The Instigator
Brain
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Acronyms should have a period mark after each letter, instead of there just being the letters.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Arts
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,115 times Debate No: 10687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Brain

Pro

I believe acronyms should always have a period mark after each letter, because, centrally, of two reasons. (1) Acronyms, originally, had been presented in this format. I am not much of a traditionalist, but origin is important for some things, language being one of them. The origin of a language shows the true characteristics of that language, and thus how to, in veritable correctness, speak, write, read, etc. that language.(2) The period marks differentiate the letters, they emphasize their individuality, and thus indicate they are not a solid word, but the fact that each letter represents a solid word. If there would not be any period marks, as there often is in today's society, it would seem to display the acronym not as an acronym, but as a solid word, therefore possibly leading the reader to believe they are reading a word [that is not what the writer intended to be present.] For example, the "word" 'laser' was originally 'L.A.S.E.R.', because it is an acronym that stands for 'Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.' However, it soon started to be changed to 'LASER.' This, in turn, because of a sociological process characterized by long-term changing of ideas, views, etc., it was further changed into a solid word and was known as 'laser.' (This sociological name, if it does possess a name, I do not know. Therefore, I gave it a name of my own that I believe may not be entirely legitimate, but still gives the idea of the concept, at least to a basic degree. I call it 'social blur.') Unfortunately, because of this changing to a solid word, it is expected to be defined by the definition of its previously acronymic self. However, this new definition is not as complex as the old, because it is more simplistic. And since it is more simplistic, the definition supplies someone with much less information about a L.A.S.E.R. The thing is, an acronym is important because it not only supplies the reader with a definition of the thing, but also of the processes. For example, 'laser' supplies one with only the simplified definition of a 'L.A.S.E.R.', but 'L.A.S.E.R.' gives not only the definition, but also the process (to restate). The reason behind this is because 'L.A.S.E.R.' stands for (to restate) 'Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.' The acronym itself of 'L.A.S.E.R.' gives the definition, but the individual representations of the letters say the process that the effect of a L.A.S.E.R. is achieved through the amplification of light, in which this amplification is achieved by stimulating radiation emissions. This is my standing point. If anyone out there wishes to combat it, be my guest, for I would love to challenge your challenge that challenges my challenge (that was a joke; basically, I just enjoy challenges, so come on and try to prove I am wrong about this).
Cody_Franklin

Con

Cody Franklin, Resident Fascist; pleased to meet you, Pro.

Before I begin, I'd like to apologize for any difficulty that I have in arguing against Pro, as she has presented me with what is colloquially known as a Wall o' Text.

Now then, as Con, note that my only burden in the debate is to produce but a single situation in which dissecting acronyms with periods is unnecessary, undesirable, or otherwise; Pro, in making a general claim, must be able to universally justify the grammatical dissection of these acronyms.

I will begin by tearing down her wall o' text.

1. Lingual tradition

a. Though Pro claims that she isn't a traditionalist, it's clear that we're looking at an appeal to tradition, which we all know to be a logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. By that same logic, we could mark modern English as a bastardization of the language, and revert to "Old English", like that originally used in Beowulf [http://upload.wikimedia.org...].

b. While it's important to understand the origins of language, such origins may no longer be sociohistorically accurate representations of that language. While Pro argues that "laser", for example, is not a word, a quick peek at a dictionary proves otherwise [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. Summarily said, learning the origin of language doesn't equate reverting to the recognition of those origins as legitimate lingual standards.

c. As Pro herself admits, society changes over time, and language changes with it; to insist that we adhere to archaic lingual constructions is absurd, as this is an obstacle to the evolution of our language; Pro may call it "social blur", but I call it "progress".

d. I also need to bring into question Pro's knowledge of the intentions of every writer. While she asserts that "leading the reader to believe they are reading a word... is not what the writer intended". I would really like some proof that every writer who uses the word "laser" intends for the reader to see it as "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." We need more than unwarranted assertions, Pro.

2. Complexity vs. simplicity

a. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct in saying that a contemporary definition of laser is simpler than the expanded meaning of L.A.S.E.R.; here, she is appealing to consequence [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by assuming that simplicity is an inherent "bad", so to speak. Her logic is as follows.

A. If acronyms do not maintain their periods, the definitions will be simpler.
B. Having a simple definition is bad.
C. Therefore, acronyms should maintain their periods.

