Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Profanity be Permitted in Debate?
Profanity Should be Permitted in Debate
Intelligent people are
more likely to swear
; intelligent debates may therefore be characterised by more cursing.
When engaged in debate, one often needs to provide evidence. Such evidence may include quoting other individuals. Those quotes may contain profanity, which in turn may be the point of quoting them. Thus, forcing omission of profanity may be directly detrimental to debate.
Profanity should be permitted in debate just as all speech should be permitted in a debate.
A society can't claim to support free speech while also literally banning the use of certain words in discussions about it.
In a limited fashion it should be allowed in debate, especially if it's a slip of the tongue. More often then not that tends to happen by mistake rather then to make a point.
Cursing is evidence of a poor vocabulary, and is used as a crutch. People should be encouraged to find new words to express themselves, rather than relying on a handful of old ones.
Profanity distracts from the core argument.
Debate should be devoid of undue emotion. The visceral reactions to these words do not enhance human interaction, but rather devolve them.
If the only counter to an idea is to use profanity then there is no need for it to be part of the debate (as no points are being made by the person swearing).
Cursing turns people off, and may limit the number of people willing to participate in a debate.
Does Kialo have the characteristics of a deliberative process?
Is Online Anonymity Good for Fostering Healthy Debate?
There should be no limit to freedom of speech.