The Relative Pronouns "That" and "Which"

My opponent has set up many straw men. My opponent stated that I chose to "digress and discuss a grammar rule that [he] broke in my previous argument." Such was not digression. I mentioned my opponent's non-American style to set up my argument of intrinsic benefit: just as there is no intrinsic benefit in placing a comma before the end quotation, so is there no intrinsic benefit to distinguishing between the words "that" and "which." Grammar must have basis. For example, the grammatical community shuns misplaced modifiers, because they often produce ambiguities (e.g. after rotting, my brother thought the apples tasted bad). But what is the intrinsic benefit to distinguishing between "that" and "which"? My opponent has not provided one. Why? Because there simply isn't one. This has not been contested. My opponent stated that I went on to "to discuss the invention of the rule noted in the 'American Heritage Book of English Usage'" and that I was "focusing on the fact that the usage of 'that' and 'which' in restrictive clauses are interchangeable and generalizing to say they are therefore interchangeable in *all* cases, but as I have already shown, this is not true." My opponent is missing the point. There are no such things as "restrictive" and "nonrestrictive" clauses. Such terminology was *invented* by Fowler. But let's entertain the idea. Let us suppose, for the moment, that there is such a distinction. Even still, one can change a restrictive clause to a nonrestrictive clause and vice versa, and do so easily. "The dog which is sick hounded" means the same thing as "The dog that is sick hounded" means the exact same thing as "The dog, which is sick, hounded." I'll even use my opponent's incorrect examples and fix them. In the first example, the problem is not the word "which" but the comma. Under any circumstance, the comma is entirely unnecessary, and removing the comma makes no change to the meaning whatsoever: ï¿½ï¿½He made an iceberg Caesar salad, that didn't taste quite right. (incorrect) ï¿½ï¿½He made an iceberg Caesar salad that didn't taste quite right. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½He made an iceberg Caesar salad which didn't taste quite right. (correct) In the second example, the "incorrect" examples are still correct. The webpage only goes so far as to say that one may be "more preferable" to another. I agree with this. But still, they are interchangeable. ï¿½ï¿½Every detail that you can remember will be helpful. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½Every detail which you can remember will be helpful. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½(My opponent agreed that "which" can be used for restrictive clauses, yet he says the second example is incorrect?) ï¿½ï¿½Mike says which you better get out of the shower. (incorrect) ï¿½ï¿½Mike says that you better get out of the shower. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½(Whoa, whoa, whoa. Here, the word "that" is being used as a conjunction. This example is irrelevant.) ï¿½ï¿½(See the second definition under "conjunction": http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) ï¿½ï¿½(Such faulty research discredits your source. I am astounded, personally. This is a very basic concept.) ï¿½ï¿½He sat in the biggest chair that was in the house. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½He sat in the biggest chair which was in the house. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½(My opponent agreed that "which" can be used for restrictive clauses, yet he says the second example is incorrect?) ï¿½ï¿½The first car that crossed the finish line was blue. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½The first car which crossed the finish line was blue. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½(My opponent agreed that "which" can be used for restrictive clauses, yet he says the second example is incorrect?) ï¿½ï¿½The living room was the one that the man died in. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½The living room was the one which the man died in. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½(My opponent agreed that "which" can be used for restrictive clauses, yet he says the second example is incorrect?) ï¿½ï¿½(It would appear that my opponent is disagreeing with his very own source.) In the third example, the word "which" is obviously not preferable. But it is still grammatically justifiable. I again point my opponent to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, in which one of the definitions for "which" that can be found is "'which' can be used... in a nonrestrictive clause, or, archaically, of a person." My opponent may want to highlight the word "archaically," but my argument is not about what is preferable. Certainly the word "which" to describe a person is not preferable, but it is still grammatically justifiable, as there is no change in meaning. The usage even has historical precedent: "Our Father, which art in heaven." ï¿½ï¿½JD is the man that does the voice over on Scrubs. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½JD is the man who does the voice over on Scrubs. (correct) ï¿½ï¿½JD is the man which does the voice over on Scrubs. (correct, although not preferable) My opponent stated, "My opponent also says, '... my examples are not anecdotal. They are consensus.' Sorry, but eight examples does *not* create a consensus." I provided those examples to introduce the topic, for they were professional examples which I've come across just recently. To fully support my stance, I have provided numerous dictionary definitions, numerous style guides, a college professor, professional examples, and a history of how the false distinction between "restrictive" and "nonrestrictive" and between "that" and "which" came to be. For a grammatical rule to have a purpose, it should have reason. The distinction between "that" and "which" does not have such a reason. For a grammatical to have foundation, it should have consensus. The distinction between "that" and "which" does not have consensus. My opponent has provided a few minor sources that spout information contrary to that of my sources. But the very existence of this agreement shows that this "rule" does not stand. This is from my last round. It was a nice summary of my argument. I will thus repeat it with annotation: The relative pronouns "that" and "which" are entirely interchangeable because (1) there is no intrinsic benefit (my opponent has yet to point one out), (2) many professional writers and journalists make no such distinction (my opponent goes so far as to say that these professionals are habitually doing it wrong), (3) most professional style guides and dictionaries make no such distinction (I have cited numerous dictionaries and style guides as well as provided examples), and (4) there has never been any historical precedent for such a distinction and such a distinction was indeed proposed by too conservative a grammarian who admits himself that there is no historical precedent. The distinction between "that" and "which" is similar to ending sentences with prepositions and splitting infinitives: all these "rules" are merely those that have been perpetuated by pretentious and chauvinistic grammarians who know nothing of the current English landscape.