The Instigator
Logic_on_rails
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There is no reason to swear (vulgar language)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 4 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,412 times Debate No: 14946
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

Logic_on_rails

Pro

Intro / Rules

A few rules that should be followed by any challenger:

1. Any forfeit by either side should be counted as a loss of all 7 points by the voters to the person who did not forfeit.
2. No stupid, ridiculous / semantical interpretations - ie. 'There is a reason - I wish to swear allegiance to God '
3. It is expected that my opponent understand what 'swearing' in a conventional sense is.
4. No unnecessary swearing in this debate (only allowed in the actual case of making arguments, I'm not going to be strict here)
5. It is expected that CON will present an argument(s) for swearing, otherwise he loses, it is PRO's job to then attack this argument.
6. Because I'm looking for an argument against swearing in particular, I'd appreciate if my opponent not use sourcing extensively, sources shouldn't be important in this debate.
6. Failure to observe the above by either PRO or CON results in an automatic 7 point win to the other person (like 1)


Okay, the above should be pretty clear to all readers. On a side note, I was originally going to also add 'and should be avoided' , but then I believe I'd be hounded by burden of proof issues. So, because I want to take a different direction to what would have happened under 'avoided' I'm doing this. My arguments are below.

Also, can people wait 24 hours at least after this debate is posted before posting their first round (I'm busy) . If you don't I'd like voters to award the conduct point to me, as it will severely reduce my time to argue.

Anger Release


I'm going to preempt my challenger and say that swear words are not necessary for anger release. Let's take a fictional scenario where you've got a geography assignment due the next day:

1-Swearer's choice of words : @@@@ (not typing here) ! Geo's due tomorrow
2-Non-swearer : Blast it! Geo's due tomorrow (or shoot, heck, what in the blazes etc.)
3-Polite person : What a nuisance. Geo's due tomorrow. (or anything polite)

As you can see from 1 and 2, they both release anger in a short, sharp exclamation (that's why there's an '!') , resulting in the same release of anger. The difference between the 2 is other arguments below - ie. the meaning of swear words, politeness etc. Now, of course 3 is politer than both, but it doesn't release quite the same anger. But the point with 2 and 3 is that they both require greater discipline than 1, via the control needed to not swear, this discipline is a positive.

The meaning of swear words

As my opponent should be aware of, as requested by the rules - swear words have very offensive, often suggestive meanings. This offense can often be taken literally by the one who the words are intended for. By contrast, the words found in (2) can not be taken as badly, definition wise for the victim of the words.

Also, swear words that are suggestive can be felt as an invasion of privacy and are disconcerting for many. This is a negative, because it can violate people's right to feel safe etc. , and by contrast example 2 does not allow for this eventuality.

Also, although not explicitly covered by this topic, religious proclamations also fall under the point of definitions. Also, such religious exclamations may offend believers, and such offense can not be found nearly as readily in 2 or 3.

Politeness

I think it goes without saying that the level of politeness found in 1 is low. 1 is crude, vulgar slang that should be avoided. It is more polite to speak in a manner of 2, and if possible, 3, where language is very polite and non-offensive. Of course, the discipline and such required to stay in 3, and not lapse into 2 is rather difficult to obtain. But, I see nor reason for 1. The main reason to lapse into 2 is anger release.

Conclusion

Since it is Con's job to provide a reason to swear(1) over forms of non-swearing(2,3) and not provide a case for 1 being on the whole better than 2 or 3, which I don't think an opponent could do, I'll rest my case. Con needs to provide a case before I continue.


feverish

Con

Hello and thanks for the opportunity to debate. I accept the stringent and unusual rules posted by my opponent. I will not post this until 24 hours after his challenge was issued and I will attempt to keep sources to a minimum. I would like to point out however that voters are by no means bound by the unusual voting guidelines and should vote as they think fit.

It is my burden in this debate to demonstrate at least one reason to swear, I believe I can provide many. It is clear that I don't need to justify every single usage of vulgar language, but if I can prove at least one valid reason to swear, I shall have fulfilled my burden and won the debate.

_______________________________

Words exist because people find them useful and beneficial to communication.
For a word to be included in a dictionary there must exist specific, sited examples of its usage in written and verbal forms. Swear words are no exception.

Emphasis

This is the basic reason why we swear and most (perhaps all) of the subsequent reasons I provide relate to it.

