swearing filter on DDO should be removed."

I am Pro, airmax1227 is Con. I accept the burden of proof. I don't need to set a ton of rules, because having a list of rules longer than anyone cares to read is silly, and I want this debate to be straightforward.

This is my first step towards helping DDO. I think there are lots of problems with this website, and that the swearing filter is one of the first things that needs to go.

Voting is simple: Select the winner. You don't even have to write a comment.

Let the games begin.



While this isn't an issue I am particularly concerned about, nor necessarily at odds with my opponent on, I will reluctantly agree to accept this debate.

I realize that no RFD is required for this debate, but I would urge anyone voting to be sure to vote on the actual arguments presented and not on whether or not you agree with the resolution.

With that said, I would like to wish my opponent good luck, and I look forward to an interesting debate.

Burden of Proof

My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate to prove that the filter should be removed, and also that it should be a high priority to do so.

While I possibly could agree that the filter may be unnecessary, my opponent has stated the following in his opening:

"...the swearing filter is one of the first things that needs to go."

In other words, my opponent believes that the filter is a significant problem, and the limited time and energy available, needs to be put into removing it.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon my opponent to prove that:

A) the filter is a problem


B) It is a problem to the extent that it needs to be the first thing dealt with among all of the other current issues.


The swearing filter doesn't prevent anything not worth preventing

If anyone has a hard time expressing themself without using curse words, grow up. We should not spend any of the very limited time we have on site development because of ones lack of maturity, or their inability to express themself properly. Instead, we should insist that people learn how to express ideas properly, rather than waste any dev time on this.


Should be a low priority

If we do concede to placate one's inability to act in a mature manner, it should we way down the list of priorities. There are tons of things that we should deal with before we even consider removing the filter. Things just off the top of my head like fixing the front page update issue, adding more debate voting options, fixing the bugs in the polls/opinions section, and fixing forum formatting issues (among dozens of other things I could come up with) should all be resolved long before we decide to spend time on fixing a non-issue.


It doesn't even prevent what it's supposed to

It's still possible to curse in the forums by creative editing or bypassing the filter. This means that if you are someone with such little self control that you can't control your ability to curse, then you can still do so. Thus, the filter is meaningless, and it doesn't prevent you from being able to curse. So before we spend what little time we have on site development on this pointless issue, we should consider that we really shouldn't spend any time on it at all, and that we should do other things first. In other words, before we fix a problem that doesn't exist, we should fix problems that do.


Removing the filter supports inappropriate behavior

Removing the filter will signal to our members that acting in an inappropriate way is ok. Being able to debate and discuss things with people without the use of profanity is a good thing. Using profanity in formal conversation (I don't mean casual chats with your buddies) is a sign of several different things like, indifference to norms, low class attitude, and an inability to maintain proper decorum. Ultimately it's a sign of a lack of maturity, and on we should encourage rational discourse, not child-like profanity filled ranting. We don't need more hostility on the site, so we shouldn't try to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.

In conclusion:

The filter is supposed to prevent you from doing something you shouldn't be doing anyway. The fact that it doesn't actually do that means this is a non-issue from the get-go, and the fact that it's a non-issue, and a trivial one at best even at that, means we shouldn't spend any time on it while we have dozens of far more important things to focus on.

Therefore we shouldn't remove the swearing filter, and spending any time on the issue is a waste of time.

The resolution insists that we fix a problem that doesn't exist, and even if that problem existed, it wouldn't be worth fixing as high of a priority like my opponent states.

Resolution negated and have a nice day.

I'd like to thank my opponent, anyone reading this debate, and I look forward to my opponent's next round.
Debate Round No. 1


I want to thank airmax for accepting this debate. I appreciate the time he has devoted to the site.

Since airmax accidentally posted his argument in the first round, which was supposed to be for acceptance, we agreed he will just pass on the last round.

Also on the voting, I really just want alot of people to vote on this. If you read the debate, vote. I don't care if you think I won but vote for airmax because you agree with him. There will be no vote moderation. Read the debate and vote for who you thought was more convincing. I guarantee you, when people don't have to fear about voting moderation creeping up behind them in the dead of the night to viciously click the delete button by their vote, many people will have fun.

Also, airmax says he is not particularly at odds on this topic. That's because, as moderator, even if he agrees with me, which he very probably does considering how absurd the swearing filter is, he's not allowed to go around trashing the rules. Airmax is a good guy, but I think even he can see the stupidity of the swearing filter.

