Grammer iz moore impoortent then spehling.

Deconstructing Opponent's CaseContension 1. Absense of grammerMy opponent thinks that the absence of grammar distorts the clarity of what is intended to be conveyed. However, what he refers to with this is grammar that has deviated from standardized grammar, not an absence of grammar. As Noam Chomsky wrote in his universal grammar theory, “the process by which, in any given language, certain sentences are perceived as correct while others are not, is universal and independent of meaning.” Furthermore, “the reason that children so easily master the complex operations of language is that they have innate knowledge of certain principles that guide them in developing the grammar of their language. In other words, Chomsky’s theory is that language learning is facilitated by a predisposition that our brains have for certain structures of language.” So, in this sense, grammar is innate, universal, and independent of meaning. The only people with an absence of grammar are perhaps the severely mentally retarded and chronically ill. [1]My opponent continues on, mentioning the classical example of “Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.” This example is flawed from the start. First, even the correct interpretation in spoken form is ambiguous and grammatically incorrect according to standardized grammar, “Eats shoots and leaves.” There is no subject in the sentence. Who is doing the eating? Second, “shoots” and “leaves” could be interpreted as present-tense verbs or plural nouns. This inherent ambiguity makes this sentence an even worse example, and could be resolved by adding more detail: The panda’s diet consists of bamboo shoots and bamboo leaves. Third, the difference that changes the two aforementioned ambiguous words from nouns to verbs is the addition of two commas, which is an orthographic convention, not a grammatical one. [4]Contension 2. AdvuhcacyMy opponent mentions three people who agree with him without providing any evidence that they agree with him. This is a blatant ad populum fallacy and also an overlapping appeal to authority fallacy using the president and Spiderman as supporters. [2, 3]Contension 3. Vairius otherr rezuns.This contention is composed of ad hominems and irrelevant information. He even makes an “I’m right because I’m right” fallacy.Upholding My CaseMy opponent begins by insulting my argument and calling it “boring.” He raises no legitimate objections to my case.Informed ConsensusMy opponent objects to the writing experts by stating the imaginary point, "Rule number 6 from this point forward is null, and void. Wallstreetatheist is a puppy killer, vote Pro." This is patently absurd, and I ask the judges to rule it out of their considerations. He drops the legitimate points about experts in their field agreeing with the Con side.Comprehensibility All of his objections have been covered in my deconstruction of his case. Furthermore, the brains flexibility in inventive grammar was not addressed. He drops the scientific evidence, the artificial grammar-learning paradigm, the brain flexibility, the point that the increasing number of English words increases spelling importance, and the point that the subtleties in language become more important with an enormous lexicon.Thank you, and Vote Pro![1] http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;