Language is an imperfect tool for expressing emotional information. Often more conventional words do not adequately represent the depth of emotion we want to express. Sometimes "I am very annoyed" may not paint a complete picture, and "I'm fvcking p1ssed off" will communicate our feelings with far more accuracy. This is a valid reason to swear in itself, but often there is an underlying reason why the additional emphasis provided by swear words is appropriate.

Emergency

Sometimes people may not listen as attentively when addressed in polite language as they would if expletives were employed. Occasionally paying attention to instructions may be a matter of life and death. Sometimes it is not suitable to say "Excuse me, I'm dreadfully sorry to bother you, but you appear to be in imminent danger" and "FVVVVVCK!!! LOOK OUT!" may be a better option for reasons of practicality and immediate impact.

Literature

Poets paint pictures with a palette of words and put a great deal of thought into what they write.Obviously a good poet wouldn't include any word, let alone a swear word, without having a good creative reason for doing so. Philip Larkin (RIP) is "widely regarded as one of the great English poets of the latter half of the twentieth century". http://en.wikipedia.org... His famous composition This Be The Verse would certainly lose a lot of its power if the expletive was censored from the first line. http://www.artofeurope.com...

Another obvious poetic reason to swear would be if it gave a composition a stronger rhyming structure. Sometimes in fiction it can also be necessary to use vulgar language within dialogue, to give a realistic portrayal of a character who would swear.

Language codes and group identity

Often language that may be deemed offensive by some people can have everyday casual or humourous uses for others. Use of certain swear words can often help bonding within groups and even signify a particular outlook or membership within a social clique.

Arousal


Some people find vulgar language exciting in the context of sexual activity. To enhance your partner's pleasure can be yet another good reason to swear.

Anger release


I'm a little intrigued that Pro chose to construct his strawman against this particular reason, which I personally wouldn't think would be the most obvious, but yes, I suppose it is a valid reason. The thing Pro's example fails to take into consideration is that while his 1 and 2 examples do both feature an exclamation mark, 1 is likely to release far more anger than 2.

It is the very fact that swear words are taboo that makes them an effective anger release mechanism, saying "drat! blast! bother!" simply doesn't feel the same as saying "fvck! sh1t! cvnt!", try it for yourself the next time you are angry.

Intentional offense

I believe there is a self rebuttal in Pro's round 1: "swear words have very offensive, often suggestive meanings. This offense can often be taken literally by the one who the words are intended for". Pro is quite rightly pointing out here that swear words may be used to cause intentional offense. He seems oblivious to the fact that this demonstrates a clear reason why some people may swear.

____________

Most of Pro's arguments don't have any real relevance to the resolution. Pointing out the negatives of swearing in no way negates the many valid reasons why someone may choose to swear.

Politeness is indeed a virtue and swearing is by no means always necessary, but it remains a useful tool for certain kinds of communication.

Appropriateness is everything. I swear freely amongst my peers but don't swear when I'm looking after my daughter or when working with kids in a professional capacity.

I'll leave it there for now and hand the debate back over to my opponent.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Logic_on_rails

Pro

Intro

Many thanks to feverish for taking the debate. As for the rules, I merely wanted to discourage people without the time for a serious debate and those who would use semantics. Voters, you don’t have to follow the rules to the dot if it makes for fairer voting.

Also, as my opponent mentions, he need only provide 1 reason to swear. I take this to mean a point of his, rather than the rarest of exceptions, in the spirit of a good debate. Of course, I realise that it is a bit unfair to do that at this point in the debate, so voters can vote against me for that if they see fit. Specifically what I mean is that I’m not arguing against ridiculous cases like where a person knows no offensive words other than swear words.

Emphasis / Anger Release

My opponent mentions an example – “I am very annoyed” allows me to illustrate some key points.

1. Emphasis is relative

In this example and the counter he gives below, it is clear that people express themselves through different levels of word choice. Naturally, the harshest words they know are the ones they use when expressing the maximum possible anger that they express. Now, obviously if a person does not know any swear words, they will not use any. Critically however, they will still be expressing the maximum amount of anger that they can express. It is because people can express the anger of swear words through other words that it is clearly not required for swear words to be used to express anger. Other words can be used.

2. It is the action involved (eg. Shouting) , rather than the words themselves

Imagine you’re angry. If you shout, exclaim, etc. you will typically relieve yourself of anger, regardless of the words used. Of course this might be subjective, so I’ll leave this as is.