Burden of Proof
In case anyone forgot, the resolution is "The swearing filter on DDO should be removed." When airmax quotes me saying that the swearing filter is one of the first things that needs to go, this isn't part of the debate. It's really just my personal opinion. But, since I feel strongly about this, I'm going to give very good reasons why the swearing filter should go. And it should go immediately.

DDO is a wreck
Let me say this: DDO is in a horrible wreck, and many users feel the same way. For the most part, this place is very boring. Seriously, look at debates from four years ago:

Both of these debates have a lot of votes. I know, noobs, you've never seen that many votes on one debate before, let alone ten. The users were much more excited about the debates, and clearly, were more active. The site was actually fun.

But now, it's very common for many debates to go completely unvoted. Look at how many *noob snipes* end in 0 votes. 0 votes. This is totally unacceptable. Look at how many of Kasmic's debates ended in a tie because they got no votes. Many of the best users have left the site, and if they do return, they realize what a mess the site is and leave. We have an influx of noobs who promote noobidity by noob sniping other noobs and asking for more rules. Many horrible, boring, and unvoted debates. The member base is a wreck. The voting is a wreck. The home page is a wreck. The forums have largely become a place to socialize, and discuss and so they're a wreck.

Fun debating on this website is dead.

I am not the only person who feels this way. I have had many users come up to me, and say: "Mike, you're 100% correct. This place used to be fun. I used to love coming on here. Now, it's boring and I don't even know why I stay."

Rules are the main cause
The reason this place has become so boring, and so many members are dissatisfied is because of the websites ridiculous amount of rules. Seriously, the voting standards are ridiculous. The swearing filter is ridiculous. People aren't allowed freedom. When you were a kid playing on the playground, it was fun to wrestle. When the all these rules came along and you had to wear your helmet, look both ways before crossing the sidewalk in case a tricycle would kill you, and don't you dare play red rover or climb a tree. Someone could get hurt. It got boring. That's what's happening to this website. Climbing trees is the same as swearing or trolling a bully. We like doing it. Rules get in the way.

The Swearing Filter is Ridiculous
Airmax admits that the swearing filter is ridiculous. For crying out loud, he's the moderator of this entire site, and even he says it's silly! Rules on a debate website that even the moderator admits are stupid? How is this anything other than clutter?

One reason why the swearing filter is so stupid, though I could go on and on:

You can't say the word "a*s."

But you can say "Faggot" "Cunt" and "Nigger."

Solve the problem: Reduce Rules, Promote Free Speech
The way to solve the problem is to completely rennovate the website. By rennovate, I mean get rid of all the bullsh*t rules. By far, the oldest and stupidest rule on the website is the swearing filter. This rule is stupid because as the moderator admits, it doesn't even work and is laughable. Second of all, it infringes on the users' free speech.

How the bloody hell are we supposed to debate controversial topics if we aren't allowed to use controversial words?

This website is called Not not not, it's

Of course, as airmax points out, there are many problems with the website. The home page doesn't work for crying outloud. However, it would be a massive precedent if we got rid of the oldest and stupidest rule on the website. Imagine how easy it would be to get rid of all the ridiculous other rules. Debates would get many votes, people would have fun, and the member base would go through the roof.

Juggle would start listening to us. Things would change.

People who swear aren't stupid
Airmax makes a really ridiculous argument. People who swear aren't swearing because they don't have a big vocabulary. They swear because they want to swear, and in fact, people who swear alot have better ability to use words.

This study shows that people who swear up a storm, also know many other words, and are actually far better at using language than people who don't swear.

Also, come on, college kids swear alot. Hell, I'm in a school full of engineers and every day, I hear people in the library swear without a care in the world. Many smart people swear.

Isn't debate about using language to convince people? Then why the hell would we make an atmosphere that turns off people who are better at using language? We should promote an atmosphere for controversial debate, where excellent debaters feel comfortable.

Swearing isn't immature or any of that. The inability to control yourself is immature. But if you want to swear, go right ahead.

This debate is not just about swearing...

This debate is about what sort of website we want to have. As many people have pointed out, this website has many problems. The rules have gotten to a point of absurdity, and many users are very frustrated with this.

Yes, there are problems with the functioning of the website. But it doesn't matter how well the website functions if it's boring. I'd much rather have every debate get 10 votes and the homepage never get fixed than so many debates end in 0 votes with everything working smoothly.

If we don't change it now, things will get worse
If DDO does not change its direction, things will get worse. I promise you this. Many, if not all of the veteran members will leave. The discussion and debate quality will continue to decline. There will be more stupid rules, and anyone who actually wants to have fun will be gone. The website will be boring.

