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

" Nearly all of the errors one would receive on an essay they turn into their teacher would not change the meaning of the paper; correct or incorrect."False, as even if I make a mistake, even if our mind is able to bridge the gap that our lack of grammar created, that gap still exists, which only proves that incorrect grammar does affect the meaning and clarity of something."It is technically incorrect and from your reasoning it should have no meaning; yet somehow I suspect you understand it. "The fact that my mind is able to bridge the gap that a lack of grammar created does not mean that the gap doesn't exist in the first place. By arguing that our mind is able to connect the failings of grammar, you essentially presume the resolution to be false (for a second time, mind you). " Deviation from what we expect may cause us to slow down, but it does not mean that one couldn't understand a grammatically incorrect phrase."I'm getting tired of repeating the same argument over and over again. Just because our minds can reason out a mistake in grammar, it does not mean that what we had to reason out no longer exists. The lack of grammar and lack of meaning is still there, but our minds are able to bridge it. But as this resolution doesn't question mankind's ability to understand simple grammatical mistakes, but instead whether these mistakes have a noticable impact upon the phrase in question, your argument doesn't even apply to the resolution. But if it did actually apply, it presumes it to be false, and thus you still lose anyway. "b) Spelling –"Since your argument is essentially the same thing as it is with the above ones that I've refuted three times or so, I'm just going to direct you to the above refutations (which are essentially all the same since all you did was find different ways to word the same refutation and copy/paste). "You leave the reader out of the equation."That's because the reader was never in the equation to begin with. And since you only go on to repeat the same argument for a FIFTH time, refer to the refutations above."You assume that the human mind does not take a role in this debate; I would argue exactly the opposite. I think the human mind and grammar are inseparable when considering the implications of grammar. Grammar servers to make sentences perfectively clear to people who are familiar with it. Making something perfectly clear is often unnecessary. What matters is that people understand something."You are correct in virtually this entire paragraph except for one small detail: the wording of the resolution never includes a human actor (or in this case, a human mind). All the resolution is asking of us is to consider the impact of incorrect grammar on the phrase alone. Not whether or not incorrect grammar prevents us from understanding the phrase, but whether or not the phrase is impacted negatively by the grammar error. Because of the way you worded the resolution, you excluded your own argument. THIS is why the human mind does not factor into this debate, and THUSLY is why you lose in at least three different ways. " I have clearly shown that grammar often makes no true difference to a phrase's meaning. "False. What you've proven is that the human mind can correct unintentional breaches in grammar and restore the proper meaning. However this isn't what the resolution asked of you, so essentially you've been arguing a different resolution from the one you provided. How does that make you feel?Ladies and gents, I ask you to read over the rounds carefully before making your decision on who won this debate. My opponent did effectively prove a point. Hpwever, the only problem with his arguments is that they aren't actually what the resolution is asking him to prove. By arguing that the human mind fixes grammar errors, he does two things:1. Deviates from the resolution, as the resolution is only asking of us to consider the impact of grammar on the phrase WITHOUT the influence of the human mind. 2. Presumes that the resolution is false. If there is no grammar error for our mind to fix, then our mind wouldn't automatically fix it in the first place. This means that even if you give weight to his arguments, you still have to negate as it would imply that the resolution has to be false for his arguments to be true.Thusly, you still negate.