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

1. Tradition revisited a. This argument isn't mathematical. Folks, Pro has ignored the law of the excluded middle, which states that my opponent must either be A or ~A; she cannot be "neutral", as he attempts to claim; If anything, he's committing a false compromise [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by trying to find the neural, "center" position between traditionalism and... "non-traditionalism", whatever that might mean; truthfully, though, this argument isn't too critical in the round, and he misses the meat of the argument as a result. b. My opponent blatantly ignores the fact (yet again) that an appeal to tradition has been committed. Flow through that most of Pro's position rests upon faulty logic. c. This argument was also dropped - Pro never explains why "laser" is grammatically incorrect, as opposed to the acronym, and has failed to refute that past grammatical conventions =/= current grammatical conventions, and thus, that the former does not define the latter. 2. Origins revisited a. While both Pro and myself agree that learning about the origins of language is important, he fails to explain why it's necessary to force these archaic meanings and conventions into our present language. Consider that progress, or "social blur", changes language; this means that language EVOLVES over time, causing words, phrases, and grammar to differ from their origins. If meanings and constructions change, that current society cannot be misusing the word, as it is the society itself which determines lingual acceptability. They may not be using the original connotation or definition of the word, but that does not make it any different. Pro basically fails to recognize that the origin of a language can be learned independently from modern usage of that language. After a bit of research, I've come to realize the overriding problem with Pro's argument: he is committing a subdivision of the genetic fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...], an etymological fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...], which "holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, based on a mistaken idea concerning the etymology of words." A good example of this is the word "boy", which once referred to a "rough, unruly person", or a "low-ranking servant"; clearly, though the origin of the word "boy" lies with these definitions, there is no logical reason to continue using the word in such a way, and the same can be said for "laser", or any other acronym-turned-word. This renders Pro's entire "look to the origins" and "program/programme" argument a moot point. One fun fact - having two Ms in program due to programmable is like spelling flame as "flamm" due to the word "flammable". TWO Ms!!!!! b. His whole argument stems from this unexplained idea of "bias", which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, so that can be disregarded. As I've explained, my opponent's entire argument stems from this warped idea of adhering to etymological tradition, which I've shown to be a fallacy on two different levels. Additionally, we're not just debating on the merits of turning L.A.S.E.R. into laser. Although this has been a popular example throughout the round, Pro has never offered any further examples, or any further justifications as to why acronyms must necessarily be forced back into our language in place of the words which evolved from them. 3. Simplicity revisited I'd like to briefly observe that this entire contention was dropped by Pro, even if due to some kind of outside constraint. a. Flow through that professionalization of acronyms is completely unnecessary. b. My argument from Round 2: "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. Dropped arguments revisited a. Round 1 - 1d, questioning Pro's alleged knowledge of the intentions of every writer b. Round 1 - 2b, a comparison of "laser" and "L.A.S.E.R." as an example of definitional complexity Pro's entire case rests on fallacious logic; you obviously negate. Now, to quickly review my own arguments, all of which were dropped by Pro. 1. Internet slang revisited a. Pro merely presupposed the truth of the resolution in making an argument, thus providing no logical basis for the argument that acronyms MUST have periods in them. b. The meanings of internet acronyms are self-evident, mandating negation for two reasons: * I've proven one situation in which the use of periods in acronyms is unnecessary and undesirable, which easily fulfills the burden of Con as outlined in Round 1. * Also outlined in Round 1 was Pro's burden of universality, something that hasn't been fulfilled in any of these 3 Rounds. c. Allow me to merely paste my Round 2 argument: "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 revisited a. Round 1, Argument 2 - Periods do not create understanding * Pro thereby concedes the lack of a need for periods, as they don't contribute to comprehension of an acronym. To wrap this up, allow me to summarize points distribution: Conduct: Tied/Con - Pro dropped a large number of arguments, but had a legitimate reason in Round 3 for his short post which I am willing to buy into. He put in a good faith effort, and deserves no penalty for that; however, this point could be given to Con for Pro's wall of text in Round 1. S/G: Tied/Con - Pro didn't have too many grammatical errors to speak of, but a lot of his constructions seemed a bit awkward or badly-worded. At some points, it was difficult to understand what Pro was trying to say; also, Con had a better method of organizing arguments, if that matters. This category is your prerogative. Arguments: Con - Obviously. * Pro's entire case is based on logical fallacies. * Pro dropped most of the arguments in the round. * Pro made a lot of assertions without warranting them. I'm sure that other reasons could be found. Sources: Con - While Pro brought up a few sources here and there, Pro spent a good amount of time attacking the credibility of a search engine, and wasted most of his sources trying to justify faulty logic; Con, however, used his sources to explain Pro's fallacies, and to apply the fundamental laws of logic to Pro's advocacy; also, Con brought a larger number of sources to the Round, if that's a factor. In conclusion, 5-7 points go to Con. Thanks to Pro for finishing this debate, despite being pulled from the hot seat at the last minute.