Acronyms should have a period mark after each letter, instead of there just being the letters.

Cody Franklin, Resident Fascist; pleased to meet you, Pro. Before I begin, I'd like to apologize for any difficulty that I have in arguing against Pro, as she has presented me with what is colloquially known as a Wall o' Text. Now then, as Con, note that my only burden in the debate is to produce but a single situation in which dissecting acronyms with periods is unnecessary, undesirable, or otherwise; Pro, in making a general claim, must be able to universally justify the grammatical dissection of these acronyms. I will begin by tearing down her wall o' text. 1. Lingual tradition a. Though Pro claims that she isn't a traditionalist, it's clear that we're looking at an appeal to tradition, which we all know to be a logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. By that same logic, we could mark modern English as a bastardization of the language, and revert to "Old English", like that originally used in Beowulf [http://upload.wikimedia.org...]. b. While it's important to understand the origins of language, such origins may no longer be sociohistorically accurate representations of that language. While Pro argues that "laser", for example, is not a word, a quick peek at a dictionary proves otherwise [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. Summarily said, learning the origin of language doesn't equate reverting to the recognition of those origins as legitimate lingual standards. c. As Pro herself admits, society changes over time, and language changes with it; to insist that we adhere to archaic lingual constructions is absurd, as this is an obstacle to the evolution of our language; Pro may call it "social blur", but I call it "progress". d. I also need to bring into question Pro's knowledge of the intentions of every writer. While she asserts that "leading the reader to believe they are reading a word... is not what the writer intended". I would really like some proof that every writer who uses the word "laser" intends for the reader to see it as "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." We need more than unwarranted assertions, Pro. 2. Complexity vs. simplicity a. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct in saying that a contemporary definition of laser is simpler than the expanded meaning of L.A.S.E.R.; here, she is appealing to consequence [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by assuming that simplicity is an inherent "bad", so to speak. Her logic is as follows. A. If acronyms do not maintain their periods, the definitions will be simpler. B. Having a simple definition is bad. C. Therefore, acronyms should maintain their periods. Merely because turning acronyms into words produces consequences that are undesirable to Pro does not mean that acronyms should retain their periods. Until Pro can give us proof that simplicity is universally unacceptable, you negate. (And, honestly, if someone wanted to know information about lasers THAT badly, there's always Google.) b. Allow me to actually compare these definitions. L.A.S.E.R. - Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation Alright, that tells us, in somewhat scientific terms, what a laser is. Let us, however, revisit the (fairly informal) dictionary.com. "laser - a device that produces a nearly parallel, nearly monochromatic, and coherent beam of light by exciting atoms to a higher energy level and causing them to radiate their energy in phase." [http://dictionary.reference.com...] I'd like to hear Pro's reasoning for calling this definition simplistic in comparison to the acronym. This may simply be my own opinion, this definition of the word "laser" seems far more accurate and detailed than the expanded acronym, even including Pro's explanation of the terminology used. Now then, I feel that I've given Pro enough to chew on concerning her own position, thus I move on to present a couple of arguments and examples in my own favor. 1. Internet slang As we're well aware, a number of internet mannerisms have sprung up over the years, including "omg", "lol", "wtf", and "asl". While Pro may assert that acronyms cannot be properly understood without proper punctuation, I would argue that the meaning of these infamous acronyms are fairly self-evident to the majority of the internet "population". The internet is a safe haven for informal communication, and Pro's advocacy clearly jeopardizes this by adding these archaic, unnecessary grammatical conventions into the mix. Omg quite clearly means Oh my gosh/God (depending on who you ask), lol equates "Laugh(ing) out loud", wtf translates as "what the f*ck", and asl was a popular tool of internet pedophiles which meant "age, sex, location". I feel that I may be beating around the bush, so allow me to simply say, Pro cannot universally ask the denizens of the intarwebz to place unnecessary, often undesired periods in slang terms that are commonly understood by a majority of people, even people that are considered n00bz from a digital perspective. 2. Periods don't create understanding. Periods may be a part of the acronym, but I would argue that they are hardly responsible for knowledge of the acronym's meaning. My opponent is mistaking a correlation with causation, which is yet another logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In algebra, having alphabetic variables is certainly a key part of visually setting up a problem, but having X in the problem doesn't enlighten children as to how to solve that problem. In the same way, having periods isn't going to enlighten the general public as to the meaning of the acronym. The average person would have to inquire as to the meaning of the acronym, in much the same way as he or she would have to inquire as to the definition of a word. Again, though, I feel as if I've prattled on long enough. Simply put, adding periods to acronyms will not give any more insight into its meaning than leaving them out, and it would be a logical fallacy to assume otherwise. Now then, if you will excuse me, I have some lasagna waiting downstairs; oh, and gl Pro. (That's G.L., or, Good Luck, in case you weren't aware.)