Emergency

Firstly, I’d just like to remind my opponent that I’m not defending formal language, but simply non-swearing language. Now let’s move on to my opponent’s example (“Look out!”):

1. Swear words waste time in critical situation

Imagine a car is racing towards someone and you shout out 1 of 2 things – “Look out!” or “Look out!” plus a swear word. Which is faster? “Look out!” of course. This waste of time is unnecessary. If I’m in the situation of con, but say in an ambulance the only things worth saying as warnings (eg. “Look out!”) or actually diagnosing problems. Swearing just wastes precious time.

2. Swearing is not necessary

Clearly, the idea of swearing in this case is to elicit a reaction, provoke a response. If this purpose can be achieved through other means, then swearing is not needed. Imagine you are answering a maths question and have 2 ways to solve it. Does it matter which method is used if you get the right answer, your purpose in this case? No, of course not. In the same way a person will react to a shout of “Look out!” just as they would with a swear word added. They both achieve their purpose.

Literature

The main point of this argument - the effect of swear words, I address in general, so I won’t cover that here. As for rhyming purposes, I think that there would be vanishingly few cases where no alternative to a swear word could be found, so I think this point pointless.

Arousal

While there are rare instances where swearing arouses, there are better terms to use. In a case of A or not A, there must be reason to say not A. A in this case being not swearing.

Group Identity

Okay, this is a case where I’ll say that if there is no reason to swear, people will typically not swear. Ie. If no one is ever taught a swear word, then no such situation where vulgar language is needed for group identity is found. I have to say that this is idealistic, so I’ll leave it up to voters as to whether they interpret this as being the present, or given the implementation of a lack of swearing.

Intentional Offense

Okay, here we both agree that swear words are meant to offend and hurt others. The question is whether it is right to do so. Clearly, suggestive meanings or deeply offensive words are an insult to a person, and may make them feel threatened, a violation of the right to safety. Therefore, it is not right to swear. If one wishes to offend someone one can shout and such, so long as one does not violate their right to safety. Swearing drastically increases the amount of times where safety can be verbally threatened.

Conclusion

I’d firstly like to remind voters and my opponent that it is my opponent’s burden to provide a reason to swear, my burden is to successfully counter all proposed reasons. Having said that, I think I’ve done a reasonable job refuting, although by no means a perfect one. Still, swear words are effectively unnecessary. Other offensive words that don’t violate basic rights exist. I remind voters to look at my example from round 1 where I gave the 3 ways of speaking. My opponent must provide a case where swearing has a reason that the other 2 do not have.

And with that I’ll turn it back to feverish.

feverish

Con

Thanks for the response.

I don't think Pro's rebuttals really hold much weight. Bear in mind I don't need to prove that swearing is in any way virtuous, nor that it is absolutely essential. If someone can achieve a specific intended purpose through swearing then they have a valid reason to swear, and by demonstrating at least one instance of this, I have upheld my burden.

I'm a little puzzled by a couple of statements made by my opponent in his last round:

"Other offensive words that don't violate basic rights exist."
"ridiculous cases like where a person knows no offensive words other than swear words."

I don't want to be abusive in any way by bringing in defnitions at this late stage, but it seems that there is some confusion of what swearing is, so let's refer to the dictionary. http://en.wiktionary.org... It is clear that we are not talking about swearing in the sense of taking an oath, so the remaining definition is simply "offensive language". The term "vulgar" was used by Pro in the resolution, and with this context can only refer to offensive language, "An offensive or obscene act or expression" http://en.wiktionary.org...

What is offensive is of course subjective, but I really don't know what "other offensive words" my opponent is referring to. Obviously one can offend someone else without swearing, but if the isolated words themselves are inherently offensive, they clearly qualify as swear words. Since Pro is apparently advocating use of offensive language, it appears he's conceding all arguments.

Emphasis


Pro's rebuttal here seems based on the peculiar notion that a more limited vocabulary can be preferable. He talks about "if a person does not know any swear words" which seems highly unlikely for any English speaking adult. Even my opponent, a teenager who disapproves of swearing is obviously aware of many swear words himself.

Pro acknowledges that "the harshest words they know are the ones they use when expressing the maximum possible anger" and since most people know some swear words he is apparently recognising a reason for their use. That some people may not know swear words and therefore make use of different words in no way negates the fact that most people have reason to employ more offensive terms for emphasis.

Anger release


Pro insists that shouting is key but hasn't addressed my argument that shouting "fvck! sh1t! cvnt!" releases far more anger than shouting "drat! blast! bother!".

