A language can be more or less logical than another

re: Analysis of the Resolution:I stand behind the opponent's interpretation of the resolution and the nature of "can be." re: Definitions: (In regards to "language"):I strictly used the "political agenda" idea to depict the distinction between a language and a dialect, not to define language, as the opponent suggests; moreover, I agree that a fundamental definition of "language" should not be intertwined with politics. The term was actually left undefined in my argument. The opponent offered a poor definition of "language" in the context of this debate. The definition the opponent provided was one for "formal language," as indicated by the webpage from which the definition was copied. A more fitting definition would be the one of "natural (or ordinary) language." [1] The proposed definition by the opponent is not fitting, because formal language theory only is studied to determine the syntactical nature of language; otherwise, it does not reflect actual language, since it is artificial, created by humans for a purpose (e.g., Java, which is used as a computer programming language.) [2] Formal languages are artificially derived from data collected from natural languages, so the definition of "formal language" alone cannot be used in this debate. I agree with the opponent's definition of "logical" ("reasonable or rational.") re: Affirmative Argumentsre: A1Language, by definition, is a means of communication, or the conveying of information. [3] If it were not communicable, then it could not be acquired or implemented. The definition already establishes that language must be communicable, so the issue of this debate is whether or not the information conveyed can innately be more logical in one language than another. re: A2Language is not static; it is constantly evolving to meet the demand's of a given cultural context. A language's lack of complex mathematical concepts does not make it less logical; a language's exclusion of existing idea in other cultures does not make it less logical. Before discovering the New World (North American), Europeans were not aware of many of the crops that they found there, and therefore, the names for these crops was absent from the European languages while they were present in many of the Native American languages. This does not make the languages of Europe any less logical; as long as the crops were not playing in role in their culture, no words were needed to depict them. Moreover, primitive tribes can include concepts in their languages that are absent from English. For example, the word "Mamihlapinatapei" in the Yagan language (the indigenous language of Tierra del Fuego) roughly means “the wordless, yet meaningful look shared by two people who both desire to initiate something but are both reluctant to start." [4] This is probably not even an exact definition, because in our cultures, such a concept lacks significance and meaning, so we choose to not arrange our language to include it. re: A3: The reason why statements, such as "They are hunting dogs," are ambiguous is because of multiple logical derivations of it. This ambiguity is not illogical, because it does not imply that all of these derivations are semantically equivalent (which would, in fact, be illogical); the syntactical and semantic facets of a language are separate and ambiguity does not depict a contradiction between them.re: A4: Logically invalid arguments and false propositions can be made in English, as well. If I were to argue, "The sky is blue, because the sky is blue," it would not validate or invalidate the logicality of the language that I would be implementing; it would carry logical meaning, regardless of its validity as an argument.re: CA1: "But if a five hour long ritual is required to give an affirmative reply in a language, that language is less logical than English or Spanish." If the definition of logical here is "rational or reasonable," then how is would a five hour-long ritual be less rational or reasonable? Ultimately, a result of the same semantic significance would be produced (i.e., one of affirmation.) Moreover, the duration of time it takes for an affirmative reply in a given language does not reflect upon the logicality of the language, holistically. Conclusion:Some of the arguments between my opponent and I stem from discrepancies we have in regards to terms of debate. Hopefully my opponent can address these in the next round. Nonetheless, as it stands, the opponent's arguments fail to nullify the resolution. ---[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.uea.ac.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://matadornetwork.com...