This is something I feel strongly about. Look, ask any member who has been on the website for over 2 years and they will tell you: the website was more fun back then. And airmax knows that many people feel this way. As YYW points out, this website used to be the wild west. That's why we loved it. Anything went. Cowboys are badass. Let's make DDO the wild west again.




My opponent and I seem to agree on his BOP. This means he has to prove that it is a particular obstacle to something - apparently his ability to enjoy the site - and that it must be a high priority to remove it.

My opponent's contentions:

C1: DDO is a wreck

This is mostly irrelevant to the resolution. My opponent is more than welcome to have feelings about things, but this contention is unproven, and also doesn't mean a thing to the actual resolution.

I'm really quite confused about my opponent's approach here in his round as he appears to be gish galloping about entirely unrelated things that don't have anything to do with the resolution.

My opponent concludes this contention with "Fun debating on this website is dead."

It's all well and good that my opponent feels this way but A) it has nothing to do with the resolution, B) it certainly has nothing to do with the curse filter and C) It's just how my opponent feels, he can't prove it.

Let's assume my opponent feelings are accurate, something he has entirely failed to prove to any degree, but let's assume it for a moment. He says he used to enjoy the site, but now he doesn't. This proves that my opponent's contention is inaccurate because the curse filter existed when he enjoyed the site, and it still exists. Therefore the curse filter has nothing to do with anything related to this contention and is entirely irrelevant.

Contention negated.

C2: Rules are the main cause

The rules related to voting have nothing to do with the resolution, so we can ignore that immediately. More importantly, there aren't strict rules about profanity. My opponent will admit that I am not very strict about profanity, and no one is being banned for mere casual usage of profanity on occasion. So, this contention is again irrelevant to the resolution. The rules about profanity have been the same from the time my opponent joined the site until now, and the filter has existed during that entire time. So again, the filter has nothing to do with my opponent's tangential argument about his feelings, and it has nothing to do with effecting his fun, since it's been a static part of the site during the entire time he has been a member.

Contention negated.

C3: The Swearing Filter is Ridiculous

My opponent is framing the ridiculous aspect of this incorrectly. I think it's ridiculous that we are even debating this. The filter does pretty much nothing, and effects alomost nothing practical. It literally doesn't prevent you from expressing yourself in any way, and if my opponent had fun on the site at one point with its existence, clearly the fact that it still exists isn't the cause of him not having fun now.

My opponent can point to whatever he'd like for that reason, but it's not the filter, as I have irrefutably proven.

I'd like to make it clear that I don't think it's ridiculous that it exists. Even if I am lax on profanity I'd like members to have to go that extra step to be less than thoughtful. You can't just use profanity, you have to go out of your way to censor your profanity, and thus you have taken that extra step to make it clear you thought about it, and decided to express yourself in that particular way. The filter doesn't prevent profanity, but it creates a "self shaming" dynamic that forces people to at least give a moments thought to dismiss expressing them self in a more thoughtful manner. The filter therefore serves a purpose and is not ridiculous. Removing it would be though, because it would be pointless to do so.

Contention negated.

C4: Solve the problem: Reduce Rules, Promote Free Speech

The filter isn't a rule per se', it's a site feature. It's supposed to encourage everyone to be more thoughtful in the way they communicate. Encouraging a less thoughtful approach is the problem, and I think actually reflects an attitude that is more problematic on the site lately, and may actually be a root of many of the sites problems that my opponent and others have, and that is the possible decreasing maturity level of the site's membership. We should not give in to the "low road DDO" that my opponent urges us to accept.

Fight against the "DDO low road", Vote Con!

My opponent furthermore decides to belittle the concept of free speech by invoking it here. Free speech is about being able to express yourself freely and substantively (in this context). I don't want to get into a whole FoS discussion here (since I'm skipping much that can be said), but the bottom line is that you are free to discuss pretty much whatever you like, and being inconvenienced with your use of profanity belittles FoS, and demeans us all in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Contention negated.

C5: People who swear aren't stupid

I never said this at any point, in any place, ever, in the entire universe, and this strawman is poor conduct by my opponent. My point was that casual profanity reflects a lack of maturity, and a lack of ability to express oneself in a proper fashion. Whatever point you are trying to make with use of profanity, can easily be made without it. Certainly expletives have some purpose at certain times (I'm not saying I don't ever curse), and the filter really doesn't prevent that - but there is a time and place for it.

Strawman negated.

C6: This debate is not just about swearing

The resolution mostly is. If you wanted to debate something else you should have made it about something else. I understand the broader point, but we are debating about the filter, and the filter isn't preventing you from having fun. You used to have fun and the filter was around, and now you aren't having fun and the filter is still around, so it's obviously something else.