There is in fact scientific data confirming that swearing is more effective than use of milder language to release anger in situations such as when dealing with pain: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Test subjects who were permitted to swear endured ice water for almost half as long again as those who kept a civil tongue.

Emergency


I will admit that in some situations the extra time taken to swear may be counter productive, but I maintain that in other cases, the use of swearing can be far more likely to grip the attention of the person being addressed.

Pro uses an analogy of a maths test, saying that two different ways of solving a problem are both valid solutions. As I see it, this supports my own case more than his. There can be valid reasons to swear, even if it is not the only way to achieve the desired result.

Literature

I don't see any response here to my general point about poets not using words without good reason. The idea that there are other word choices just doesn't cut it here; poets need to use precision in their choice of words and censoring them limits their ability to express themselves.

As far as rhyming goes it is not a matter of finding any old word that rhymes, it is a case of expressing a meaning the best possible way using words that do rhyme. Substituting a word like "cvnt" for another rhyming word like "front" would severely diminish the meaning of the passage.

Arousal


Pro accepts that swearing can cause sexual arousal, whether other terms might be "better" is irrelevant. If swearing is an integral and habitual part of a couple's sexual activity, then substituting for non swear words will not have the same results.

"In a case of A or not A, there must be reason to say not A. A in this case being not swearing."

Eh? So, in the case of not swearing or not not swearing, there must be a reason to say not not swearing?

The double negative obscures any implied logic here for me. Could one not also say that there must be reason not to swear?

Group identity


Pro seems to accept that his notion of people not being "ever taught a swear word" is unrealistic. I would say it is also irrelevant as the vast majority of people know many swear words. I don't really see a rebuttal to my point here.

Intentional offense

Pro says "here we both agree that swear words are meant to offend and hurt others", this is not quite what I said, I don't feel such an intention is inherent to swearing at all, but I do think it is a valid reason why some people swear.

Pro says "The question is whether it is right to do so"

No. Look at the resolution. Right and wrong is not the issue, the issue is whether people have a reason or not. If someone wants to offend someone and they know swearing will achieve this, then that is a reason right there.

"If one wishes to offend someone one can shout and such, so long as one does not violate their right to safety. Swearing drastically increases the amount of times where safety can be verbally threatened."

There is no logic in this. Swearing =/= threats. There is no difference of threat in saying "I'm gonna kill you" or saying "I'm gonna fvcking kill you", whether it is right to threaten someone is not relevant to the debate.

___________

I'm out of characters, so I'll hand back over and conclude next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logic_on_rails

Pro

Intro
Thanks to Feverish for staying with the debate (the main reason for the beginning rules).
As I said last round and will clarify here, I'm trying to argue based on something along the lines of – swearing has no advantage over any other form of communication (2 vs. 3). Obviously if 3 merely was a mimic of 2 it would contain a reason, yet not a good reason. I understand that this could be interpreted as a confession, but I'll be doing this in the interest of a debate. I utterly destroyed things with a poor resolution.

I think it's clear that there's a definitions debate here. Also, on the definition of swearing, http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (under ‘Thesaurus') "profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger. I probably should have chosen profanity as the word, but that can't be helped. Also, I'm not fighting against religious swearing, I'm against vulgar swearing. Vulgar - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (1st definition) ‘Crudely indecent'. Also on the point of obscene - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (1st definition) - ‘Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.' I think that should clear all definitions and make it clear that something like ‘shoot!' doesn't fit the definitions listed. I apologise for clarifying late, I hadn't thought it would be a major issue (my point about semantics in R1).

Emergency

The maths analogy is meant to indicate that if 2 methods both achieve the desired result, then it doesn't matter which is used with regards to the purpose. If both swearing and non-swearing achieve the purpose, then there is no reason to swear (see intro on arguing about advantages).

I also find it hard to see how shouting at someone over a critical issue would not be as effective as swearing. If anything the swearing might discourage people from helping because they could take offense. Still, it's up to voters as to whether these situations could happen where swearing is helpful.

Arousal

My point here is simple. Let's say you can use a swear word or a non-swear word to raise arousal. If the non-swear word helps arouse your partner then it doesn't matter whether the other word is habitual. Clearly, the purpose is to arouse, and so if not swearing achieves this then swearing is not required.

Group Identity

As I said last round, if the resolution were implemented (people didn't swear because they realised there was no reason), this situation wouldn't occur. It's a case of how voters see this, although I understand my opponent's view here.