Merely because turning acronyms into words produces consequences that are undesirable to Pro does not mean that acronyms should retain their periods. Until Pro can give us proof that simplicity is universally unacceptable, you negate. (And, honestly, if someone wanted to know information about lasers THAT badly, there's always Google.)

b. Allow me to actually compare these definitions.

L.A.S.E.R. - Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

Alright, that tells us, in somewhat scientific terms, what a laser is.

Let us, however, revisit the (fairly informal) dictionary.com.

"laser - a device that produces a nearly parallel, nearly monochromatic, and coherent beam of light by exciting atoms to a higher energy level and causing them to radiate their energy in phase." [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

I'd like to hear Pro's reasoning for calling this definition simplistic in comparison to the acronym. This may simply be my own opinion, this definition of the word "laser" seems far more accurate and detailed than the expanded acronym, even including Pro's explanation of the terminology used.

Now then, I feel that I've given Pro enough to chew on concerning her own position, thus I move on to present a couple of arguments and examples in my own favor.

1. Internet slang

As we're well aware, a number of internet mannerisms have sprung up over the years, including "omg", "lol", "wtf", and "asl". While Pro may assert that acronyms cannot be properly understood without proper punctuation, I would argue that the meaning of these infamous acronyms are fairly self-evident to the majority of the internet "population". The internet is a safe haven for informal communication, and Pro's advocacy clearly jeopardizes this by adding these archaic, unnecessary grammatical conventions into the mix. Omg quite clearly means Oh my gosh/God (depending on who you ask), lol equates "Laugh(ing) out loud", wtf translates as "what the f*ck", and asl was a popular tool of internet pedophiles which meant "age, sex, location". I feel that I may be beating around the bush, so allow me to simply say, Pro cannot universally ask the denizens of the intarwebz to place unnecessary, often undesired periods in slang terms that are commonly understood by a majority of people, even people that are considered n00bz from a digital perspective.

2. Periods don't create understanding.

Periods may be a part of the acronym, but I would argue that they are hardly responsible for knowledge of the acronym's meaning. My opponent is mistaking a correlation with causation, which is yet another logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In algebra, having alphabetic variables is certainly a key part of visually setting up a problem, but having X in the problem doesn't enlighten children as to how to solve that problem. In the same way, having periods isn't going to enlighten the general public as to the meaning of the acronym. The average person would have to inquire as to the meaning of the acronym, in much the same way as he or she would have to inquire as to the definition of a word. Again, though, I feel as if I've prattled on long enough. Simply put, adding periods to acronyms will not give any more insight into its meaning than leaving them out, and it would be a logical fallacy to assume otherwise.

Now then, if you will excuse me, I have some lasagna waiting downstairs; oh, and gl Pro. (That's G.L., or, Good Luck, in case you weren't aware.)
Debate Round No. 1
Brain

Pro

O.K. First of all, I am not a "she"; I am a "he." I have no idea of how you had gotten the idea that I am a female, but let me assure you that I am not.

Secondly, I think you misunderstand my argument. I am not a traditionalist, but I am a traditionalist. In other words, I am more of a centrist in reference to traditionalism. I believe, as I had stated, that tradition is not logical in most situations, but in some, it is logical. Also, I do not believe that people should speak as they did in archaic times long past, nor do I believe that 'social blur' is always a bad thing. At times, it is a good thing, which in these times, it becomes progress. For example, the archaic versions of the English language were, over time, subjected to 'social blur' because of the changing times and cultures of the societies. This is what evolved the language. So, I am not asking that we all revert. All I am stating is that when referring to language, 'social blur' is good, but should only be utilized if it does not infringe on the grammatical, punctuational, etc., correctness of the word, phrase, sentence, etc. For example, the word "database" was originally "data base" (two words). However, because of 'social blur', our brains and selves determined over time that it was easier and more efficient to link them together into one word, thus fusing them into "database" (one word). Solidifying the word was the best choice to achieve efficiency, since, normally, one would apply hyphenation. But, since hyphenation could not apply, linkage was the next best choice. So, in the case of "data base" vs. "database", 'social blur' is a very good thing, because it increases efficiency and simplification, making it easier to say the word, but still maintaining the grammatical, punctuational, etc., correctness of the word, phrase, sentence, etc.

Also, by the way, you had stated that 'laser' is a word, as stated on [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. But, as you obviously had failed to notice, there is an acknowledgement about its origin below the definition that proves, according to this source, that it is an acronym.

