To Swear...

... is to admit defeat.

I have an enormous vocabulary, and I am something of a genius in logic.  Sometimes people pick arguments with me.  The first time they have to swear at me to make their point, I am done, because to swear is to admit defeat.  Typically, they don't understand this, so I am going to elaborate.

First, before I explain, I want to point out that the first time a person swears in an argument, they almost always open a hole in their own position.  While I consider swearing itself an admission of defeat, the holes typically opened are almost always easier to attack than the actual swearing.  With my rather large vocabulary, I never need to resort to swearing, even to insult someone in the most vile way possible (though, I stick to attacking their argument, the flaws in the argument, and the personal problems that lead to those flaws, as it is a logical fallacy to attack a person's character in ways that are totally unrelated to the argument).  It is typically unnecessary to point out the problem with swearing itself.

Now, why is swearing an admission of defeat?  Depending on the actual target of the swearing, it is one of a number of logical fallacies.  The most common one is ad hominem.  This is the logical fallacy of making a personal attack against the character of your opponent.  It is a logical fallacy, because the character of your opponent has no bearing on the validity and correctness of the argument.  When a person says "mother [extremely foul swear word that I am not going to repeat]," they are accusing their opponent of a particularly vile form of incest.  Whether this accusation is true or not, it has no bearing on the validity of the argument.  Almost as often, the swearing is directed at the argument itself.  Unless the swear word (or words) is being used literally (and makes sense in that context), the attack makes no logical sense.  This logical fallacy is called a non sequitur, which translates to "it does not follow."  For instance, "That argument is [crap spelled with an 'sh']," means nothing, and as evidence against an argument, it is a non sequitur (in fact, this could also be considered circular reasoning, "Your argument is wrong, because it is crap, because it is wrong..." which is another logical fallacy).  In nearly any other case, swearing amounts to the person making a non-sense statement because he or she cannot think of any more counter arguments that are logically valid (which also counts as a non sequitur).  In all three cases, the opponent has been reduced to either using faulty logic or giving up the argument altogether in favor of changing the subject.  These are all admissions of defeat.

The worst thing about swearing is that it is actually not that offensive.  When used in a non-literal sense or out of context, swearing is meaningless.  One religious leader once said something to the effect of, "Swearing is the sign of a weak mind trying to make a strong statement."  Swearing is most often used as an "intensifier."  An intensifier is a word or phrase used to emphasize another statement.  Swearing used as an intensifier looses all of its meaning.  It is only offensive because it is a misuse of language.  Saying a word that literally means feces to intensify a statement deliberately ignores the actual meaning of the word.  This confuses communication, which devalues it.

Now, the reason for the statement about swearing being the sign of a weak mind is quite straight forward: There is always a better way.  In verbal conversation, speaking with more emphasis is often a completely sufficient way of intensifying a statement.  In written language, italics or bold type is a good solution, and when these are not available, the judicious use of all caps can be effective (using all caps liberally makes them loose their effect, much like the excessive use of swearing).  When these are not sufficient though, a good vocabulary can beat pretty much anything.  A good vocabulary can be used to construct statements far more insulting and vile than any amount of swearing.  Likewise, a good vocabulary can get across any statement at any intensity, without a single swear word.  Even better, responding to swearing with a far more vile insult without using a single swear word is far more infuriating than just swearing back.  Let me be clear, I am not advocating being rude, insulting, or otherwise uncivil.  If you must though, do it right. 

The worst (or maybe best...) insult is not the one that your opponent immediately counters.  The worst insult is the one that your opponent does not realize was insulting until a week later (or even better, until he gets home and looks up one or more of the words you used).  There is nothing more petty than a comeback that is a week late, and there is nothing more humiliating than being the person who only realizes they have been insulted once it is far too late to ever respond.  Even one swear word can ruin the perfect insult.

The only thing better than the week-out insult is the insult that is recognized immediately, but which there is still no comeback for that is not petty.  If you want to gain some skill in this watch (or better, read) Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility (actually, any Jane Austin), and Taming of the Shrew (I am sure Shakespeare has other good stuff as well) multiple times (you will not catch all of the veiled insults the first five or so times).  The Mikado, by Gilbert and Sullivan, has some good stuff as well, but make sure to get the Stratford Festival version (none of the others do it justice).  The British upper class evidently raised this to an art form.