If my opponent wanted to debate other rules, that are actually, you know, rules, then he should have challenged me to that debate. Instead he has made mostly irrelevant arguments in his round, and insists that I debate him about something else. I wont do that, this is about the curse filter, and to this point my opponent has failed to show why the filter should be a high priority to remove for any reason whatsoever.

Attempt to change what we are supposed to be debating, negated.

C7: Time

My opponent would like us to accept that his feelings are facts, and I think we are all able to recognize that we shouldn't do so. My opponent makes many claims here that are entirely unbacked up with anything other than statements of his feelings, and while that is fine, it doesn't go anywhere close to establishing the resolution.

My opponent's conclusion:

My opponent makes the argument that we should return to the "Wild West" days of DDO. Firstly, my opponent was never on the site when it was like that. If he had fun when he first arrived, then it wasn't due to its anarchic nature. Secondly, my opponent is once again expressing his feelings here, which is fine, but it doesn't have anything specifically to do with the filter.

All of my opponents Contentions 1 through 7, have been negated, and even on their own, don't carry his BOP.

My contentions C1-C4 were never rebutted at any point, in any way, whatsoever.


I understand that my opponent has feelings, and feelings are great. He's bored with the site, and I get that. But it doesn't have anything to do with the curse filter. The filter has existed the entire time he has been on the site, so it can NOT possibly have anything to do with my opponent's only argument, which is that he's bored with the site and that it has something to do with the curse filter. Arguments about other things causing him to dislike the site (other rules) can and MUST be ignored, since they have nothing to do with this debate or its resolution.

I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I wish him good luck in the rest of it.
Debate Round No. 2


As you will notice, (maybe you didn't, but I did), airmax never really comes out strongly against the swearing filter. Instead he admits he isn't very strict about swearing, and pretty much says that the swearing filter is a mess. Like I said before, I strongly suspect that airmax thinks the swearing filter is bogus as well. But of course, he's the moderator, so he can't say what he really thinks about the issue.

But what he does say about the filter, definitely points towards him thinking it is one of the more absurd rules on the site. Even the moderator of this site likely thinks that the swearing filter is a joke. This sounds more like a rule for the sake of a rule.

My Case:

DDO is a mess
Airmax seemingly agrees that there are many problems with the website. But he just insists that this has nothing to do with what we're debating. It does. I will explain below. In fact, in the previous round airmax stated many of the problems with the website, which just suports my point that the website is far less fun than it used to be. I'd like to point out that many users I have spoken with think the website is not as fun as it used to be, or agree with me on the swearing filter removal. Romanii. Danielle. Thett3. Wylted. Lannan13. ThinkBig. TBR. And many more.

Not to mention, thett3 has strongly supported me.

"when did zmike go from being slightly above average to DDO's greatest member by far? zmike, every single thing you have said since you've returned has been 100% on point. I think even YYW is considering removing you from the blacklist" -thett3

Airmax just dismisses my argument, despite many members being unsatisfied with the website. Listen to what 16kadams says:

"I dunno why I am still on this site, tbh." -16kadams

Many of the users who have been around a long time find that the website has gone downhill. I am not alone.

Voting is very relevant to the topic at hand. As I have shown, debates these days do not get many votes. Even imabench who has criticized me agrees on this point. Debates used to get many more votes, but now, because of rules, voting is a much rare phenomenon. People are not interacting as much. The rules are so strict, many users don't even vote anymore because they know their vote would be removed.

Rules are the problem
Rules rules rules. DDO is ruled by rules. Voting rules. Language rules. Personal attack rules. People setting 2 paragraphs long of rules on their debates. Rules everywhere. As I've shown, rules make things less fun. As rules have increased on this site, peoples' fun has decreased to the point we have reached now. Things started getting boring when people had the great idea they would tell everyone else what to do.

Removing Rules is the solution
DDO has way too many rules. We should make it fun again. I think everyone would agree on that. The best way to do this is to set a precedent about how the site will change. The only way to set this precedent is to remove the very oldest and obviously the most silly rule on the website. It used to be possible to have fun while the swearing filter was in place. Of course, this was always a stupid rule, but we mostly just ignored it, because overall, the website allowed us to be pretty free. But now, we need to change DDO. We need to add weight to the other side, and tip the scales back towards freedom and fun, and away from rules and boring. We need to apply an equal and opposite force to find ourselves in equilibrium. It's Newton's Second Law, guys. The sum of the forces = m*a.

Swearing promotes an atmosphere for good debaters
People who are good at using language swear more frequently. This is proven by science. Airmax ignores this.