You had also stated that [quote, "And, honestly, if someone wanted to know information about lasers THAT badly, there's always Google."] However, [google.com] is not always a credible source of information, for [google.com] only filters the Internet and presents the person with a list of websites that apparently contain the information regarded. It does not always present the person with credible websites. Therefore, [google.com] cannot be considered a viable research source; nor can it be considered nonviable. Only the websites can. And, to restate, the web sites are not always accurate with the information they present nor always credible with THEIR sources and/or the information itself.

Another thing, by the way...a definition as displayed on [http://dictionary.reference.com...] is always fine; I am not saying that simplicity is always illogical or bad. All I am saying is that the individual letters in an acronym supply a person with a sufficient amount of information as to the definition of the word as well as the process(es) with just themselves alone. Not every person has the time (or really feels like doing it either...) to turn on a computer or device, and then surf the Internet for the full, yet possibly simple definition and/or explanation of the specified word.

Also, the acronyms 'wtf', 'omg', etc., are, as just stated, acronyms. Therefore, one must place the period markers. However, not as symbolic representations of the acronym's meaning (as you seem to think I believe, which I had never believed that, nor was I trying to imply or state that I did), but as dividers and indicators. They are dividers because they divide the letters, and therefore indicates through this that each letter represents a separate word of the acronym's meaning. Also, by dividing the letters and indicating the fact of individual representation, the period marks are also, at the same time, indicating the acronym's evident identification as an acronym.

I do believe this debate is fun. No, I mean, it really is because it is such a challenge. Thank you; I am enjoying myself. Oh, by the way, you said you are about to eat some lasagna. I just wanted to say that you are lucky. Lasagna is so delicious. I hope you enjoy, because, for all the intelligent arguments you have been giving me, you have earned it. Plus, lasagna tastes awesome!!! :) LASAGNA RULES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
Cody_Franklin

Con

I apologize for misjudging your gender; however, your profile says that you are a female [http://i10.photobucket.com...].

Anyway... I would have liked you to stick to the numbering/lettering format for convenience, but I guess I'll sift through your super-paragraph, again. :)

1. Back to tradition

a. "I am not a traditionalist, but I am a traditionalist." Pro is saying here that he is both A and ~A; however, according to the law of identity, [http://en.wikipedia.org...], A =/= ~A; further, according to the law of the excluded middle [http://en.wikipedia.org...], Pro must either be a traditionalist, or not be a traditionalist. He cannot logically be both. I just thought I would point out the glaring contradiction.

b. Appeal to tradition is always a logical fallacy; whether Pro believes that it is sometimes a good thing is irrelevant.

c. My opponent has not yet proved that laser, for example, is grammatically incorrect. His argument centers around lingual progress being unacceptable when it violate grammatical "correctness", yet I have clearly explained that turning acronyms into words is a perfectly acceptable process. Again, language is constantly changing, as my opponent and I have agreed; this includes turning two words into one, and turning acronyms into ordinary words. Until Pro can prove, beyond his opinion, that removing the periods from acronyms is intrinsically improper, we negate. And, arguing that acronyms USED TO contain periods will not fulfill this burden, because past grammatical conventions =/= current grammatical conventions.

2. Origins

a. Pro returns to his argument concerning the origin of laser as an acronym, but notice that he dropped the argument that I made in Round 1 (1b, to be clear) concerning word origin. To briefly restate, I've agreed that learning the origins of our language is important; however, learning the origins does not require us to implement these original grammatical conventions in modern language - again, this would make as much sense as returning to the use of "Old English". So, yes, I agree that the origin of the word "laser" is as an acronym; however, this term has evolved from a scientific acronym to a term fit for everyday use. As my opponent and I have agreed that language evolves and progresses, I see no problem with keeping "laser", and other acronyms-turned-words, in their modern usages.

b. My opponent also spends an entire paragraph attacking the credibility of a search engine.

* First of all, this is completely irrelevant.

* Second of all, my opponent can call it unreliable all he wants, but the first result I found for searching "laser" seems pretty informative to me [http://www.google.com...]. It uses the acronym and everything!

* Third, if my opponent really wants to attack the credibility of Google, he can try Google Scholar instead [http://scholar.google.com...].

3. Simplicity

a. "a definition as displayed on [dictionary.com] is always fine; I am not saying that simplicity is always illogical or bad." If this is the case, professionalizing acronyms (as Pro is advocating) is entirely unnecessary. We can negate on this.

b. If someone isn't aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't likely to help them. If you try to explain "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" to someone who is scientifically inept, the acronym itself can be confusing, with the expansion thereof even more so; for those who are aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't at all necessary.

