Source Code without Tabs is Superior to Source Code with Tabs

My opponent insists that his argument is not a red herring, but I will insist that it is and explain why. On the surface, it would seem my opponent is merely attempting to refute point 1 of my opening remarks by stating that unreadable source code is more desirable, but his reasoning behind this argument is that two wrongs make a right. He wants us to accept on good faith that companies haphazardly take jobs away from programmers with good coding habits and send them overseas. Then he wants us to accept that the only appropriate response is to hold source code hostage by making it unreadable to anyone but the author. If we aren't discussion morality, as my opponent suggested, then this argument must be ignored because it presupposes that companies engage in unethical behavior. The comparison of writing unreadable code to the job security of COBOL programmers is a weak analogy. COBOL can be just as readable as any other language. The reason COBOL programmers are employed for life is that companies are invested in the technology such that the skill is still quite valuable. If anything, this analogy only serves to weaken my opponent's position since it shows that job security is possible without obscuring source code. I rather appreciate my opponent linking to a Slashdot. org entry in support of his unmaintainable code theory, as it serves to earn me the most reliable source vote. First, Slashdot. org is a collection of entries submitted by site members. Second, the entry in my opponent's link was anonymously posted. Third, the entry's link to the rules of writing unmaintainable code is dead. At best, my opponent linked to an anonymous internet poster's opinion. To add insult to injury, many of the comments recognize the post as a joke. Perhaps my opponent knows this and is simply not taking this debate seriously, in which case I should get the conduct vote as well. The best part of my opponent's second round is the additional argument regarding the Whitespace language. My opponent suggests that since I did not specify a language, I must have been talking about the Whitespace language. This is a blatant straw man attempt. Since he cannot defeat my arguments using sound reason, he modifies the debate parameters as to avoid my arguments altogether. I defined source code to be "the original textual form of a computer program. " I think it's clear that my definition was language agnostic. To interpret the debate parameters otherwise is to argue semantics, a typical last resort of a debater unable to refute his opponent's arguments head on. However, even if I conceded that the Whitespace language (which was written as an April Fool's Day joke according to his own source) is one possible language, there is still another logical problem in using it in his argument: it begs the question. Indeed, the Whitespace language must have tabs to function, but it is also unreadable according the definition to which my opponent implicitly agreed. Therefore, the Whitespace language is only a good example if he's able to prove that unreadable code is more desirable. In other words, my opponent must first win the debate before his Whitespace argument is meaningful. Lastly, my opponent argues that tabs are more convenient than spaces. However, given modern advances in source code editing environments, this is no longer the case. Pasting code with spaces is not a problem since editors can automatically adjust the snippet's indents to match the current block. Programmers can still use the tab key and let the editor convert it into spaces on the fly. Editors can even be smart enough to make backspacing spaces as easy as backspacing tabs. While my opponent's argument might have held more weight in the past, using only spaces in source code today comes with little inconvenience. In conclusion, I laid out six points of contention affirming the resolution. My opponent has focused on refuting only the first of those six contentions, and I've shown how his attempts fall short. Much of my opponent's arguments tangent from the stated resolution and focus instead on the ethical dilemma of outsourcing jobs overseas versus job security through code obfuscation. I showed that code readability is ethical (point 5), is just as capable of securing one's job (point 6), and that code without tabs is the only way to guarantee maximum readability (points 3 and 4). I urge the voters to see through my opponent's clever schemes and vote in favor of Pro.