We want people who are good at using language on this website. So we should make the website welcoming to them.

Airmax Refuted:

Airmax wants you to feel shamed for swearing. He says

"The filter doesn't prevent profanity, but it creates a "self shaming" dynamic". -airmax

Really, this is ridiculous. People come on this website to debate, not to go back to listening to their mom tell them what to do.

Ok, so airmax wants us to feel self-shamed for using the word "a*s" but not the word "nigger." Ridiculous. Unless of course, airmax wants to modify the swearing filter to include other words.

But it's just a law of nature that it's always easier to throw something out than fix it. It would be so much easier to just throw out a broken watch than fix it.

People who swear
Airmax's argument here is essentially this:

"My point was that casual profanity reflects a lack of maturity, and a lack of ability to express oneself in a proper fashion."

This is just question begging. It means, airmax is assuming that swearing is bad in order to show that swearing is bad and shouldn't be allowed. He's assuming his conclusion to prove his conclusion. Reasoning in a circle, aka just plain hokey pokey.

He apparently admits that people who swear alot are better at using language. People who swear alot don't swear because they don't know what else to say or lack maturity. They could express themselves with many other words, since science has shown they know many. They swear because they know how to use language, and they *choose* to swear.

He also says: "Whatever point you are trying to make with use of profanity, can easily be made without it."

We all know this isn't true. If you stub your toe, you don't say "Aww Gee Golly, Wally I stubbed my little toe!" No. You yell "Ahh f*cking sh*t!!!!!"

Sometimes "Darn it!" just doesn't cut it.

The Swearing Filter and Fun
According to airmax, since I had fun when the swearing filter was in place, the swearing filter hasn't caused me to be bored with the site.

He must not have read my argument.

I'm saying that the website has gone downhill because of rules. We need to change this. The best way to change this is to remove the oldest rule on the website and set a precedent. We will start the momentum on DDO to change. We will do this by removing the swearing filter which is clunky, doesn't work, is absurd, hurts free speech, and the moderator probably thinks it's silly too. Time to clean house.

This is a debate website:
This is a debate website. Free speech is the most fundamental part of being able to have an intellectual discussion. Free speech includes the freedom to swear.. Not allowing swearing is not allowing free speech. You cannot have a good debate website when the most fundamental aspect of debate is not allowed.

Airmax says I'm promoting a low road. Well then, the low road sure sounds alot better than a decrepid website that many members think isn't fun anymore, that doesn't allow free speech and is overrun by ridiculous rules everywhere.

I've shown that the problem with DDO is that it isn't fun to the users anymore. I've shown this is because of the crazy rules. I've shown that the best way to make DDO fun again is to fight the rules by removing the oldest one: the swearing filter.

Airmax hasn't replied to this argument. Probably because he realizes many people feel the same way, and he'd rather divert attention.

Thank you for reading, and long live DDO.


Before I get into the main aspects of my final round, there are a few things that must be recognized at this point:

1) My opponent is debating something other than the resolution I was challenged to.

My opponent has made this clear, and there is no way he can refute that at this point. He has stated that, while he wants the filter to go, there is a much larger point he is trying to make, and that is why he hasn't focused at all on proving the one thing he is required to.

In other words, my opponent wants to debate "DDO is no longer as fun as it used to be" and he chose the curse filter as the particular red herring of that debate to debate as the resolution here.

If my opponent were to debate what he is trying to debate here, the filter would be one of his arguments (and easily one of the weakest ones), and that might be valid. However, what he is trying to do here is work the argument backwards, which simply does not make any sense in this debate, and due to that he is failing on all fronts to show why his red herring should matter in the least.

2) My opponent has not once even attempted to refute my opening round

I laid it out very clearly in the opening round of this debate exactly why this resolution is nonsense and my opponent hasn't made a single attempt at refuting those points. NOT a single attempt.

He hasn't said a single thing about practicality or investment capital, and these are crucial elements of this debate. Instead, my opponent has focused on the debate he'd rather be having.

I'd like to point out that if my opponent decides to attempt to wait until his final round (his next round) to finally reply to these contentions, it would be rather unsportsmanlike since he's had two rounds to do so already, and knows I now can't rebut his rebuttal.

So as far as I'm concerned these contentions are irrefutable, and therefore c1-c4 stand entirely unopposed.

3) My opponent's recent round just doubles down on irrelevancy

DDO is a mess

This isn't the resolution, and it doesn't matter, especially since it's not proven and even if it was, my opponent would then have to actually make the argument that the filter is the main reason for it, thus requiring a high priority to remove it. My opponent takes it an absurd step further by citing testimonials of agreement with him.

