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

Before we even continue into round 3, I want to say to anyone reading that I don't actually believe a word of the bull I'm writing (I did stick this under "Funny" for a reason). I just want to see how well I can argue for the removal of free speech. Pathetic excuse, I know, So I'll keep going. And I'm not posh, Don't assume that I'm not just using flowery words to make my argument seem credible. I went to an outback public school. Anyway, I would just like to point out some clever ways you've used to try to change the debate into something it isn't, Whether intentional or unintentional, So you can try to gain some moral ground on me. Firstly, You're the one assuming that poor grammar = homelessness, And I can't see the reason why, As I've never mentioned homeless people. Back in my "high-class" "college" "prep" "school" there were a mix of income classes, And yet there were still people all across the social backgrounds there who didn't know basic grammar or writing skills. It isn't a ban on the lower class, It's a ban on anyone who doesn't have / doesn't care about basic language skills. Even if we were talking about a hypothetical near-illiterate homeless man experienced with the ways of the world, He's still had no way of ever getting a balanced opinion because he's read next to nothing, And therefore even if he thinks the world is unfair and can give reasons why, He hasn't read a discussion between people who have good ideas on how to make the world more fair, So he wouldn't make it very far in a debate on income disparity. If his opinion's been criticised by someone else, He will never know, So I don't know why you would assume this guy would have a three-dimensional, Well-rounded opinion (and therefore be contributing to a productive debate) when he hasn't even gone to a library to do research on the discussion. They're free books. There's no economic barrier here. Secondly, Saying that this is ad hominem is a bit of a stretch, Actually. I'm not attacking anyone's character, I'm attacking their expression, Just like anyone would in a debate. Someone who is more experienced at expressing their opinions can share the same opinion as someone who is terrible at making opinions. You're almost making the "fallacy" fallacy here by saying that I'm somehow preventing an opinion from being voiced. You're suggesting that just because they argue their opinion poorly, Nobody who is better with debating would share their opinion (i. E. Suggesting that it must be wrong somehow by saying that it is inherently an uneducated opinion and nobody educated can share it). I'm not preventing any opinion from being voiced, I'm placing a filter on political discussion to stop people inexperienced with language skills (who likely never re-evaluated their opinions due to a lack of reading) from throwing their opinions into any and every discussion. No-one who still holds the opinion after comparing it to academic criticism is banned from having that opinion, Because it's not like an opinion can really be objectively wrong. (make jokes about my name here) Third, The problem with fantasy novels is that you can get really immersed in a fantasy novel without paying attention to the wording. It's not like anyone just reads fantasy novels solely to learn how to write well (and get better at discussion), They often read them for their story and content. I'm not using fantasy novels as a writing textbook and nobody else is, So if you read books for those reasons (not looking for any underlying meaning or the expression of the writer) you're unlikely to improve your grammar skills much, An indication that you read books solely for fun and not for a discussion. So again, You're unlikely to be good at a discussion, Because you're not focusing on the wording of what you read, You're focusing on the content. Most people read persuasive writing to have a discussion or to learn how to write persuasively, Though, So those texts are more likely to improve your writing skills. I. E. The less intellectually focused the books you're reading and the less focused the authors are on starting a discussion, The less likely you're reading them to learn how to write well, Obviously, And the less likely you are to be good at grammar. Though I will say, Reading a lot of popular fantasy novels can expose you to a lot of moral arguments without you really realising, So it's unfair to use them as an example of trashy literature. It's not really a stretch to say that you can understand addiction a bit better by reading the Lord of the Rings. Now I want to ask you something, Because I want to know if this is the case for you. As I stated before, I have never had a constructive political debate with someone who doesn't know basic grammar skills, And I think this is because they don't have much experience with debate, As debate is a literary subject. This study (http://www. Journal. Aall. Org. Au/index. Php/jall/article/viewFile/406/253) seems to back me up here. It shows that poor grammar and complexity of discussion have strong correlation. Sorry to cite evidence late into the debate, But I haven't seen anything concrete to back up your general assumption that you can have a productive and complex discussion with someone with poor language skills either. Have you? Looking at your "The god of the bible does not exist" debate you participated in, It's an example of what I'm talking about. He started that debate without looking to have a constructive conversation. He immediately put you in a restrictive box to prevent you from making a good argument for God being real, And from an outside perspective, It seems like that's because he didn't *want* to debate. There was no room for a discussion there. His actions didn't seem like those of a logical atheist, And I should know, Because I'm an atheist and I didn't think he started that discussion for logical reasons, Only irrational ones. I've seen what good, Complex, Productive religious debates look like, And that wasn't it. But most importantly, His grammar was really bad. It's either like he didn't care about his writing (and therefore didn't care about the debate) or was just bad at debating, And therefore didn't make a productive debate. Do you want to raise the level of a discussion, Or keep it low by allowing anyone to make one? What if everyone continued improving and re-evaluating their opinions, And the only debates available were really productive ones? Wouldn't that make debates better? Are you sure you really want to raise the level of a discussion? You made it seem like that was your goal, But it doesn't look like that's really the case if you really just want to let inexperienced people start debates. It's unlikely that the state of debates will ever change if you stunt their complexity from the very beginning, And the overwhelming majority of debates will continue to be between someone who wants a conversation, And someone who doesn't.