People that don't know basic grammar should have their opinions forcibly removed

Before I delve into my closing statement, I would like to firstly reassure everybody that I hold The_Right_Opinion in very high regard! As I want to practice and challenge my debating skills too, I will continue my role of con and explain why I believe that, Despite The_Right_Opinion being a very strong and articulate opponent, Their argument ultimately fails. I don’t think it’s fair to characterise me as trying to “change the debate”. If your position is that only those with basic grammar skills should be allowed to participate in academic discourse, Then you should have made that clearer in your opening round. I genuinely assumed that by ‘opinions’ you meant opinions in general, Which would include our hypothetically illiterate car mechanic advising you on why your car won’t start. Setting up a debate takes a lot of skill; if you’ve found yourself arguing for a position you don’t hold then my advice would be to next time define your terms better. This isn’t just to prevent those who want a technical win (I tried to be generous and not take the debate title as an endorsement for a grammar Gestapo), But also to avoid it from genuinely being misunderstood. I’m also not trying to gain the moral high ground on you personally, Rather, I’m trying to show, As con, That allowing everyone the right to hold an opinion is the morally right thing to do. The correlation between literacy levels and poverty are well documented; therefore, This isn’t just an assumption. For example, One of the largest surveys done on this found that 51% of homeless people lack the basic literacy skills for everyday life (never mind having functional levels of grammar) (1) A different study, By the European Commission, Found that ‘The international literature shows that poverty and functional illiteracy can mutually influence and reinforce each other in various ways. ’ (2) By banning those with low levels of literacy from having an opinion you are, Inadvertently, Supressing the opinions of the “the lower classes” because the two are linked. Whilst you are correct in pointing out that some children from lower socioeconomic groups will do well at school, This will in most cases lead to them getting a better paid job than their parents and therefore moving out of the lower economic group currently underrepresented. Even if a minority of these people stay to live within their original community, They will be outnumbered, In places like parliament, By those from more privileged backgrounds. Allowing only a few lone voices to represent those living in poverty still leads to that group being underrepresented in political discussion. Your position isn’t a direct attack on the homeless, However will lead to groups statistically correlated with low levels of literacy getting supressed. You argue that those without a formal education should be denied an opinion because their views aren’t well-rounded. The problem is, As I’ve already pointed out, Experience also plays an important role in shaping our beliefs and therefore you could equally make the same accusation towards those with only a theoretical knowledge of a subject. I’d also like to point out that an opinion doesn’t have to be well-rounded in order for it to be worth listening to; when a politician goes out to meet people from their local community, They’re not expecting to find an all-knowing oracle. When a managing director goes onto the shop floor, They aren’t looking for some high-level consultancy. When a company runs a consumer focus group, They aren’t looking for one person who can solve all their problems. So long as somebody’s opinion adds something to the discussion then their opinion has some value. Another way of looking at it is this: if you deny certain groups of people the right to hold an opinion then your views will become anything but well-rounded. For example, A journalist is not going to write a well-rounded article on homelessness if they fail to speak to a single homeless person. Of course, A good journalist will look at statistics and consider the opinions of other groups (such as charities working in this area), However considering a range of opinions is not the same as stripping those with low levels of grammar from their right to have a say. You argue that dismissing an opinion due to its spelling and grammar isn’t fallacious. I beg to differ; you can certainly quibble over the specifics (e. G. Whether or not it’s an ad hominem or a red herring), However the consensus seem to be that it’s still a fallacy (e. G. On StackExchange(3)) as it fails to address the content of the actual argument. Of course, You can avoid committing a fallacy by acknowledging that the opinion itself is correct, However, To dismiss a perfectly valid opinion simply because you don’t like the way it was presented would be a classic case of putting style over substance! I disagree with your paragraph about fantasy novels. You could equally argue that the person who reads a lot of highbrow non-fiction books will be too immersed in the book’s arguments and data to pay too much attention the author’s grammar. The main point I was making is that reading lots of books only makes you an expert in the subjects that those books are on. Reading lots of biology textbooks doesn’t make you an expert on Shakespeare’s plays nor does reading lots of book about renaissance history make you an expert on quantum mechanics. Therefore, We should be careful in assuming that a debater knows what they’re talking about simply because they know how to spell ‘there’ correctly. You ask me if I’ve ever had a constructive political discussion with somebody who doesn’t have basic grammar skills. Yes, I have. In Britain we have a magazine called ‘The Big Issue’, Which is sold exclusively by those who are homeless or at risk of becoming so. It's a way of helping them get onto the job ladder. I occasionally buy it and, In doing so, Chat to our local vendor – a guy called Brian. He is functionally illiterate however I’ve learnt a lot from him about the barriers people of no fixed abode face (for example, He doesn’t like going to hostels because the violence and drug use makes him feel unsafe, However points like this could easily get overlooked by, Say, A statistician or a town planner who's only ever visited a library). Finally, You bring up my debate with backwardseden. The problem is that spelling and grammar is the least of backwardseden’s worries; if somebody makes illogical arguments or displays poor debate conduct let’s judge them on these things and these things alone. You conclude by stating that the “overwhelming majority of debates will continue to be between someone who wants a conversation, And someone who doesn't”. Not everyone whose gifts lie outside of spelling and grammar are trolls. If this is your concern, Then this is what you should focus on. Even if somebody’s arguments are all over the place, All it takes for bad arguments to propagate is for those who know what they’re talking about to do nothing. Therefore, I believe that those with low levels of grammar should not be stripped of their opinions. Doing so will leave marginalised groups (e. G the unemployed, Immigrants, Those with learning disabilities such as dyslexia) ignored whilst others, With the right education, Are left free to speak outside of their areas of expertise simply because they know how to throw around a few impressive sounding words and use an apostrophe correctly. Thank you for taking the time to debate this with me - I hope that we've both learnt something from it. Sources in comments, As this website won't post my response with them in!