Let me illustrate how absurd this is with the following:

1: DDO is a mess
2: DDO uses text
3: Bob and Dave agree with me that DDO is a mess
Conclusion: DDO shouldn't use text


My opponent doubles down on another irrelevant topic. He should debate TUF on this since TUF actually wants to debate it. For the purpose of this debate, it's irrelevant.

Rules are the problem

I've already refuted this, but again, the filter doesn't prevent very much and the rules regarding profanity aren't very strict. This is another red herring when related to the actual resolution we are debating. If my opponent wants to debate something else, he can do so another time.

Conclusion of opening:

Those are my opponent's arguments and they are almost entirely irrelevant to the resolution. Not only doesn't my opponent make any argument specific to the value of removing the filter (besides an abstract, "bring down the whole system" argument), but he doubles down on the irrelevancy of his most recent round, and he continues to debate entirely different topics.

My opponent's rebuttals:


This probably wasn't the best term to use here, but it's besides the point. The point is that we should encourage more thoughtful discourse and to whatever degree, something discouraging profanity, might make one consider more appropriate means of communication.

My opponent apparently didn't understand the point, because he's pointing to other words that could be used improperly, and using them to say, well, if I can say this bad thing, I should be able to say every bad thing.

The problem with this is that 1) The filter doesn't actually prevent you from saying anything, 2) Terms can be viewed as positive and negative based on their context, and 3) there is nothing broken here, this whole debate is a resolution focused on the red herring in a debate my opponent would rather be having.

People who swear

Look, I'm spending an average of about 20 minutes on my rounds so I'm not going to be comprehensive about the use of profanity and the psychology behind it. The point is that if members are given the green light to use profanity casually and constantly, then we will get more of this, and the site will have a far less mature overall look to it, and often come off to onlookers like just a bunch of children yelling at each other.

Again, there is a time and place for profanity, it's not inherently evil and wrong in all circumstances. But this resolution endorses its use across the board to the extent that we should spend investment capital on making it easier, and do so before things that actually matter in terms of improving the site. More profanity will not make this site better. My opponent and I apparently fundamentally disagree on this point, and for whatever reason he believes that profanity is one of the keys to improving things. I believe that's absurd, and I hope anyone reading this recognizes that as well.

The Swearing Filter and Fun

My opponent broadens his argument here to say that it is rules that are the problem, and as I've explained in an earlier round, the fact that we are arguing about this in terms of the profanity filter, shows to some degree that things have changed, and if we agree that in some cases it has been for the negative, its an insistence on DDO becoming an anarchic playground for people to have more freedom to spout profanity at each other.

Certainly there are ways we can improve DDO, but this particular red herring to show how its become worse really just demeans all of us.

My opponent's conclusion:

"Airmax says I'm promoting a low road. Well then, the low road sure sounds alot better than a decrepid website that many members think isn't fun anymore, that doesn't allow free speech and is overrun by ridiculous rules everywhere."

Ya know, I think you might have a point here (acidentally really, since the FoS invocations are ludicrous). In general, I've fought the urge to base moderation decisions on my personal particular values (though there is plenty of overlap) and things I think might be conducive to what I think is ideal, and instead do my best to find some compromise from all those concerned within the community, and find some balance in each of those areas.

Perhaps the average age of membership has finally moved that community balance to a place where more would prefer forums filled with profanity, personal attacks, and a general anarchy more akin to something like 4chan. I certainly hope that's not true, and I will certainly consider this by getting feedback from the community on that possibility, but if it is true, then I have certainly outgrown this site.

I think all concerned members of this site's community should consider what my opponent's overall point is, and how much they agree with it. It's perfectly reasonable to not think DDO is fun anymore. In fact, that's the natural thing after enough time, since people will just lose interest even without other factors.

"Airmax hasn't replied to this argument. Probably because he realizes many people feel the same way, and he'd rather divert attention."

I have in fact replied to it. The site has plenty of issues, including a limited supply of development capital, if I contact Juggle with this, they will think I have lost my mind. Asking for a profanity filter to be removed is beyond unprofessional, and beyond pointless. I have at least 50 things in the hopper I need done before we concede to take DDO down the low road.


Vote Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, it has been surprisingly fun and interesting.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, Airmax, for this enjoyable debate. This is the first debate I've done in a while and it's been fun.

Voting should be done by anyone who reads this debate. Please. I want this debate to be fun. Vote for who was more persuasive, even if it wasn't me.

