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

I apologize for misjudging your gender; however, your profile says that you are a female [http://i10.photobucket.com...]. Anyway... I would have liked you to stick to the numbering/lettering format for convenience, but I guess I'll sift through your super-paragraph, again. :) 1. Back to tradition a. "I am not a traditionalist, but I am a traditionalist." Pro is saying here that he is both A and ~A; however, according to the law of identity, [http://en.wikipedia.org...], A =/= ~A; further, according to the law of the excluded middle [http://en.wikipedia.org...], Pro must either be a traditionalist, or not be a traditionalist. He cannot logically be both. I just thought I would point out the glaring contradiction. b. Appeal to tradition is always a logical fallacy; whether Pro believes that it is sometimes a good thing is irrelevant. c. My opponent has not yet proved that laser, for example, is grammatically incorrect. His argument centers around lingual progress being unacceptable when it violate grammatical "correctness", yet I have clearly explained that turning acronyms into words is a perfectly acceptable process. Again, language is constantly changing, as my opponent and I have agreed; this includes turning two words into one, and turning acronyms into ordinary words. Until Pro can prove, beyond his opinion, that removing the periods from acronyms is intrinsically improper, we negate. And, arguing that acronyms USED TO contain periods will not fulfill this burden, because past grammatical conventions =/= current grammatical conventions. 2. Origins a. Pro returns to his argument concerning the origin of laser as an acronym, but notice that he dropped the argument that I made in Round 1 (1b, to be clear) concerning word origin. 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". So, yes, I agree that the origin of the word "laser" is as an acronym; however, this term has evolved from a scientific acronym to a term fit for everyday use. As my opponent and I have agreed that language evolves and progresses, I see no problem with keeping "laser", and other acronyms-turned-words, in their modern usages. b. My opponent also spends an entire paragraph attacking the credibility of a search engine. * First of all, this is completely irrelevant. * Second of all, my opponent can call it unreliable all he wants, but the first result I found for searching "laser" seems pretty informative to me [http://www.google.com...]. It uses the acronym and everything! * Third, if my opponent really wants to attack the credibility of Google, he can try Google Scholar instead [http://scholar.google.com...]. 3. Simplicity a. "a definition as displayed on [dictionary.com] is always fine; I am not saying that simplicity is always illogical or bad." If this is the case, professionalizing acronyms (as Pro is advocating) is entirely unnecessary. We can negate on this. b. If someone isn't aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't likely to help them. If you try to explain "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" to someone who is scientifically inept, the acronym itself can be confusing, with the expansion thereof even more so; for those who are aware of what a laser is, the acronym isn't at all necessary. 4. Other dropped arguments against Pro's case a. 1d - questioning Pro's knowledge of the intentions of every writer b. 2b - comparing the definitions of laser and L.A.S.E.R. to measure complexity and detail Overall, I think that you can negate based on Pro's case (and the dropped arguments) alone; however, I will move on to examine the arguments I've brought up in my favor. 1. Internet slang a. "Also, the acronyms 'wtf', 'omg', etc., are, as just stated, acronyms. Therefore, one must place the period markers." My opponent is merely presupposing the truth of the resolution; this is a debate, and thus Pro must prove the legitimacy of his position before he makes assumptions about what one "must" do, grammatically speaking. b. Pro argues for the use of periods as dividers and/or indicators; however, as I've clearly noted (and Pro has glazed over), the meanings of these common internet acronyms are quite self-evident, thus no periods are necessary, leading you to negate for two reasons: * First, I've clearly shown you at least ONE situation in which using periods in acronyms is both unnecessary and undesirable. * Second, this therefore means that Pro has not fulfilled his burden of universality; ergo, you automatically negate, even if you don't buy any of the other arguments that I have laid out before you. c. Pro argues that periods are necessary indicators of acronyms; in cases like lol, wtf, omg, this is untrue, as these acronyms are so commonly used that periods would be awkward, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary. Even with acronyms like laser, this isn't necessarily true. The only example that would almost fit would be something like the United States, United Nations, World Health Organization, etc.; however, even then, a period isn't necessary. US, UN, and WHO are perfectly acceptable acronyms (both in ordinary usage, and according to Firefox's and Microsoft Word's grammar/spelling filters), yet none of these contain periods. Capitalization can be a helpful tool depending on the situation, but even that isn't universally applicable. 2. Dropped arguments on Con's case a. Argument 2 - "Periods don't create understanding". A quote from me, explaining this argument: "Simply put, adding periods to acronyms will not give any more insight into its meaning than leaving them out, and it would be a logical fallacy to assume otherwise." Pro's ignoring of this argument concedes the fact that putting periods into acronyms does nothing to establish comprehension of the acronym's meaning; ergo, these periods are frivolous and unnecessary; ergo, you negate. Overall, Pro has ignored the logical fallacies which I have exposed, has provided no empirical support for his case, and has dropped multiple arguments against his position. Though this debate clearly goes to Con, this debate still has one round to go; thus, I turn things over to my opponent, and await his closing arguments. Oh, and the lasagna? Delicious.