"S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial

Thank you Con for making a rebuttal. I will now address it with my defense. "Pro is arguing that Truman has a middle name and it is possible for his middle name to have no initial. It is not possible for a middle name with at least one letter to be without an initial. (e.g. you can claim that you have an only child but you cannot ignore the idea that they are your first child=they are both true.)" While Con is, by dictionary definition (1), technically correct, there is a problem with her reasoning that must be addressed. First off, we must ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the use of initials in the English language? Well, the purpose is abbreviation. Saving time and space by abbreviating the word down to one letter. Now while it is true that this is not found in the dictionary, it can very well be assumed that this is the purpose of an initial. Because if not for the sake of abbreviation, why would anyone use an initial? So, if we can agree that the purpose of an initial is to abbreviate, we can look at a middle name with only one letter, as in Harry Truman's case. If we put a period after "S", and call it an initial, are we abbreviating his middle name? Not at all! In fact, by adding a period, we are increasing the length of it! So, if the purpose of an initial is to abbreviate, then it does not apply to Truman's middle name does it? For there, it's purpose would not be attained. As for the part about "first child versus only child", we are looking at an example of what is technically correct, but does not apply in our case at hand. Plus, this is a case of real life, which is (thankfully) less complicated than the technicalities of the English language. "Pro is arguing that the 'S' is not an initial as it is not abbreviated, which initials are used for. As you have stated yourself an initial does not require to be an abbreviation. The definition of an initial itself is that it is the first letter of a name or word, irrespective of if there was a full stop following the letter in question. Whilst it is certainly true that you do not add a full stop after 'Abigail' in 'Rachel Abigail Wilson', this does not contribute to any ideas as to why a full stop is needed after an initial to verify its existence." Again, while it is true that an initial is not by dictionary definition required to be abbreviated, for it to fulfill its intended purpose, it must be abbreviated. Otherwise, there is no point in using an initial at all. And the reason a full stop (period) is put after an initial is very simple: to show that the letter is an initial; an abbreviation of a larger "word". "Additionally, there are a vast array of abbreviations that for the most part do not have their initials acknowledged with full stops (like NASA, ATM, LOL, YOLO and BBC). The argument that initials need full stops present is tedious and inconvenient. This undermines the purpose of abbreviations in the first place, which is to provide convenience to words." Here, Con appears to agree that the purpose of abbreviations is to provide convenience to words, and that initials are abbreviations. However, the examples of abbreviations listed by Con (NASA, LOL, etc.) are in fact, not initials, they are acronyms, which have entirely different rules, and definitions (2). This concludes my defense for my argument for this debate. I very much enjoyed this debate, and would like to congratulate my opponent on a solid performance. I would also like to thank DDO for hosting the debate, and thank in advance anyone who votes on it. Sources: 1. http://www.dictionary.com... 2. http://www.dictionary.com...