A language can be more or less logical than another

re: Definitions:"There is no reason why a language like Java couldn't be the natural language of intelligent computers, for instance," the opponent states. Computers do not use language, and "natural computer language" is on the verge of being an oxymoron; artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence (which is a topic for a different day.) I meant that formal languages, as applied in linguistics, is only used to understand the syntax of natural language; that is virtually its sole implementation. Formal language is, by definition, closer to the intuitive concept of language, as opposed to natural language. The definition of formal language is too broad. A definition that is also provided is "a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable" [1] It is "an abstract mathematical concept" that has little to do with actual applied language.The opponent tries to parallel human evolution and development with those of language... and does so without basis. As a culture develops, the lexicon of a language may expand, but that does not make it more logical. Our language applies advanced mathematical theory while others do not; this just means that it is not relevant to their cultures.re: A1: The analogy the opponent uses when comparing language to a vehicle is flawed. The definition of vehicle: "A vehicle (from Latin: "vehiculum") is a mobile machine that is designed or used to transport people or cargo." [3] Hence, the criterion for something to be a vehicle is for it to have been designed OR used to transport people or cargo. Language, on the other hand, is "communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols." [4] If the definition were to state that language is "designed" for something of communicative nature, then the opponent's argument would stand. However, this is not the case; language is defined by its functionality, unlike a vehicle. "However, I do argue that one possible problem with a language is that the content it expresses is less than useful," the opponent says. "Usefulness" of a language is a subjective matter; a language adapts to its cultural context, so from the opponent's biased perspective, affected by his own cultural context, a language's usefulness may be limited; objectively, however this is not the case. re: A2:Disparities between the lexicons of two languages does not make one more or less logical than another. Words are constantly dying and being added to a language, as culture changes. The opponent states that "we must take languages as fixed." Language, by nature, is a static thing, so we must introduce the potential for change. The opponent states, in defense, that if language A is more logical than B, then B could just evolve into A. Firstly, the topic of this debate is whether or not just an idea of "more logical than" even exists, so such an argument assumes a position that inherently opposes the resolution. Secondly, languages do not evolve based on logicality; they evolve based on cultural shifts. The introduction of the word "vodka" (an initially Russian word) in the United States came about when the actual beverage was introduced to the country; it became culturally relevant, so hence a word came about."Remember that according to my more rigorous definition, a language is a set of strings (sentences)...," the opponent states. The opponent's definition is too abstract and is too inclusive. Moreover, one can argue that languages do not need to have sentences, in theory. A word can incorporate include an infinite number of morphemes (segments of meaning), so due to the recursive nature of a word, sentences aren't technically necessary. "The cat is on the mat" would not lead to an adequate system of communication. According to linguistic structuralism, language is based on oppositions and distinctions. Assuming that this is a single statement with the same phonological and semantic structure, oppositions to this phrase would have to exist. re: A3:All derivations could not be semantically equivalent because the fact that they are derivations would, in itself, indicate that there are different semantic values assigned to a word, in its given form; multiple derivations with the same semantic value would just mean a word has one derivation with a single semantic value. The only reason this would be illogical is because it would impossible. Furthermore, language, which, as I indicated, is BY DEFINITION a means of communication, must have semantic significance. "Communication" is conveying information, and the incorporation of "semanticism" enables a language to do this. This is further evidence that the opponent's definition is too broad; it only encompasses the syntactical facet of language. re: A4:As the opponent stated earlier in his argument, "Con states we are debating about whether or not the information conveyed by a language can be more logical than the information conveyed by another. We most certainly are not; we are debating about the logicality of the language itself." Indeed, we are not arguing over the validity of semantic fragments within a language, but rather a language is valid.We are not talking about "helpfulness," as the opponent suggests; we are talking about logicality. A language, holistically, is not logically invalid because its semantic contents are illogical. If one were to only state illogical things for the rest of one's life (e.g., "The sky is blue because the sky is red," which, as an aside, I mistyped as an example in my last argument), then it would be valid to say that the person makes illogical statements; however, the same conclusion could not be made about the logicality of the language he speaks. Semantically illogical arguments still have semantic significance when we break a semantically illogical sentence down morphologically.And if the purpose of a language, by definition, is solely to convey information, then the purpose is fulfilled if semantic significance is present. If someone were to intentionally design an artificial language that is illogical just to convey illogical statements, he would not be making an "illogical language," but rather a "language that conveys illogical statements."CA2: The opponent states, "A language that required a five hour ritual for an affirmative really would be unreasonable because people are constrained by time and care about getting information more quickly. That ought to be obvious. More is required that just eventually getting the right idea." The opponent completely shifts his position on this issue. Before, he stated that the language that requires a five-hour ritual to say the equivalent of "hello" is illogical; now, however, he simply states that it is "unreasonable." Logicality is surely more objective than "reasonableness." Whether or not the opponent finds it to be reasonable is extremely irrelevant to the debate. The fact of the matter is that although one way may be more practical than another (based on the opponent's subjective emphasis on the value of time), one's product is just as logically sound as another. ---ConclusionThis is an obvious vote for Con. Pro derived arguments from a faulty definition that is too broad and is only accurate to a languages syntax, and the resolution stands. One language cannot be more logical than another. The practicality of a language (or what the opponent calls "work[ing] better") is based on subjective views, such as the idea that it is logical to use a language that takes up less time; this logic, hence, is founded on an emphasis on the value of time. The opponent's arguments are founded on bias and misinterpretations. Vote Con. Thank you to Grape and voters/readers. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... language [2] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... Language[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...