The Instigator
Anunaki
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The letter Q is pointless

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 2 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 65691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)

 

Anunaki

Pro

The letter Q is a pointless letter to have in the English alphabet because you need to combine it with the letter U to use it. in turn that makes the KW sound. there should be no letter Q because it requires 2 letters to use and makes the same sound as 2 other letters combined - KW

note - the debate is about my point, not whether i feel like using the shift key or apostrophes. proper sentence structure has nothing to do with the point of the topic , unless the topic is proper sentence structure.
dsjpk5

Con

Thanks go to my opponent for creating such an interesting debate. Having said that, I have to disagree with your arguments.

Your argument about needing another letter is invalid because most letters require other letters to make a word. So unless you're going to say all letters except A and I should be removed, your argument is invalid. And who cares what sound it makes? Thats irrelevant.

And if you didn't have the letter Q, you couldn't spell words like "quality", "quote", or "question". So it's definitely NOT pointless.

And just because you don't feel like using proper spelling and grammar doesn't change the fact that it's part of the scoring system. So, I reject your claim that the voters shouldn't consider it.
Debate Round No. 1
Anunaki

Pro

first thank you for not reading and comprehending what i wrote. im 100% talking about the sound. all i mentioned was the sound Q makes . everything about the how Q sounds is 100% RELEVANT to what im talking about. how is it invalid? how can you tell me the point i was making is irrelevant to the point i just made? if i didnt have Q i could pronounce kwality ,kwote or kwestion identical to using letter Q. the fact that i have to use 2 letters to make that sound QU or KW makes , makes Q by itself pointless. im not talking about words. im stating theres is no use for Q if i can replace that letter in any situation with KW identically making the same sound. Q cannot make a sound without the letter U. the whole fact that Q exists is pointless because to you need to spell QU to use it , making the KW sound. there are already letters that make the sound of QU so there was no need to make it letter in the first place. anything you can spell with QU you can match with KW. the only modern english words that contain Q not followed by U and are not borrowed from another language are qiana, qwerty, and tranq. i cant justify having a separate letter for only 3 words in the english language. KW and K can replace all 3 uses of the stand alone Q in those words.

also i dont care about scoring or starting sentences with prepositions and i see you dont care either being that you start sentences with "AND". so now that our grammar is ekwally wrong, we can get back to the point. if this was verbal it wouldnt make a difference and would be the identical information. im just making a point, not caring if i get "likes" on my grammar. i reject your claim to reject my claim on my note about grammar because you are no better. i think the voters should consider your hypocrisy along with your reading comprehension skills.
dsjpk5

Con

First of all, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from being condescending. Our discussion will be more fruitful if you can act in a mature manner.

Of course the sound Q makes is irrelevant when trying to determine if a letter is pointless. There's no objective reason to discriminate against any letter. The fact that you can make the same sound with kw doesn't mean Q is pointless. Maybe kw is pointless because you could make the same sound with a Q.

Of course you're talking about words. I know this because your complaining about how you need to use the letter u when making words that have the letter Q in them. Also, the letter Q only makes the kw sound when used in the making of words. So of course you are talking about making words. So my point still stands. Your argument is invalid and illogical because ALL letters require a second letter to make a word (except A and I).

Also, if we got rid of the letter Q, we would have to relearn how to spell thousands of words. So clearly, getting rid of the letter Q is silly, and it's not pointless.
Debate Round No. 2
Anunaki

Pro

" The fact that you can make the same sound with kw doesn't mean Q is pointless. Maybe kw is pointless because you could make the same sound with a Q." -- wrong im talking about the sound QU makes ,not Q. what sound does Q make? i guess K.

you left me no choice but to be condescending. you either read wrong, or cant understand right. you avoided my point and made up your own point up that i supposedly made, criticized my grammar while using bad grammar and have not shown any evidence that i couldnt refute with my point. i have been , and im still referring to the sound of QU and KW. you keep insisting that im not even though i made sure to write sound as many times as i could. i have no idea why you keep thinking im talking about words as my main point. maybe you want to argue words and youre reading wrong , i have no idea.

"Also, if we got rid of the letter Q, we would have to relearn how to spell thousands of words. So clearly, getting rid of the letter Q is silly, and it's not pointless." i never said get rid of Q, i said it was pointless to have. how hard could it actually be to put KW where QU used to be , if in fact we got rid of the letter? its not exactly relearning.

id also like to address the word etiquette that was in the comments . ive heard it pronounced etikwette and etikette , either way the KW or just the K out does or matches the QU combo. id like to expand this now , furthering my point, QU (2 letters) can be replaced with K (1 letter) in certain words to make the same sound.

its about simplicity. why have 26 letters in the alphabet when we only need 25. why the extra letter that doesnt need to be there? its just extra, and since letters cant be broken , get lost or run away , we dont need an extra letter especially when it requires another letter to use it 99.9% of the time.

my closing argument.
this must be answered or youre obviously just dodging and have no actual point to make and are just babbling nonsense to stay in the debate hoping to find ground to stand on.

