The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"

Con said: "I will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that the word "of" is inside of the word "it" - but first it is critical to define what a word REALLY is."it's not really critical to define what a word really is, a word is something that exists in the context of a language, and it is used to define, explain, and name certain things, along with altering the meaning of other words. This has nothing to do with this debate, as all Con has to do is prove that the word "Of" Is inside the word "It".Con said: "The Reference Dictionary says that a word is: "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spokensounds or their written representation...". This means that I can win this debate if I prove one of two things: either the sounds of letters of "of" is inside "it" Con claims that he can win this debate if he can prove that the sounds of the letters of the word exist inside the word itself. This is different than proving that the word itself is inside of "It". Since qoutation marks are around "It", and inside is refering to "It", then Con would have to prove that the word "Of" is inside the written form of "It". It is not refering to the sound, as you do not need a sound to make a word, only knowledge of what the word means. *Sign language is an example of a language that has no sound attributed to it. *Since the sound of the word has nothing to do with the debate, as I specifically mentioned the title of this debate, adding sound to your argument is both off topic and therefore irrelevant. Con said:" or I have to show that the written representations of these sounds of "of" is inside "it" (this is possible). Below, I will highlight my evidence that shows that the written representations of the word "it" are around the word "of"."Again, sound has nothing to do with this debate, as the title of the debate is not oral, but it is written (Or typed if you will). Written representations of sounds has nothing to do with words. That might sound confusing, but I can prove this. The word "There" has a drastically different meaning than the word "they're". Since the two words are spoken exactly the same way orally, they cannot be distiguished by themselves, meaning that a word has different meanings when spoken orally. This debate only has to do with the written representations, and not sound, therefore refutting Cons points. Con said: "The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"." I'm going to assume that con meant to qoute the title, in which case he should've added qoutes. I will not count this as him refuting his own point, as I merely think it is a mistake. Con said: "As you can see, I bolded two letters - the written representations of the word "it" - as well as the word "of". Of is within the boundaries set by the written representations of "it", thus I have shown that "of" is inside of "it" - and the resolution says that I must show that this is true. This debate is not whether or not "it" is a meaningful word that is surrounding the word "of" - I must just show that it does in fact bound it."Con states that the word "of" is bound by the word "it". It is not, as the two words are merely being referenced in the title, and therefore have no meaning. "Of" Is actually used twice, but the second variation along with the first does not interact with the word "it" as "It" has no meaning besides being referenced, turning it into a noun, which does not describe something or modify a meaning. Con also fails to show how "Of" is bound to "it". Con said: "As some internet legends say, "gg." Thank you, vote con." Closing statement, no refutal. http://www.macmillandictionary.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...Please wait until the debate is over to choose a winner, as Con has another chance at proving the word "of" Is in "it"