Standardized Spelling and Grammar has and is gone and going to far.

One's mindfulness toward correct spelling and grammar teaches one diligence, awareness, good judgment, attention to detail, and respect for all of the above. Your anecdote about your coworker spelling "kat" in an e-mail (while not regarding half of a particular candy bar) was amusing. But perhaps you hadn't "believed the rhetoric of all the ‘spelling Nazis' " in wanting to correct the error; perhaps instead your instinct was to help raise your colleague's performance level, for his own benefit. Your example of penance toward your Ko-worker also exposed another flaw in your rationale. Before you calmed down, you stated that you wanted to "grab a weapon, gun or something" in response to reading the egregious error; while you used hyperbole in your description, the emphasis of your emotion was evident. This begs the question: How many other employers, constituents, and/or consumers would be so forgiving? And better yet: Why risk it? Even if forgiveness abounds, how soon would that employee get promoted, or put in charge of company communications? How soon before that employee becomes a liability because of his potential damage to the company's hard-earned, respectable image and brand? While you showed mercy to your associate, you may have been doing more harm than having shown him the error of his ways—and in turn motivating him to improve his performance for optimal future opportunity and personal growth. To your fourth contention, many people do forgive spelling errors; but despite all the forgiveness, the risk of someday facing the unforgiving is ever-present; and to simply permit, or even embrace, such slovenly spelling and grammar among peers is to invite them into potential disaster with just one false step. (After all, spelling correctly is harmless, too.) As for your fifth contention, if you're going to accuse a single misspelling of inciting a belligerent mob of Nazis to murder, you need to cite some evidence. Making such an accusation (I think) with the support of "I can't remember the reference to back this up, but you can trust me"—just doesn't cut it. Or, if I accept your unsubstantiated claim of fact, I could similarly state how correct spelling is actually the secret to world peace, which will likely be used to end all wars, feed all hungry, and shelter all homeless within the next few years. I cannot prove it yet, but I'm good for it. In the end, you still cannot get past the fact that individuals—whether collectively or in random, one-by-one bases—decide whether or not to correct spellings and grammatical errors. You are unsatisfied with the consequences of an individual's judgment toward someone who may not spell terrifically or exhibit flawless grammar. You feel it unfair that one displays the audacity to prefer an established standard of correctness than to allow free-spirited "variant spellings" based on good intentions. Moreover, you seem to defend victimization-by-one's-own-inefficiency; perhaps if fewer people would settle for substandard performance, they wouldn't have to worry about all the spelling-bee bullies to whom you alluded. Being able to communicate without spelling correctly is not the issue of this debate; yes, one can often spell incorrectly and still convey meaning. But that unfairly burdens those who already worked hard to improve and perfect their own spelling and grammar—and they should not be forced to pick up the slack of careless language-welfare recipients. The TIME article was good for a chuckle and a headache. After reading it, am I supposed to believe that because one professor in England doesn't feel like working harder—that correcting spelling errors is somehow morally reprehensible, or time wasted? In the second paragraph, the article writes: "Smith adds that when teachers correct spelling, they waste valuable time they could be spending on bigger ideas." Forgive me and millions of others for believing that NOT rationalizing laziness, or rewarding inefficiency, IS a big idea that deserves to be championed by consistent adherence to what is right. If a collegiate student in a math class were to keep suggesting that 2x2 is something other than 4, would the professor eventually just concede that student's special way of solving the problem so that "bigger ideas" could be addressed? Absolutely not. The example of "a lot" is sufficient evidence of why changing the spelling to "alot" would change the language itself. A lot is actually two words. A ball. A game. A player. A pizza. A lot. A lot for parking is where my car currently resides. A lot of some particular item results in a bunch (yet there is not clamoring for the word "abunch"). The last line in the article reads: " ‘In the 21st century, why learn by heart rote spelling when you can just type it into a computer and spell-check?' [the professor] asks." As a teacher myself, this is the same line of thought that I struggle to dissuade 15-year-olds from lazily adopting. For one, the spell-check is not always correct; nor does it always suggest the right word. This is akin to allowing students to blindly cite anything from Wikipedia as 100% credible secondary-source material. This placating to inferior work ethic fosters a culture of laziness and lack of self-advocacy that society would be weaker for encouraging. It doesn't matter what two people who hated spelling thought 150 years ago; many brilliant and influential minds thought slavery was a good idea during that time, too—but that didn't make it right (nor does it now). Two final questions: (1) What does me having gone to law school, or possibly being a lawyer, have to do with anything? (2) Who are "they" and what do they say about lawyers? And what relevance does it (or they) have to this debate? It doesn't matter if I'm Thurgood Marshall or Marshall Mathers; if I adequately and reasonably refute your resolution, I deserve to win the round. What doesn't matter is my profession, or even if I'm unemployed—so long as I adequately refute the resolution and your arguments (which, so far, I have). Besides, if you had read my profile thoroughly, you would have read that I am a teacher. Perhaps your cavalier attitude toward correct spelling and grammar has negatively influenced your reading comprehension, as well. Thanks again for demonstrating my point perfectly. Why should correctness be sacrificed for incorrectness? Why should people "play down" to lesser spellers, instead of challenging them to raise their game? The fact is, this should not happen. Correcting one's spelling and grammar is not "going to[o] far." For all of these reasons, I urge a CON vote.