Intentional Offence

I'll address my opponent's last example here. The difference is that one implies killing a person, and the other implies killing a person and forcing intercourse. The difference is an additional violation of rights. There's no real reason supplied here by my opponent for the extra word. I'd argue that a threat to one's life is paramount, so swearing doesn't achieve the purpose of threat because one's life is in danger.

Literature

I don't really have much to say here, I hadn't thought of it near the debate's start. I'll merely say that a poet wishes to be read, and if a lack of civility drives readers off then it does not matter that the purpose is better put forth.

Anger Release

This goes back to the point of what one's maximum anger release is caused by. If I were to withstand such a test, I wouldn't swear, the thought wouldn't occur so it wouldn't really help me.

Also, at the end of the BBC article was an important idea ‘Swearing is emotional language but if you overuse it, it loses its emotional attachment.' At the very least, an overdose of swearing is ineffectual.

Emphasis

Last round I said ‘if a person does not know any swear words.' As con rightly pointed out, I am aware of swear words as nearly everyone is. What I should have said was that if a person doesn't actually use a word it shouldn't be counted as the word that expresses their maximum possible anger.

Conclusion

I'm well aware that I've provided a very lacklustre response. But in all fairness, con has pretty much demonstrated that there are instances where swearing has some reason to be used (by some people, one might consider the lack of civility more important say). I apologise to Feverish for not putting up more of a fight, but I'm afraid that I created a mountain to climb for myself in the resolution. Still, that's not to say I'll be swearing anytime soon.

Thanks to Feverish and voters, leave RFDs please (proper ones).
feverish

Con

Many thanks to Logic_on_rails for the fun debate and I'd like to congratulate my youthful opponent for holding his own against a pedantic old git like me. As Pro has rightly pointed out, his choice of resolution left him an almost impossible task in this debate; people clearly have reason to swear, or it wouldn't be anything like as widespread as it is. I think it's commendable for a teenager in the modern world to attempt to abstain from swearing. I think we can both agree that excessive swearing can often be unnecessary and people's reasons for swearing are not always admirable ones.

Since my opponent has pretty much conceded that he's lost the debate, I won't stretch things out too much, and will just respond briefly to his final points.

Definition

It seems we're both in agreement that we're discussing swearing in terms of offensive language. I only brought out the dictionary because of those two seemingly oxymoronic statements in the last round.

Emergency


I maintain that while shouting itself may well gain someone's attention, shouting swear words is almost certainly going to be more effective.

Arousal


Similar to above, the question is the extent of the effectiveness, the greater the level of arousal the better. If swear words are more arousing, there is reason to use them.

Group identity

Pro apparently has little to say in contention of this point, other than that "if the resolution was implemented ... this situation wouldn't occur."
And: "It's a case of how voters see this, although I understand my opponent's view here."

This point is apparently conceded.

Intentional Offense


Regarding the comparable threat level of "I'm gonna kill you" versus "I'm gonna fvcking kill you", Pro says: "The difference is that one implies killing a person, and the other implies killing a person and forcing intercourse."

This is clearly not the case. To imply the latter one would need to say: "I'm gonna fvck and kill you". In the original example "fvcking" is used as an adjective, with no literal implication and purely for the purpose of emphasis. Also fvcking in the literal sense would not automatically imply force, the term for that is "rape", which is not considered a vulgar term, any more than "kill" is.

There is no "additional violation of rights" here. An explicit threat may violate someone's rights, but whether it is delivered politely or not makes no practical difference. My opponent has not shown at any stage of the debate how swearing itself inherently violates anyone's rights.

Literature


This is another point that my opponent apparently concedes by not addressing my arguments. His point about poets wanting to be read and driving off readers with their "lack of civility" relies on the assumption that all such literature is created with profit as it's main incentive, rather than truth or beauty. I think this is a subject for a separate debate.

Anger Release


The fact that my opponent doesn't believe that swearing would help him personally withstand a pain threshold test for any longer does not diminish the fact that the studies show it does help some people.The truth of his belief is in any case unverifiable over the internet.

Emphasis


Pro acknowledges that most people, including himself, have a knowledge of swear words. He then claims that "if a person doesn't actually use a word it shouldn't be counted as the word that expresses their maximum possible anger."

This seems to contradict the quote from the study referred to in the Anger Release section: "Swearing is emotional language but if you overuse it, it loses its emotional attachment." It is clear that swearing is in fact at it's most effective when employed by those who generally abstain from it.