I'd like to point out, once again, airmax doesn't even try to contest my point that he probably agrees with me. He admitted many times that the swearing filter is a wreck, and that he doesn't really care if people swear. He very probably agrees with me, but like I said, he's the moderator of this website. So while it's likely that he knows the swearing filter is rather silly, he is too decent of a guy to actually come out and say that.

Why should we keep a swearing filter that even the admin of the website probably thinks is silly?

My Arguments:
My arguments have gone unrefuted. I mean really, airmax calls them red herrings, but judging by his profile picture, he's much more likely to be a red herring than my arguments.

My argument is essentially this:

1 - DDO is a wreck. The website is a wreck. The members don't have fun anymore.
2 - The cause of this is DDO's unrealistic amount of rules.
3 - To make DDO fun again, we *must* set a precedent to change the atmosphere of the website.
4 - The best way to do this is to remove the oldest rule on the website: The swearing filter.

I've shown that all of these points are true. 1 is true, even as airmax admits. 2 is true because rules always make things less fun, and as the rules on this website have increased, more and more members have said they are having less fun. It's really simple actually.

Obviously, we need to reverse this so that DDO can be fun again. This is done by removing the oldest rule on the website: The swearing filter. This will bring DDO to a new age, where rules do not rule DDO, and debate does.

I've also made the additional points:

5 - People who swear are better with language. Removing the swearing filter is encouraging a better atmosphere for these people.
6 - The swearing filter hurts free speech. We need free speech for debate, so the swearing filter has to go.

Airmax still insists that these arguments are just stupid and silly. He keeps saying they don't have anything to do with the swearing filter.

I'm puzzled.

These arguments directly give good reasons why we should remove the swearing filter.

Perhaps, since airmax is busy, it's easier to just dismiss my arguments as irellevant than to actually debate them.

Airmax's Contentions
Airmax's four contentions have already been refuted. He just chooses to ignore this, and insists I haven't addressed them. Since I don't want to be a dick and bring up new contentions he can't answer, I will show that I did respond to his contentions.

C1: The swearing filter doesn't prevent anything not worth preventing

I already responded above. I showed that people who swear are generally better at using language, and that this argument is question begging. Airmax assumes swearing is bad and shouldn't be allowed to prove swearing is bad and shouldn't be allowed. I said this already.

C2: Should be a low priority

My positive argument shows this is not true, since the swearing filter must be removed to set a precedent.

C3: It doesn't even prevent what it's supposed to

I already stated above that this is another reason why it should be removed. It's ridiculous, and even airmax probably thinks it would be better if removed.

C4: Removing the filter supports inappropriate behavior

This is really the same as C2, and I will repeat what I said in my opening round. Removing the filter supports a better atmosphere for debate by promoting freedom of speech, which is necessary for debate. It also creates a better atmosphere for people who swear, who I have shown, are scientifically proven to be better at using language.

I also stated: "Swearing isn't immature or any of that. The inability to control yourself is immature. But if you want to swear, go right ahead."

Like I said, it's not swearing that's inappropriate. It's being a jerk that's inappropriate. You can swear without being a jerk and attacking people. Swearing should be allowed in the case of argument. Not personal attacks.

Please note...
I am not responding to these contentions just now all of a sudden. I already stated these arguments above throughout my case. My case is my rebuttal to his contentions.

Since airmax hasn't refuted my case, he has not shown my response to his arguments are wrong.

DDO will never be like 4chan, don't worry. I never once said personal attacks should be allowed on the website. Swearing is not necessarily a personal attack, unless you're overly sensitive and get triggered easily.

The swearing filter is still absurd...
Apparently the word "a*s" is now equally as bad as the word "nigger." Really, if something is broke, either fix it, or throw it out. That's what my dad does when he cleans his garage. Usually he tends to throw things out, sometimes even only half broken things. Especially when they promote to the atmosphere which is hurting the garage, aka being messy.

DDO is messy with rules. It needs to be cleaned up.

Also, the swearing filter doesn't "encourage" you to be more throughtful. It forcibly disallows you to use certain words.

It's like when I went to jury duty, which is mandatory, and then they all said "Oh thank you so much for your time today!" If you're forced to give something to someone, it's not a gift. If you're forced to not swear, not swearing isn't a thoughtful thing. This is really communist thinking. You're forced to love the dear leader, and then they thank you for your support. Well, you're welcome. Otherwise I would have gotten shot.

What DDO should be...
DDO should be a place for fun and formal debates. It should promote free speech. Currently, it does not. Currently, the rules are many, and a great number of members are not satisfied with the website, because the website itself is not as fun as it used to be.

We should have many debates that anyone can read, and enjoy, and vote on. We should promote the atmosphere we need on DDO. Ultimately, this will be a very good idea financially. When people like to spend time on a website, money is made.

