The Oxford comma – the final comma in a list – has frequently been a hot-button issue among academics. Its proponents argue that its addition reduces ambiguity and the amount of times a reader has to reread a sentence. These people are wrong. The Oxford comma is never ambiguous, confusing or difficult to understand.

To clarify, ambiguous does not literally mean ‘confusing or difficult to understand.’ It’s instead defined as “capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways,” according to Merriam-Webster. I can’t possibly imagine why you were under that impression.

Oxford comma advocates often point to court cases in which a law involving its absence was disputed.

For example, a 2017 “appellate court’s refusal to read a comma into a statute determined the outcome of a case,” said The Bar Association of San Francisco.

What does it matter that lawsuits arise when Oxford commas are left out? Lawsuits happen regardless of whether punctuation is present or not. Surely teachers, students and lawyers can agree that any company rich enough to pick up a lawsuit over one comma is rich enough to afford a loss.

And no, teachers are not necessarily students and lawyers. Stop asking.

In all seriousness, journalistic writing discourages the Oxford comma, and incorporating that rule into my pieces has been a serious challenge. I like my commas. Whether you and I think about it consciously or not, Oxford commas are everywhere – to remove them is to alter the writing habits of millions.

But why does any of this matter? The ultimate goal of writing is to communicate your thoughts as clearly as possible to your audience. In the end, it’s up to you to decide what is appropriate for the style of writing, your audience and your own prerogative. And I really do hope that at this point, you know that your audience and prerogative do not constitute a style of writing.