Grammar makes little difference to a phrase's meaning and clarity

I'm really not caring about this debate anymore, so instead of typing the rest of my rounds in the same manner that I typed my first one, I'll just proceed normally. As we're discussing the impact of grammar on meaning AND clarity, proving that correct grammar and incorrect grammar have a significant impact on just one is going to be enough for you to negate. However, my opponent must be able to defend both if he is wanting to win this debate. Also, since my opponent's definition of little is, well, vague, I will attempt to prove that incorrect grammar has a noticable impact upon a phrases meaning and clarity. If there is no noticable impact, then you affirm. However, if there's even the slightest notable impact, you negate instantly. Also, since my opponent did not specify the range of error in grammar allowed, we can presume that any and all gramatical errors in any quantity are allowed for me to use. Grammar is essential to conversation. Without it,, we would all be talking in different accents and using different words that had no meaning and nobody would understand one another. Grammar, when used correctly, provides us with the meaning and clarity we need to converse effectively. Mess with the grammar, though, and you mess with the meaning and clarity of what you're trying to say. Let me explain further: >> Meaning << Incorrect grammar messes with meaning on two different levels: a) Fluency Have you ever had a hard time understanding people with thick, foreign accents that you are not used to hearing? What about having a hard time understanding an infant or toddler? If you said yes to either one of those, you finally understand why incorrect grammar messes with the fluency of our speech by altering the meaning of what we say in the minds of the people we are speaking to. Let me go deeper. If I were to walk up to you and say "I' gon ate da epple ober ther", would you even have a chance of understanding what I was getting at? Not a chance would you know that I was going to eat the apple over there. That's because the grammar I used was different from the correct grammar, which is what our ears are atoned to listen to. Any deviation from it takes away from the meaning, which means that grammar has an impact on the meaning of a phrase. b) Spelling How we spell words also affects the meaning of a phrase. This is less noticable than the fluency of our speech, but it still has a noticable impact upon the meaning of a sentance. Let's take the following sentance for example: I am going to the store. The meaning of this sentance is very clear, and the correct spelling allows us to accurately interpret it's meaning. Now let's take the following sentance: I am going to teh sture. Looking at the two mispelled words, "teh" and "sture", we can easily tell that they are mispelled and that they are not what the sentance was supposed to have. This means that meaning is lost because a) it's not what the author of the sentance intended to put there, which means that part of the meaning that said author wished to convey through his word choice is now ruined via misspelling, and b) those words do not actually exist. Because they are not in existance (someone has not created them and given them meaning yet), then they lack meaning. Which essentially turns the sentance into "I am going to ___ _____". Those blanks (which is where the misspelled words are) completely train-wreck any meaning that the sentance may have had. Which means that grammar influences the meaning of a phrase. >> Clarity << Clarity is a much easier thing to prove is impacted by improper grammar. Let us take a few steps back and look at a previous example of attempting to say that we are going to eat that apple over there. Of course if I fluently and clearly speak "I'm going to eat that apple over there", the message is easy to understand. Why? Because we were clear with our words and our speech. However, the worse our grammar is, the worse our speech is. Ever heard how the British pronounce 'garage' and wondered what the heck they were talking about? How about been down near New Orleans, Mississippi and heard the Cajun people speaking in their thick accents. Could you understand them? Different accents and pronunciations all are rooted in differences in grammar, and those differences affect the clarity of a phrase spoken.Since I've proven that grammar affects both meaning and clarity, you auto-negate right off the bat. But even still, let's go over my opponent's arguments." When one reads a book and comes across a typo, he or she is rarely if ever confused at what is being said. The only feeling he or she has is the subtle sense of superiority and contempt for the writer of the book."All my opponent is arguing here is that we are able to give meaning to misspellings of words. This, of course, makes the presumption that if a misspelling occurs, the phrase lacks meaning until we imbue it with meaning. You can take that assumption he makes and auto-negate off of it, because this debate isn't about the reasoning ability of the human mind and it's ability to imbue words with meaning: it's about the effect of grammar on the meaning and clarity of phrases. If he's making the assumption that when a misspelling occurs there is no meaning until we place meaning there (which he is), then he's presuming that the negative is true. So from that you can instantly negate. "People like rules they can follow because it quickens how fast they can understand; not if they can understand."Here my opponent is making the same assumption as above. No need to waste characters explaining it again."Another case against the need of grammar for understanding is the amazing human ability to interpret the tone of a phrase."From just reading the topic sentance of the paragraph you can already tell that this is going to be non-resolutional. The human mind doesn't play into grammar at all. Grammar is as grammar is, and nothing our mind thinks or reasons has any affect on it. Since that's the last of my opponent's arguments, let me summarize how this round went down:1. I proved that incorrect grammar affects both meaning and clarity, which gives you as the voters two places to negate right off the bat.2. I proved that my opponent's arguements are resting on the assumption that the negative case is true. So if you give weight to his arguments, then you have to instantly negate.3. I proved that the arguments that AREN'T making that assumption are off topic. The human's ability to reason is an outside agent that doesn't affect the resolution: if grammar distorts the meaning and clarity of a phrase. Thus, the arguments that fall under this are null and void, and do not weigh into the round whatsoever.Overall, it's a really easy negative vote.