Your use of f**king was greatly stacking the deck. Excepting dialogue and first-person narration, nobody is rooting for  using swearing that way. I could make a similar horrible line without swearing ("It was really, really huge, and he felt really, really small"). That doesn't mean that swearing is always the right option. You just used the words in a stupid way and said "See? These words are stupid." The English language is wonderfully flexible, but by cutting off an entire area of strong words, you limit writers. Words are words; they can be used well or badly, in writing and anywhere else. Many great lines could not have been great if they didn't use words we can't use all the time. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a da*n." Great line, but if you exchange "give a da*n" with anything else, it won't be. Try anything else, and I guarantee it won't be as good. Without swearing, the best insult that realistic characters have to work with is "jerk."  "You're an a**hole" is strong. "Fu** you" is very strong and good for extremer contexts. "You're a jerk" is what children say. You can not be as strong in your writing and especially dialogue without swearing.  You use the phrase "finding the right word." That means there is a right word, right? Why can't the right word be a "swear" word? Formal writing can be great. Formal writing usually shouldn't use swearing. Formal writing can be educational and interesting and great literature. Fiction and many non-fiction pieces are not formal. Informal writing is not about following all the rules of grammar.  It's about being good, finding the right word, creating a feeling, and telling a good story. Some great works never find a place where "swearing" happens to be the right choice, but just because you won't use a hammer to put in a screw doesn't mean that the hammer isn't perfectly useful and even necessary in another context.

I have to disagree. Profanity in writing can and should be used at the author's discretion and/or when the author feels it is appropriate. You state that 1) "swearing is unsophisticated" and 2) articles in Teen Ink "should not sound the way we talk". However, you contradict yourself by earlier stating in the article that you approve of "first-person fiction" that includes profanity in order to represent how the character is supposed to talk. At least 13 pages of Teen Ink are dedicated to fiction and poetry. Are you saying that in those 13 pages, despite the fact that some of those pages may include "first-person fiction", there should be no profanity? Now, I agree with the idea that swearing is unprofessional and should not be used in more formal articles such as essays and opinions. However, not all of Teen Ink is professional writing, i.e. you cannot make the generalization that profanity has no place in Teen Ink when in fact, it is up to the author and depends entirely on the genre of the piece. Swearing does not simply add pizazz - it is a powerful part of any language. It (swearing) can tear people apart, it can relay the terror of any human being, it can be screamed in joy to the heavens. You state later in your article that in casual conversations it is quite alright to swear. We are only human, yes? Now, writers try to portray their characters as human as possible - so why not have them swear, if the author feels it would be a natural thing for the character to do? I believe that authors, like myself, should have the freedom to decide when it is appropriate to use profaniy in our works and when it would simply be superfluous. This was a well written article. Despite a few minor flaws in your argument, you were polished and sophisticated. It also demanded a response, which I have given to you, which is very good. Well done.

"When you write, typically the goal is to sound intelligent." While I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, I completely disagree with this statement. When you write, isn't the goal to get your point across as clearly as possible? Either way, this generalization weakens your argument. "But otherwise, in writing and dialogue..." Here I'm confused as to why you approve of narrators swearing but not other characters. In order to improve this piece,  I think you might benefit from reconciling this contradiction. "Education teaches you to speak correctly and eloquently, and swearing falls under neither of those categories." Actually, there's nothing "incorrect" about swearing. In order to make your point clearer, I think you should eliminate this hyperbole. Otherwise, this is an excellent point. "But articles in Teen Ink should not sound the way we talk." I feel this point would be improved if you supported your own opinion with evidence. Why should they be polished and sophisticated? Why is that more important than, say, authenticity? Evidence would help get your point across clearer.  All in all, an interesting reponse but I think you should clarify your arguments! :)