can you phonetically spell and accurately pronounce all the words in the modern English language, the way they are pronounced now, with the following letters?:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ

if you say yes, my point has been proven.
if you say no, then you must site any words or grammatical situations in the modern english language where the SOUND QU or Q makes that CANNOT be replaced with SOUND KW or K makes

note: dont try to be a smarty pants and an find 1 word out of 40,000 words with Q, if you even can.. it has to be significant enough to warrant the Q useful. also dont say you cant spell quality as kality. the K is to replace where the Q or QU makes a K sound ex: etiquette (etikette), torque (tork), qwerty (kwerty), etc etc...
dsjpk5

Con

The resolution that you created says "The letter Q is pointless". If
you wanted to debate the letter conjunction QU, you should have done
so, but you didn't.

I will be capitalizing for emphasis.

Let me quote you from round one:

"The letter Q is a pointless letter to have in the English alphabet
because you need to combine it with the letter U to use it. in turn
that makes the KW sound. there should be no letter Q because it
requires 2 letters to use and makes the same sound as 2 other letters
combined - KW."

So here we can clearly see that you have a problem with the letter Q
because WHEN USING IT TO MAKE A WORD, you have to use the letter U.
When just talking about the letter, you don't have to use the letter U.
The letter Q is pronounced "cue" when just talking about the letter.
It's not pronounced "kwue". So CLEARLY you have a problem with the
fact that Q requires a second letter when making a word. BUT SO DO ALL
OTHER LETTERS (except A and I). This fact renders your KW argument
irrelevant unless you're saying that ALL letters (except A and I) are
pointless. And since you're not saying that (I've given you several
chances to do so), I've just negated your main argument, and have won
this debate.

You also SAY That you're not suggesting we get rid of the letter Q,
but that too is not accurate. Let me quote you again:

" id like to expand this now, furthering my point, QU (2 letters) can
be replaced with K (1 letter) in certain words to make the same sound."

"why have 26 letters in the alphabet when we only
need 25. why the extra letter that doesnt need to be there? its just
extra, and since letters cant be broken , get lost or run away , we
dont need an extra letter especially when it requires another letter to
use it 99.9% of the time."

So here we see you suggesting REPLACING Q with another letter. Well I
have to ask you, if we take Q out of all words, how is that not getting
rid of Q? And how is going from 26 letters to 25 letters not getting
rid of Q?

Your question to me:

"can you phonetically spell and accurately pronounce all the words in
the modern English language, the way they are pronounced now, with the
following letters?:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ"

My response:

Again, you have made another invalid argument. It's irrelevant because
you could say the same thing about other letters. For example, you
could pronounce "ice" "is" So i guess c is pointless too?

Finally, when I play Scrabble, Q is definitely not pointless. As a
matter of fact, IT'S WORTH 10 POINTS! [1]

SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE

My opponent admitted to being condescending, so I should get votes for
conduct

My opponent never capitalized or used apostrophes, so I should get
votes for S and G

My opponent, being the instigator and taking the Pro position had the
full burden of proof. I negated every argument he made, so I should
get votes for arguments.

I'm the only one who had sources, so I should get votes for sources.

Basically, I deserve all seven points.

Please vote Con!

1.http://www.scrabblefinder.com...
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Tahat was a fun debate. Let me know if you think any other letters are pointless!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Thanks for your opinion!
Posted by Dhananjay_srivastava 2 years ago
Dhananjay_srivastava
it was highly ambiguous at first whether the argument is on functional or non functional English but that was cleared in round 2 by the pro.In a matter of personal opinion i'm for the pro there really is no use of the letter Q,QU whatever in everyday life.The argument by con is correct that dictionaries would have to be rewritten but after the hard work it would only end up benefiting the common man.So as a matter of opinion i'm for the pro but The con handled his arguments in a way more appropriate manner and played better moves.I'm a newbie here so i can't vote but if i could i would've voted equally
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Your arguments were irrelevant. That's why I said that.
Posted by Anunaki 2 years ago
Anunaki
You're whole argument was telling me the.point I was making is not the point I'm making. ..you're only debate was saying my point is irrelevant to my point. And you didn't answer my last question because the answer is YES thus proving my point. You just tip toe around arguing my.point and male it a debate on what yoire saying.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
A lie. He invited me to vote CON.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
That's not accurate. I invited him to vote, but didn't tell him how.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
Con has just offered me friendship and asked that I vote Con. Just thought I'd let you know.
I won't, as I deliberately don't have voting privileges.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
"advise" actually takes a "z" sound. It should be spelled "advize"
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
"advice becomes advise"
And what becomes of "advise"? That word already exists, and the ensuing confusion will simplify nothing. Everything will become even more complicated.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Anunakidsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources by Con in his last round.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Anunakidsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Strong arguments from Pro that the letter Q is less necessary in the alphabet, but Con definitely gets conduct and spelling/grammar points here. The only source given was in the final round though when Pro couldn't respond with a similar source, so I won't award source points.