4. Other dropped arguments against Pro's case

a. 1d - questioning Pro's knowledge of the intentions of every writer

b. 2b - comparing the definitions of laser and L.A.S.E.R. to measure complexity and detail

Overall, I think that you can negate based on Pro's case (and the dropped arguments) alone; however, I will move on to examine the arguments I've brought up in my favor.

1. Internet slang

a. "Also, the acronyms 'wtf', 'omg', etc., are, as just stated, acronyms. Therefore, one must place the period markers." My opponent is merely presupposing the truth of the resolution; this is a debate, and thus Pro must prove the legitimacy of his position before he makes assumptions about what one "must" do, grammatically speaking.

b. Pro argues for the use of periods as dividers and/or indicators; however, as I've clearly noted (and Pro has glazed over), the meanings of these common internet acronyms are quite self-evident, thus no periods are necessary, leading you to negate for two reasons:

* First, I've clearly shown you at least ONE situation in which using periods in acronyms is both unnecessary and undesirable.

* Second, this therefore means that Pro has not fulfilled his burden of universality; ergo, you automatically negate, even if you don't buy any of the other arguments that I have laid out before you.

c. Pro argues that periods are necessary indicators of acronyms; in cases like lol, wtf, omg, this is untrue, as these acronyms are so commonly used that periods would be awkward, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary. Even with acronyms like laser, this isn't necessarily true. The only example that would almost fit would be something like the United States, United Nations, World Health Organization, etc.; however, even then, a period isn't necessary. US, UN, and WHO are perfectly acceptable acronyms (both in ordinary usage, and according to Firefox's and Microsoft Word's grammar/spelling filters), yet none of these contain periods. Capitalization can be a helpful tool depending on the situation, but even that isn't universally applicable.

2. Dropped arguments on Con's case

a. Argument 2 - "Periods don't create understanding".

A quote from me, explaining this argument: "Simply put, adding periods to acronyms will not give any more insight into its meaning than leaving them out, and it would be a logical fallacy to assume otherwise."

Pro's ignoring of this argument concedes the fact that putting periods into acronyms does nothing to establish comprehension of the acronym's meaning; ergo, these periods are frivolous and unnecessary; ergo, you negate.

Overall, Pro has ignored the logical fallacies which I have exposed, has provided no empirical support for his case, and has dropped multiple arguments against his position. Though this debate clearly goes to Con, this debate still has one round to go; thus, I turn things over to my opponent, and await his closing arguments.

Oh, and the lasagna? Delicious.
Debate Round No. 2
Brain

Pro

The first thing is: both my first- and second-round arguments are not one paragraph, but multiples. Therefore, you cannot say it is a 'super-paragraph', because it is not even one paragraph, as I have just stated. However, if you still desire to call it 'super', you can call them super-paragraphs

Also, out of convenience and as per your understandable request, I shall, at least for arguments in which you are my opponent, utilize the alphanumerical organization format. My final argument for this debate is displayed below.

1. Counter to "Back to Tradition"

A. As you should be able to figure out, the phrase of mine that you so fervently put under criticism, "I am not a traditionalist, but I am a traditionalist," is not to be interpreted literally. As you may know, in mathematics, when a two of the same variables are pit against each other, neutrality is the result, thus cancelling out both variables. It is the same in this selected sentence. To be a traditionalist, that is, to show agreement with a specific concept, would normally be positive, for positivity is often synonymous with concordance. Vice-versa with negativity, which is often synonymous with discord, or nonagreement. Thus, since I state that I am a traditionalist, but I am not a traditionalist, the "I am" phrase represents positivity, and the "I am not" represents negativity. When I use both in one sentence, it creates, as you had correctly stated, a "glaring contradiction." This contradiction is, in other words, the positive and negative of the sentence are pitted against each other, thus cancelling each other out, creating neutrality. This neutrality can imply either having no opinion or holding a centrist's opinion, creating one's opinion uniquely depending on the situation. So, logically speaking, you are right. I cannot be both, and therefore, I am not. That sentence is simply an abstract way of indicating my centrist-like opinion.

