The Instigator
TruthGen
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
FaustianJustice
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Thr s no need t wrte crrectly (Spelling)

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 3 votes the winner is...
FaustianJustice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 61452
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

TruthGen

Pro

Following my proposal at http://www.debate.org...

(Debates pushing the boundaries of normal debates)

U knw, spelin is ncie nd all but u know ther's no need bcoz u can laredy nderstand.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

nglis has a rdndncy of 75% so u cn remv some lettrs hier and dere or chagne hte ordr.

tis fster to write. nd u cn stil teach teh god spelin so we dnt live in chaos fr hte rest of our lifes.
FaustianJustice

Con

The need for correct writing (spelling) was immediately demonstrated in the first around by referring to a website. If it was spelled incorrectly, it should not matter. Clearly, it does.
Debate Round No. 1
TruthGen

Pro

I didn't spell the link myself, i copied it directly from the URL bar.

Languages corrupt over-time, that's the way they evolve. That's why are speaking english and not any previous language.
FaustianJustice

Con

But the correct spelling of the link was still required for it to work, much like correct spelling is needed to convey the intended premise.

Whether pro typed it or not, pro knew or it was a resource to their contention via its correct spelling.

curse/cures
lips/spills/pills
to/toe/tow

Even casual misspelling of the above could have disastrous results.

As I look in the dictionary at the definition (found by a correct spelling of the word), when using 'corruption' to a word or phrase, it is explained as a word or phrase that is regarded as erroneous or debased, the definition of evolution moves from the simple to the more complicated. Clearly 'evolution' cannot describe breaking something down into a mishmash of component letters with the hopes that the reader gets the correct impression. The evolution of a language comes from an agreed upon spelling and meaning. "wanna-be", "texting", "selfie". These have become regular use words by a consistent spelling and common sense common use.

I would be so bold as to say I am speaking English because I didn't grow up in Germany, Greece, or Japan, not because of poor spelling.

It is important to also mention: "It is important to check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters" and "Your argument will be judged by many factors including spelling, grammar, cited sources, and civility", further demonstrating an immediate need for correct spelling.
Debate Round No. 2
TruthGen

Pro

The point of the debate was going against one of the requirements in debates.

Redundancy of english is at 75%, so we can remove that 75% and yet still make sense.

Does every letter in a sentence have the same amount of meaning? Mmm, no.

After a "th" we most probably have an "e"

After a "q" we most probably will get an "u"

Of course, URLs need accuracy, or do they?

We can write this on our URL bar:
dbate rog

And still find this webpage. It works. It doesn't get us directly to debate.org, but it gets us to a search engine that leads us to debate.org

English can still be compressed. Making it even more compressed would be considered incorrect.

That's my point.
FaustianJustice

Con

In appreciation of the experiment Pro has conducted, I misspelled the websites of 4 locations I regularly visit. Speaking generally, this should mean at least ONE incorrect site spelling would yield positive results. Not surprisingly, none of my misspellings connected with their target.

This is a universal application, not specific to debate.org., but easily serving there. Pro requires probability to enable understanding, Pro wants to guarantee with 100% accuracy that the "th" probably has a character after it, but of course if the "t" or "h" is part of the misspell, (which there is no warranty from), the weighted matrix invented falls apart.

Pro requires you to do Pro's thinking for him/er.

"English can still be compressed. Making it even more compressed would be considered incorrect". --- this statement leads me to 2 possible conclusions.

1) Pro has conceded, further compression is not correct, and correct spelling is needed. Vote Con.
2) Pro has misspelled his/her intention, and meant to confer that further compression is correct, and confusion, as suggested by Con has set in, as mentioned in a previous round. Vote Con.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TruthGen 2 years ago
TruthGen
Yeah, i find it ironic. I agree with FaustianJustice. Sadly debates are a joke. I will finish my debates and maybe make a last one, then i'm off xD
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
I can't tell you how disillusioned I am regarding a vote that awards literally EVERYTHING to my opponent, including proper spelling, in a debate where proper spelling is not used out of demonstration.
Posted by TruthGen 2 years ago
TruthGen
Ummm... "Would still be considered" does not mean "Is"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
TruthGenFaustianJusticeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much to this, so all I'm going to vote on is spelling and grammar, something that was basically the topic of this debate to begin with.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TruthGenFaustianJusticeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro has no reason to earn all those other points, alduin.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
TruthGenFaustianJusticeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I was able to easily determine what Pro was stating throughout the debate, thus showing that removing letters and spelling errors can still display the correct meaning. Obviously spelling and grammar go to Con. But Con did not state which websites were tried as part of his "experiment" through the URL bar therefore I cannot test this myself.