The Instigator
RelativelyBoring
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Is text language screwing up our english?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 55481
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

RelativelyBoring

Pro

Is technology language screwing up our English? For example: Lol, Cum (In reference to come not sexual), Omg, Lel and more.

I find it embarrassing and weird when a person spells words wrong. This shouldn't be tolerated and can affect their jobs if they're applying to a job that has typing (typical desk man).
baus

Con

I find it very amusing that, while being so worked up about spelling, Pro is so negligent of grammar (which is actually more important because it is necessary in both spoken and written English. Not only does he/she forget to format the acronyms correctly (LOL as opposed to "Lol") but they also forget to put quotation marks around the term 'come' whilst speaking about it as a term, rather than using its meaning in the sentence.

Either Pro should have made all the terms lowercase (which is far more common in text language due to the ease of typing it) such as 'lol', 'cum' and 'lel', or they should have put it in proper abbreviation form with all the letters capitalized (http://www.scribendi.com...), While 'lel' and 'cum' are not acronyms, they should have been lower-case as they are written in text language.

Additionally Pro made two errors when constructing the resolution, firstly they presented it in question form and secondly they forgot to capitalize the 'e' in English.

Pro now has to defend the question itself, not the answer to the question. They are not answer the question but presenting the question as the resolution which they have chosen to defend.

The term 'screw' in verb format is formally defined as:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

(1) Fasten or tighten with a screw or screws
(2) Rotate (something) so as to fit it into or on to a surface or object by means of a spiral thread
(3) Attached or removed by being rotated by means of a spiral thread
(4) Turn one"s head or body round sharply

Definition one is physically impossible for a language to do as it has no physical presence to tighten a screw into "english" (which is not even an English word as it is not the same as "English").

Definition two is impossible for the same reason as definition one.

Definitions three is not applicable as there is no spiral thread present in the resolution or anything referred to within it.

Definition four is not applicable as 'english' is not a name since it has not capital first letter and so cannot be referring to someone with a head to turned round sharply.

Not only is the term screw itself not applicable to the situation but the direction 'up' is also impossible because a screw-motion can only occur in a clockwise or anticlockwise direction, not a vertical one.

If we look at the phrase 'screw up' as a phrase within itself we can still see that the resolution is flawed.

Not only is 'english' a nonexistent noun in the English language which Pro is yet to state the intended definition of but whatever 'english' is, the text language itself cannot 'screw up' anything at all for this would require the ability to consciously plant he 'screwing up' of 'english' prior to incidentally doing whatever it is that text language supposedly did to carry out the 'screwing up'.

The question itself is flawed due to the fact that a language has no sentience, which is required to be screwing anything up in the first place.

Additionally, if Pro miraculously proves that text language has sentience then I will point out that when you name a language it is a proper noun and the 't' in Text Language' should have been capitalized as well as the L. http://grammar.yourdictionary.com...

On a final note, the term 'our' is very obscure as it could very well be including anyone reading this debate resolution who does not text or use text language. If it is only intended to include those who use text language then it should have stated that.
Debate Round No. 1
RelativelyBoring

Pro

RelativelyBoring forfeited this round.
baus

Con

I have won this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by debateman053 2 years ago
debateman053
Con,
By stating that pro"s grammar and diction are being used incorrectly, you are proving his point that technology is regressing the English Language by blatantly pointing out the very reasons why pro"s argument is true. Secondly, This is an online forum. Therefore, pro is permitted to use this different language and lenient grammar since it is not something like a job application as the pro argument stated. Basically until something calls for the attention fro the correct grammar and punctuation online, they are not required. The term used in the initial argument is not "screw" but rather "screwing up" which is different as a two word phrase then a the literal word screw. "Screw up" is a slang phrase that is commonly used to mean to flunk or to botch. Even if the definition of screw was being used, "screwing" wouldn"t have to be capitalized in definition #4 because it is a verb and not taking the place of the noun that is doing the verb.
Posted by Katrina0961 3 years ago
Katrina0961
I went to write an essay for a teacher and said ain't 3 times I was so embarrassed because it was for an English assignment...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
RelativelyBoringbausTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
RelativelyBoringbausTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
RelativelyBoringbausTied
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 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: Whilst play of semantics is questionable from Con, Pro never responded to any of it, and so the resolution was left in tatters.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
RelativelyBoringbausTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF, Args: Con was the only one to make arguments, that were well-sourced.