2. Counter to "Origins"

A. You stated: [Quote, "To briefly restate, I've agreed that learning the origins of our language is important; however, learning the origins does not require us to implement these original grammatical conventions in modern language- again, this would make as much sense as returning to the use of 'Old English".] You are right and wrong about this. Right, because you had stated that it is important to learn the origins of our language. Yet you are wrong, because in order to utilize that language correctly, one MUST implement SOME characteristics into the language's modern edition. The reason why one must is because over time because of 'social blur', language changes, as we have agreed upon. Social Blur is exactly the reason why we must, because over time, language changes due to it. That means grammar of the word often changes, punctuation also, as well as pronunciation. And if the language, like English, is spread over amounts of many countries, different societies often can misinterpret and/or confuse the word. Because of this, perception of the word is like a muddied pond: One can barely see under the surface. Therefore, the only way to find out the ORIGINAL intentions as to how it was utilized is to look at the tradition.

Of course, many traditional characteristics do not work in some societies because of social opinions and cultures, so one must implement restraint on some words' traditional form, because the modern grammatical, punctuational, etc., rules do not allow or encourage its use.

For example, the word "program"... According to the website [http://forum.wordreference.com...], the only difference between 'program' and 'programme' is that 'program' is used in this spelling in America, but 'programme' is used in this spelling in the U.K. Both countries differentiate in their spelling of the words because of their different cultures, their differing SOCIETAL characteristics. Thus, this applies to the "countries' differing societal characteristics" statement of the Social Blur concept. However, also according to that same website, in the United Kingdom, they often utilize the American spelling of the word ('program') to refer to a [Quote, "a computer program"], and the U.K. spelling of the word ('programme'] to refer to a [Quote, "any other kind of programme, such as a concert or television programme.] Yet, America only utilizes the word in its American spelling ['program'] in all cases. Thus, this refers to the "countries' differing social characteristics" statement of the Social Blur concept. Also, the following paragraph is according to the Social Blur concept's statement regarding how tradition must be utilized also (at least partially).

The words 'program' and 'programme'... If you look at the word's adjective form, 'programmable', would it not seem as if 'programme' is supposed to be used instead of 'program'? After all, why would there be two M's in 'programming' if there would not be two M's in its base word 'programme'. Every verb, adjective, and long noun has a similarity in spelling with its base word. 'Accordance' with 'accord', 'proposition' with 'propose', 'extermination' with 'exterminate' (but with it devoiced), 'determinable' with 'determine' (but with it devoiced), 'infinitesimal' with 'infinite', etc. This is exactly the case with 'programmable'. As with "extermination", "determinable", and no doubt many other long verbs, adjectives, and long nouns, 'programmable' is in relation with 'programme' because the only difference is that it is devoiced. However, devoicing is entirely normal.

Another fact that can be supplied to prove that tradition being at least partially utilized does work is that, according to [http://www.askoxford.com...] the etymology of the word 'programme' (or 'program', it does not matter in this piece of information) is that the word stems from the Greek word 'programma'. If you look at that word, one would see that even it, one of the word's most original forms, possesses two M's. I believe I have proven my point that the correct spelling for that word is 'programme', not 'program', but that tradition can be used to work, that it should be used, and that it should be used not entirely but just partially.

3. Counter to Entry Section 2.B

A. First of all, let me inform you that the reason as to why I had attacked the search engine's credibility was not to prove that it was non-credible, whether it was or was not, or is or is not. The purpose was to show that it does not matter whether one knows the definition of each word that each acronymic letter represents. It does not matter because that is a bias. Bias statements cloud judgement; you are assuming that the person who is to read 'L.A.S.E.R.' does not know what it stands for, or if they do, then what each word means. Well, anyone could say that it is just as possible that they would possess that knowledge. That is why it is bias. It is bias because it is an assumption, and all assumptions or presumptions are bias because they are often based on stereotypical claims or labels. They are either based on this or based on a frivolous foundation.

*By the way, I still have a lot more to write, but I have no choice but to get off the computer since I have no more time. So, I am sorry.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Tradition revisited

a. This argument isn't mathematical. Folks, Pro has ignored the law of the excluded middle, which states that my opponent must either be A or ~A; she cannot be "neutral", as he attempts to claim; If anything, he's committing a false compromise [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by trying to find the neural, "center" position between traditionalism and... "non-traditionalism", whatever that might mean; truthfully, though, this argument isn't too critical in the round, and he misses the meat of the argument as a result.

b. My opponent blatantly ignores the fact (yet again) that an appeal to tradition has been committed. Flow through that most of Pro's position rests upon faulty logic.

c. This argument was also dropped - Pro never explains why "laser" is grammatically incorrect, as opposed to the acronym, and has failed to refute that past grammatical conventions =/= current grammatical conventions, and thus, that the former does not define the latter.