My argument still stands. My argument is my response to airmax's contentions. So, I have shown that the swearing filter on DDO should be removed. I have given good reasons why this is a high priority to do so, and airmax has just ignored them. I'm disappointed. I wanted to actually debate these points, not just repeat them.

Long live DDO. Vote Pro.

Thank you for reading. I hope you enjoyed the debate, and had fun. Also, thank you to airmax! I hope he had fun as well.
Debate Round No. 4
122 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 2 weeks ago
It's ok migmag it makes the site more vibrant.

Sarcasm off.
Posted by migmag 3 months ago
Are you serious? Not only do we NEED the filter for swearing/vulgarity, we need MORE moderators to keep the CONSTANT personal attacks and namecalling to be controlled. This should NEVER have threats or violence or insults or namecalling or personal atacks
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 months ago
This closed before I got a chance to vote but I'll leave a mini-RFD anyways. Airmax's argument that the voting filter is useless anyways isn't a "concession" in this debate because the swearing filter is already there. Leaving it has no cost but removing it does involve time and effort costs. So, if something is useless, then the status quo of not doing anything is the default. To remove it, zmike needs to provide offense and explain why it's worth the cost.

I'm perplexed as to how zmike got any votes at all. A lot of the voters seem to be misinterpreting what offensive arguments mean in this context. Their votes would make sense if there was no swearing filter and Airmax was suggesting we implement one. That's not the case. There already is a swearing filter which drastically changes the dynamics of the debate because now Airmax needs to defend the status quo rather than a plan.

Most of zmike's arguments are irrelevant to the resolution. Yes, the site has gone down the drain and it may be true that vote moderation reduced the number of votes. None of that has anything to do with the swearing filter and the argument where he tries to lump everything under the blanket "rules" is tenuous at best considering he's claiming that other rules have caused the decline of DDO while arguing that we should remove *this* rule. That ties back into Airmax's argument that we have limited time and effort. Then it only makes sense that we spend it tackling those other things that have caused DDO's decline.
Posted by Romanii 3 months ago
lol, thett's debate with whiteflame only had 5 votes.... I've done high-profile debates of much lesser quality, which still got around 10 votes each.

In DDO's golden age, that jury nullification debate would have easily scored 15 votes.
Posted by fire_wings 4 months ago
@thett, hall of fame worthy, but still.
Posted by zmikecuber 4 months ago
My new research will show that DDO has been steadily declining for a long time.
Posted by thett3 4 months ago
>thett's debate with whiteflame has a lot of votes.

But that debate was legendary.

Most high quality but not legendary debates get far fewer
Posted by famousdebater 4 months ago
No. That's ridiculous logic. That isn't a reason to change the status quo. That's saying that the status quo is ineffective HOWEVER Pro had the BOP to show that his idea to remove it would be BETTER than the status quo. If the filter is useless then there is no reason to remove it so this isn't an automatic concession.
Posted by fire_wings 4 months ago
Because, Con said the filter was useless, then that means there is no reason to have it, and it is basically a concession
Posted by famousdebater 4 months ago
Fair enough. But you still said it was weird without explaining why. You can still respond to the other points that I made instead of just focusing on the report part. You aren't making a compelling case in proving that this was in fact a Pro victory and that Con did concede.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rross 4 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Yay! What an awesome debate! Airmax kinda won on the resolution, because who cares about the filter anyway, and who can be bothered removing it. All good points, but Pro won on the broader issue of rules being bad for the site. It's true that the broader issue of rules is not part of the resolution, but only the rules say that we have to care about the resolution when voting, and Pro has been totally convincing when he argues that an obsessive approach to rules, and too many rules, is what's destroying the fun on this site. So I had no choice but to vote Pro.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 4 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by ballpit 4 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: The filter was proven as almost useless but this is not part of the resolution hence not a part of the resolution. pro failed to provide arguments that con did no argue against well. Vote goes to pro for the reasons above.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 months ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides sucked.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by TheChristian 4 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 4 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Can't say no to that beard.
Vote Placed by ShabShoral 4 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Note: I agree with Pro in spirit, though, practically, there is 0 reason to remove the filter. I honestly don't see why people are defending Pro so vehemently... Con reduced all of his arguments to the irrelevancies they were. This alone won the debate: "The site has plenty of issues, including a limited supply of development capital, if I contact Juggle with this, they will think I have lost my mind. Asking for a profanity filter to be removed is beyond unprofessional, and beyond pointless. I have at least 50 things in the hopper I need done before we concede to take DDO down the low road."