homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:40 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:12 pm
Posts: 185
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: R5
Can a debater combine definitions used in his 1AC?

Instead of going like this.
a. Significant: “having or likely to have influence or effect” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant)
b. Reform: “to improve or change the condition of ” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform)

Can he go like this?

a. Significantly Reform - "having or likely to have influence or effect"-"to improve or change the condition of" (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant)

They seem to flow better and I find that this way would be easier to understand the resolution. (same way we do "Environmental Policy")

_________________
"There are no such thing as losers, just winners and people who aren't them."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:56 pm 
Offline
Hot Ta-Molly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 am
Posts: 1325
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Steubenville, OH
Isn't that changing the definitions though? For instance, you shouldn't strikethrough a definition, leaving out parts, so should you combine them?

Also, it doesn't really seem to flow to me...Why not just keep them apart, and if it is argued, explain it out in the 2AC? Besides, teams might argue that you can't combine them because you're changing the definitions and basically writing your own.

_________________
~Molly

"Isn't it bewildering…that everything is so beautiful, despite all the horrors that exist?" -Sophie Scholl

Life Posterz


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:12 pm
Posts: 185
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: R5
Lil Yellow Fireball wrote:
Isn't that changing the definitions though? For instance, you shouldn't strikethrough a definition, leaving out parts, so should you combine them?

Also, it doesn't really seem to flow to me...Why not just keep them apart, and if it is argued, explain it out in the 2AC? Besides, teams might argue that you can't combine them because you're changing the definitions and basically writing your own.


That's what I was thinking, although they are from the same dictionary/source so its pretty much like merging quotes. (I don't do it)

I believe I went against a team that did this last year. They said: Significantly change policy toward India. - "having or likely to have influence or effect to undergo a modification of a definite course or method of action in relation to something or someone in South Asia"

EDIT: In my opinion, it shouldn't be legal.

_________________
"There are no such thing as losers, just winners and people who aren't them."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:33 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
Zeo12 wrote:
I believe I went against a team that did this last year. They said: Significantly change policy toward India. - "having or likely to have influence or effect to undergo a modification of a definite course or method of action in relation to something or someone in South Asia"


This seems to hurt your cause more than it helps.

Zeo12 wrote:
In my opinion, it shouldn't be legal.


Why not?

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:12 pm
Posts: 185
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: R5
Dr_Pepper wrote:
Zeo12 wrote:
I believe I went against a team that did this last year. They said: Significantly change policy toward India. - "having or likely to have influence or effect to undergo a modification of a definite course or method of action in relation to something or someone in South Asia"


This seems to hurt your cause more than it helps.

Zeo12 wrote:
In my opinion, it shouldn't be legal.


Why not?


Well,
1. It's changing what dictionary is saying.
2. If a debater wants to a definition like that why cant you just find one?
3. There is really no need to do it.
4. If it is "legal" to "merge definition" it should be illegal.

_________________
"There are no such thing as losers, just winners and people who aren't them."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:23 am
Posts: 61
Home Schooled: Yes
Zeo12 wrote:
Can a debater combine definitions used in his 1AC?


Try this:
Define capital: money/assets
Define punishment: the act of punishing

So capital punishment is the act of punishing money?

This is why you can't merge definitions. Words can mean very different things in different contexts. Your example of "significant" and "reform" worked out pretty well, but a good debater can make you look like a fool in CX if you merge them. Just define the words separately, and you'll be fine.

_________________
-- I like semicolons; they make me look smart. Even when I misuse them.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:39 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
I see nothing wrong with this. You're taking definitions for the words separately (because that is how the resolution uses them) and then putting them together for context. It's like giving the definitions, and then an alalysis: "Judge, this is, in essence, saying that the resolution is that 'The United States Federal Government should modify its definite course of action in relations to a country in South Asia in a way that is likely to have effect.'"

This is pretty cool, but I've never seen a need for it.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
don't merge. ever. never ever. find a use in context and do that instead. otherwise, you risk getting yourself into some hairy situations trying to defend your concoction from multiple sources. it makes it sound like your definition is official when in reality, you cherry picked from a variety of sources that themselves don't define the word.

find it in context.

coachjen

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:48 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
^I think you misunderstand. I'm supporting (even though I don't do it) defining each phrase of the rez as it should be (i.e. last year: USFG, sig, ref, EP) and then repeating the rez -- with each word defined, just to show the judge what the rez sounds like when defined. I don't support defining, let's use an example from last year, "environment" and "policy" and merging the two defs and saying that they = "environmental policy". In no way do I support that.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:04 pm
Posts: 17
Home Schooled: Yes
This opinion will vary from person to person. I honestly think that you shouldn't- I would bring that up in my speech, and probably bring up a counter definition to benefit me.