2. Origins revisited

a. While both Pro and myself agree that learning about the origins of language is important, he fails to explain why it's necessary to force these archaic meanings and conventions into our present language. Consider that progress, or "social blur", changes language; this means that language EVOLVES over time, causing words, phrases, and grammar to differ from their origins. If meanings and constructions change, that current society cannot be misusing the word, as it is the society itself which determines lingual acceptability. They may not be using the original connotation or definition of the word, but that does not make it any different. Pro basically fails to recognize that the origin of a language can be learned independently from modern usage of that language.

After a bit of research, I've come to realize the overriding problem with Pro's argument: he is committing a subdivision of the genetic fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...], an etymological fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...], which "holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, based on a mistaken idea concerning the etymology of words." A good example of this is the word "boy", which once referred to a "rough, unruly person", or a "low-ranking servant"; clearly, though the origin of the word "boy" lies with these definitions, there is no logical reason to continue using the word in such a way, and the same can be said for "laser", or any other acronym-turned-word. This renders Pro's entire "look to the origins" and "program/programme" argument a moot point.

One fun fact - having two Ms in program due to programmable is like spelling flame as "flamm" due to the word "flammable". TWO Ms!!!!!

b. His whole argument stems from this unexplained idea of "bias", which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, so that can be disregarded. As I've explained, my opponent's entire argument stems from this warped idea of adhering to etymological tradition, which I've shown to be a fallacy on two different levels. Additionally, we're not just debating on the merits of turning L.A.S.E.R. into laser. Although this has been a popular example throughout the round, Pro has never offered any further examples, or any further justifications as to why acronyms must necessarily be forced back into our language in place of the words which evolved from them.

3. Simplicity revisited

I'd like to briefly observe that this entire contention was dropped by Pro, even if due to some kind of outside constraint.

a. Flow through that professionalization of acronyms is completely unnecessary.

b. My argument from Round 2: "If someone isn't aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't likely to help them. If you try to explain 'Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation' to someone who is scientifically inept, the acronym itself can be confusing, with the expansion thereof even more so; for those who are aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't at all necessary."

4. Dropped arguments revisited

a. Round 1 - 1d, questioning Pro's alleged knowledge of the intentions of every writer

b. Round 1 - 2b, a comparison of "laser" and "L.A.S.E.R." as an example of definitional complexity

Pro's entire case rests on fallacious logic; you obviously negate. Now, to quickly review my own arguments, all of which were dropped by Pro.

1. Internet slang revisited

a. Pro merely presupposed the truth of the resolution in making an argument, thus providing no logical basis for the argument that acronyms MUST have periods in them.

b. The meanings of internet acronyms are self-evident, mandating negation for two reasons:

* I've proven one situation in which the use of periods in acronyms is unnecessary and undesirable, which easily fulfills the burden of Con as outlined in Round 1.

* Also outlined in Round 1 was Pro's burden of universality, something that hasn't been fulfilled in any of these 3 Rounds.

c. Allow me to merely paste my Round 2 argument: "Pro argues that periods are necessary indicators of acronyms; in cases like lol, wtf, omg, this is untrue, as these acronyms are so commonly used that periods would be awkward, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary. Even with acronyms like laser, this isn't necessarily true. The only example that would almost fit would be something like the United States, United Nations, World Health Organization, etc.; however, even then, a period isn't necessary. US, UN, and WHO are perfectly acceptable acronyms (both in ordinary usage, and according to Firefox's and Microsoft Word's grammar/spelling filters), yet none of these contain periods. Capitalization can be a helpful tool depending on the situation, but even that isn't universally applicable."

2. Dropped arguments revisited

a. Round 1, Argument 2 - Periods do not create understanding

* Pro thereby concedes the lack of a need for periods, as they don't contribute to comprehension of an acronym.

To wrap this up, allow me to summarize points distribution:

Conduct: Tied/Con - Pro dropped a large number of arguments, but had a legitimate reason in Round 3 for his short post which I am willing to buy into. He put in a good faith effort, and deserves no penalty for that; however, this point could be given to Con for Pro's wall of text in Round 1.

