Grammar, spelling and punctuation should be taken into consideration when voting upon a debate.

I am going to keep the argument groupings I used in R1. 1) You still have provided no reason why grammar, etc. should influence a judge's decision. The topic of debate is "Grammar, etc. should be taken into consideration when voting up," so it is your job as Pro to demonstrate that a judge should consider grammar etc. when voting. If you fail to do this, you lose. Your response to how "being taken seriously" should affect voting: "As the individual judge sees fit." If the judge should decide whether or not the issue should affect voting, you have failed you job as pro. You must demonstrate that the judge should take the issue into account. Demonstrating that the judge should do whatever he thinks is right is entirely different. Later you come close to answering the issue: "The point is, if someone isn't going to give you respect, then do the same. If a debate seems to be a draw and one of the debaters couldn't be bothered to use capital letters, then vote against that argument. It's just that simple." Once again, what does owing debaters/judges respect have to do with voting? Whether or not you respect someone is a personal issue. Voting based on respect for a person is voting based on a personal issue. Voting should be based on the quality of the arguments, not the judge's opinion of the character of the debater. You object to my boxing example. My point was simply to show that what matters are the events that relate to the competition, i.e., punches and arguments. The opinions of the quality of the competitor are irrelevant. You can think a debater is a sleazy crook, but if he makes better arguments, he has won the competition. Respect has nothing to do with winning. I'm sorry for being so slow and not seeing what you claim is as obvious as "2+2=4" Perhaps if you had explained the connection at some point in the round, I would understand how you think the two connect. 2) I will concede that poor grammar, etc. shows that someone is an idiot or isn't respectable, but only because I don't need to win this point to win the debate. My opponent still has not provided a connection between being unrespectable and deserving to lose. 3) The point of some people having English as a second language is still irrelevant. I appreciate that you want to bring attention to the importance of grammar in teaching languages, but that does not explain why grammar should affect voting. 4) To prove my point that the purpose of grammar is clarity and that grammar has no independent value, lets look at my opponent's statements: "Linguistic structural constants are observed and they are what allow these individuals to effectively communicate. . . Good grammar is essential to arguing in online debates because it is too easy to misunderstand someone even when it is used. To abandon it only promotes confusion." Grammar is needed "to effectively communicate." This means that grammar is valuable BECAUSE it enables communication. If clear communication occurs without the use of proper grammar, then no harm has been done. Why can't we abandon grammar? Because it "promotes confusion." However, if someone is not using grammar and confusion does not ensue (i.e., they aren't using grammar but their meaning is still quite clear), then the lack of grammar is unimportant. Look at it like this: Grammar is good because it lets us communicate clearly. Grammar is the means to the end of clear communication. If the "end" can be achieved through a different means, that is fine. My opponent wants to know why books are published with proper grammar if what I say is true. The answer: publishers follow norms that were contingent products of history. It just happens that books are published the way they are and the fact has no impact on this debate. 5) I stand by my point that quality and skill of argument are the ONLY relevant points of consideration for a judge to have. I clearly state my reason: these are the only two issues relevant to the purpose of debate. My opponent did not contest that the purpose of debate is to beat the opponent in argument. My opponent provided no reason why the judge should look beyond the two factors relevant to the goal of a debate when voting. I win this debate for the following reasons: 1)My opponent may have won that poor grammar makes you look dumb and unrespectable, but he failed to show why a judge should consider grammar in deciding the winner of a debate round. 2)I have demonstrated that the judge should only look at factors relevant to the goal of debate: beating an opponent in argument. Grammar is not a factor relevant to this goal, so it should not be evaluated.