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

The first thing is: both my first- and second-round arguments are not one paragraph, but multiples. Therefore, you cannot say it is a 'super-paragraph', because it is not even one paragraph, as I have just stated. However, if you still desire to call it 'super', you can call them super-paragraphs Also, out of convenience and as per your understandable request, I shall, at least for arguments in which you are my opponent, utilize the alphanumerical organization format. My final argument for this debate is displayed below. 1. Counter to "Back to Tradition" A. As you should be able to figure out, the phrase of mine that you so fervently put under criticism, "I am not a traditionalist, but I am a traditionalist," is not to be interpreted literally. As you may know, in mathematics, when a two of the same variables are pit against each other, neutrality is the result, thus cancelling out both variables. It is the same in this selected sentence. To be a traditionalist, that is, to show agreement with a specific concept, would normally be positive, for positivity is often synonymous with concordance. Vice-versa with negativity, which is often synonymous with discord, or nonagreement. Thus, since I state that I am a traditionalist, but I am not a traditionalist, the "I am" phrase represents positivity, and the "I am not" represents negativity. When I use both in one sentence, it creates, as you had correctly stated, a "glaring contradiction." This contradiction is, in other words, the positive and negative of the sentence are pitted against each other, thus cancelling each other out, creating neutrality. This neutrality can imply either having no opinion or holding a centrist's opinion, creating one's opinion uniquely depending on the situation. So, logically speaking, you are right. I cannot be both, and therefore, I am not. That sentence is simply an abstract way of indicating my centrist-like opinion. 2. Counter to "Origins" A. You stated: [Quote, "To briefly restate, I've agreed that learning the origins of our language is important; however, learning the origins does not require us to implement these original grammatical conventions in modern language- again, this would make as much sense as returning to the use of 'Old English".] You are right and wrong about this. Right, because you had stated that it is important to learn the origins of our language. Yet you are wrong, because in order to utilize that language correctly, one MUST implement SOME characteristics into the language's modern edition. The reason why one must is because over time because of 'social blur', language changes, as we have agreed upon. Social Blur is exactly the reason why we must, because over time, language changes due to it. That means grammar of the word often changes, punctuation also, as well as pronunciation. And if the language, like English, is spread over amounts of many countries, different societies often can misinterpret and/or confuse the word. Because of this, perception of the word is like a muddied pond: One can barely see under the surface. Therefore, the only way to find out the ORIGINAL intentions as to how it was utilized is to look at the tradition. Of course, many traditional characteristics do not work in some societies because of social opinions and cultures, so one must implement restraint on some words' traditional form, because the modern grammatical, punctuational, etc., rules do not allow or encourage its use. For example, the word "program"... According to the website [http://forum.wordreference.com...], the only difference between 'program' and 'programme' is that 'program' is used in this spelling in America, but 'programme' is used in this spelling in the U.K. Both countries differentiate in their spelling of the words because of their different cultures, their differing SOCIETAL characteristics. Thus, this applies to the "countries' differing societal characteristics" statement of the Social Blur concept. However, also according to that same website, in the United Kingdom, they often utilize the American spelling of the word ('program') to refer to a [Quote, "a computer program"], and the U.K. spelling of the word ('programme'] to refer to a [Quote, "any other kind of programme, such as a concert or television programme.] Yet, America only utilizes the word in its American spelling ['program'] in all cases. Thus, this refers to the "countries' differing social characteristics" statement of the Social Blur concept. Also, the following paragraph is according to the Social Blur concept's statement regarding how tradition must be utilized also (at least partially). The words 'program' and 'programme'... If you look at the word's adjective form, 'programmable', would it not seem as if 'programme' is supposed to be used instead of 'program'? After all, why would there be two M's in 'programming' if there would not be two M's in its base word 'programme'. Every verb, adjective, and long noun has a similarity in spelling with its base word. 'Accordance' with 'accord', 'proposition' with 'propose', 'extermination' with 'exterminate' (but with it devoiced), 'determinable' with 'determine' (but with it devoiced), 'infinitesimal' with 'infinite', etc. This is exactly the case with 'programmable'. As with "extermination", "determinable", and no doubt many other long verbs, adjectives, and long nouns, 'programmable' is in relation with 'programme' because the only difference is that it is devoiced. However, devoicing is entirely normal. Another fact that can be supplied to prove that tradition being at least partially utilized does work is that, according to [http://www.askoxford.com...] the etymology of the word 'programme' (or 'program', it does not matter in this piece of information) is that the word stems from the Greek word 'programma'. If you look at that word, one would see that even it, one of the word's most original forms, possesses two M's. I believe I have proven my point that the correct spelling for that word is 'programme', not 'program', but that tradition can be used to work, that it should be used, and that it should be used not entirely but just partially. 3. Counter to Entry Section 2.B A. First of all, let me inform you that the reason as to why I had attacked the search engine's credibility was not to prove that it was non-credible, whether it was or was not, or is or is not. The purpose was to show that it does not matter whether one knows the definition of each word that each acronymic letter represents. It does not matter because that is a bias. Bias statements cloud judgement; you are assuming that the person who is to read 'L.A.S.E.R.' does not know what it stands for, or if they do, then what each word means. Well, anyone could say that it is just as possible that they would possess that knowledge. That is why it is bias. It is bias because it is an assumption, and all assumptions or presumptions are bias because they are often based on stereotypical claims or labels. They are either based on this or based on a frivolous foundation. *By the way, I still have a lot more to write, but I have no choice but to get off the computer since I have no more time. So, I am sorry.