S/G: Tied/Con - Pro didn't have too many grammatical errors to speak of, but a lot of his constructions seemed a bit awkward or badly-worded. At some points, it was difficult to understand what Pro was trying to say; also, Con had a better method of organizing arguments, if that matters. This category is your prerogative.

Arguments: Con - Obviously.

* Pro's entire case is based on logical fallacies.

* Pro dropped most of the arguments in the round.

* Pro made a lot of assertions without warranting them.

I'm sure that other reasons could be found.

Sources: Con - While Pro brought up a few sources here and there, Pro spent a good amount of time attacking the credibility of a search engine, and wasted most of his sources trying to justify faulty logic; Con, however, used his sources to explain Pro's fallacies, and to apply the fundamental laws of logic to Pro's advocacy; also, Con brought a larger number of sources to the Round, if that's a factor.

In conclusion, 5-7 points go to Con. Thanks to Pro for finishing this debate, despite being pulled from the hot seat at the last minute.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
The wall of text comment wasn't meant to be insulting. That's just the name it's known by; and thus, I used the phrase "tear down" to refer to the wall. You would tear down a wall, I would think.

Furthermore, I wasn't at all attacking Pro. I was attacking his alleged knowledge of the intentions of writers in saying that they would want readers to see the acronym - this was his argument. It needed to be brought into question.

Also, the fact that he didn't attack the argument tacitly concedes it. I'm not sure how else I could put it.

Yeah, I don't mean to nitpick either, I was just curious as to what you found insulting.

As far as quotations are concerned, there wasn't any actual punctuation where I ended the quote, so I didn't include any, since the end of the quote =/= the end of Pro's sentence.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
C, I don't mean to be too critical, it was a first class debate. These are very fine points:

"Before I begin, I'd like to apologize for any difficulty that I have in arguing against Pro, as she has presented me with what is colloquially known as a Wall o' Text. ...
I will begin by tearing down her wall o' text."

Just say "I ask Pro to use spaces between paragraphs to make the text more readable." Don't say you are going to tear down your opponent.

"I also need to bring into question Pro's knowledge of the intentions of every writer."
"Pro's ignoring of this argument concedes ..."

That attacks Pro rather than Pro's argument. I think it's better to use "Pro asserts/says that ... but the claim is unproved." and "My argument that ... is unanswered."

Pro made such minor insults as well, but since you are going to win big anyway, I didn't pile on.

Incidentally, traditionally, the rule has long been to put punctuation inside quotes:
"like this." rather than
"like this".

I've seen this breaking down recently, even in some professionally edited magazines. I think it looks better to put the punctuation consistently inside.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Sincere question: when was I "pointlessly insulting", just so I'm aware of what you're talking about?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Currently all acronyms are words, "a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words." So the resolution is to present them not as words. This is to say that acronyms should be abolished.

Would the world be a better place if Jacques Cousteau aways spelled out S.C.U.B.A.? It would take a very strong case upset current usage, and Pro only argued that he liked to be reminded of the origins. There would have to be some statistical evidence that people in general or English teachers or somebody thought it would be an improvement. Con persuasively argued that the spelled out version would usually not, in any case, better define the concept. Arguments and sources to Con.

A conduct point to Pro. Con was pointlessly insulting -- although admittedly not as bad as some ddo debates.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
It's quite alright; I don't mean to hurry you. I've simply had the problem, in many rounds, actually, of my opponent forfeiting. This has been one of the few debates I've had recently which has been able to go all the way through without forfeiture on the part of my opponent.
Posted by Brain 7 years ago
Brain
I am not forfeiting...not by a long shot. The only reason behind my long inactivity just now was because I have been working on an intense project at school. That actually had left me a bit tired, and therefore, I wanted to relax. I apologize for how long it was, though; I originally did not expect it to be of such extensive duration. However, despite the latest events under scrutiny, I am now going to give you my comment. And, due to your probable desire to input your last argument, I will make it my top priority to not only make a good final argument, but also to finish it quickly. Once again, I apologize for the long withdrawal.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Come on, now. Don't forfeit on me.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
are you sure its correct now?
Posted by Brain 7 years ago
Brain
"lol"!? That is not funny, nor do I see what you seem to think is so humorous about it. I had changed it because when I was first making my profile just after creating my membership on this site, I had not noticed that there was a 'gender' option bar on the profile editing screen.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Is your "gender" on your profile miss-marked? lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
BrainCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
BrainCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
BrainCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
BrainCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06