Conclusion

There seems to be little to add here. Pro admits that "con has pretty much demonstrated that there are instances where swearing has some reason to be used" and if that doesn't concede the resolution, I don't know what would.

Thanks again to Logic_on _rails and to readers.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by champwihin 5 years ago
champwihin
Logic On Rails..

I just wanted to say, I commend you for taking on this debate. Certainly I support you, and as I read through some of your points, I could see how Con was able to take advantage of your lack of life growth experience.
For the sake of debate, he could have played much more fairly, and showed his willingness to support the development of a fellow debater by asking relevant questions that would lead to more insight on this topic, rather then simply focusing on his singular goal of winning. But still, as you conclude, you learned a lot about "'setting the stage' as it were in how the wording of the debate thesis is crucial. It was interesting on his last take of the study that he says (para-phrasing) ...its use is most effective by those who normally abstain from it....if so ...then regular use makes it of little or no effect ...thus justifying its lack of need for use. The other issue is his lack of explanation as to why its use needs boundaries. If you had of picked up on that, you would have gained some ground. He gives examples, but not an explanation of why. Their are numerous real life examples where individuals have deeply regretted the fact they allow themselves to use this language at all. The sub-conscious mind operates on auto pilot when emotions run high, and have caused the utterance of words that resulted in deep and trying consequences that were impossible to reverse, all because of unnecessary uttered words that could not be retracted. I would even venture into the moral issue of if our words represent the true person we are or not, but that may be straying off topic.
Any way, if you would like to chat more on this, you can e-mail me anytime.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Roy, I tried to emphasise the idea of shouting and such releasing anger (2) , which is similar to your point about swearing through common words (giving offence) . Still, I think I gave myself too difficult a resolution. Out of interest, where did you learn about profanity in the Japanese and Chinese languages? Language is the sort of thing that can explain the ways of a society, so I'd be interested if you could tell me where you learnt such knowledge.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
@Mizra, I agree, and Con gave other situations. Cursing doesn't require special words, that's all. I do object to people who curse obsessively. It dilutes the currency.

A story circulated in my home town, which at one time was populated mainly by stern Methodists. A painter was working below a ladder when another painter on the ladder above him dropped a large bucket of paint. The bucket tumbled and landed upside down on the guy's head. The victim then said, "My goodness, what has happened?" Even the Methodists though that was so restrained as to bear repeating.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
Actually, studies show that cursing can be beneficial in a critical situation, such as if a lion is chasing you. They also show that it can relieve pain, e.g., if you hit yourself on the leg, then cursing might relieve the pain. Therefore, there 'can' be good reasons for cursing.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
An interesting debate. Swearing can be accomplished without obscene words; the Chinese have none and the Japanese only one, yet they manage to build profanity from regular words. A very strong French curse from olden days, I'm told, was "in the sacred name of the little blue pig" -- obscene because of the sacrilege. So if the resolution had been "There is no reason to use obscene words." then Pro could have won, because all the purposes can be accomplished as well with special words.

The resolution ought to be interpreted as "good reason." Compare to "There is no reason for murder." The sense is "no reason" meaning "no reason that adequately justifies."
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
If I could vote I'd be giving arguments to Feverish. He plain outclassed me. Also, I didn't put forth a double edged resolution. I'd give sources a tie because I'm not really sure there's too many studies I could have quoted. I think the others aspects of the debate were equal.
Posted by belle 5 years ago
belle
dammit feverish. lol
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Grape, that's quite an interesting study. Nevertheless, I think that the most aggressive words that a person knows will relieve the most pain. It's a similar situation and in my opinion, same resolution as I mention in 'Emphasis is relative' .
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
I believe there was a study to determine the effect of swearing on pain tolerance. Both groups of subjects placed their hands in icy water. One group used words that would normally be used to describe a table and one group swore. The swearing group kept their hands in the water longer on average than the table-describing group.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I may take this debate if it is still open later. :3
I think I have a good case for the Con!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Logic_on_railsfeverishTied
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: Con clearly offered rebuttals which were not refuted by Pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Logic_on_railsfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. I think the resolution ought to be interpreted as "good reason" since obviously swearing exists, so there is "some reason." The semantics are critical; swearing can be accomplished without specific profane words.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Logic_on_railsfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that there are many reasons to swear.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Logic_on_railsfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think swearing is wrong. But strictly debate, Con won. The group identity argument was a win. The rest were just cheap.