I don't think you should combine them. Keep them separate, and prevent the argument.

- gg

A smile is contagious- so SMILE BIG :D


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:24 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
ggcouture wrote:
I would bring that up in my speech, and probably bring up a counter definition to benefit me.


Bring what up?

And why would you bring up a counter definition to skew the round in your favor?

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:03 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
ggcouture wrote:
This opinion will vary from person to person. I honestly think that you shouldn't- I would bring that up in my speech, and probably bring up a counter definition to benefit me.

I don't think you should combine them. Keep them separate, and prevent the argument.

What argument? Are you referring to saying "environment" + "policy" = "environmental policy"? Cause that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about saying: "USFG = 'The central government entity established by the United States Constitution', Significantly = 'Having or likely to have a major effect', Reform = 'Put or change into an improved form or condition', Environmental Policy = 'A course of action deliberately taken [or not taken] to manage human activities with a view to prevent, reduce, or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources.'"

...And then saying: "'The USFG should significantly reform its environmental policy' = 'The "central government entity established by the United States Constitution" should "put (or change)" its "course of action deliberately taken to manage human activities with a view to prevent, reduce, or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources" into an improved form or condition in a way that is "likely to have a major effect.'''"

Now, who understands what I'm saying? Please raise your hand ;)

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:48 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
thehomeschooler wrote:
Now, who understands what I'm saying? Please raise your hand


*raises hand* Yes, Professor Black, I understand what you're saying. :P

Only...I don't think that was what the OP was referring to.
thehomeschooler wrote:
Are you referring to saying "environment" + "policy" = "environmental policy"? Cause that's not what we're talking about.

This is actually what Zeo12 was talking about.
Zeo12 wrote:
They seem to flow better and I find that this way would be easier to understand the resolution. (same way we do "Environmental Policy")

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:06 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Dawn wrote:
Only...I don't think that was what the OP was referring to.

If you read the whole thread, though, that's what we were talking about at that point.
Dawn wrote:
This is actually what Zeo12 was talking about.

It would seem so, but later he clarified on what he was talking about:
Zeo12 wrote:
...I went against a team that did this last year. They said: "Significantly change policy toward India [=] "[H]aving or likely to have influence or effect to undergo a modification of a definite course or method of action in relation to something or someone in South Asia[.]"

Then I came in and clarified:
thehomeschooler wrote:
I see nothing wrong with this. You're taking definitions for the words separately (because that is how the resolution uses them) and then putting them together for context. It's like giving the definitions, and then an alalysis: "Judge, this is, in essence, saying that the resolution is that 'The United States Federal Government should modify its definite course of action in relations to a country in South Asia in a way that is likely to have effect.'"

This is pretty cool, but I've never seen a need for it.

I'm still waiting for Zeo12 to tell me that this is not what he was talking about, but until then...

In addition, I believe that ggcouture's post was actually in response to mine, not the OP. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
thehomeschooler wrote:
If you read the whole thread, though, that's what we were talking about at that point.


Ah, okay. That's what happens when people resurrect old threads. I forget what they're about and then I only read the OP to refresh my memory...

But anyway, I totally agree with rewording the resolution based on definitions with the purpose of clarifying to the judge what the rez actually means. That's one of the things I'm definitely planning on doing with this year's (LD) rez since it's so confusing.

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Merging Definitions.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
Responding to original post:

What is the purpose of providing definitions? To provide meaning and clarity to the round. I think that combining definitions can help accomplish this.

That said, I agree with the main concern people seem to have with this idea, which is that of academic integrity. I can think of two vital elements involved in this issue: 1. If you combine two definitions, you may not quote it as a published definition. You must make clear to everyone that you are combining two definitions from a specific source. 2. You may not combine two definitions that don't fit together (i.e. using a policy definition of foreign policy w/ a definition of environmental, etc.)

One interesting idea: what about merging definitions in a different manner? What if definition of x is very vague, but uses word y. What if you replace word y with its definition in the definition of x? This could yield a much more useful, specific definition.

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited