Yeah, I wrote up an in-depth post and then lost it at around 95% completion when my computer crashed. With the holidays underway, really couldn't be bothered to do it again and basically the debate comes down to "Can a debater make up a new definition midway through the debate when they realise they messed up in the debate intro and R1 definitions" so thought I might as well be blunt about it seeing as the answer to that , and therefore all of pro's arguments, should be very very obvious IMO.
But your definition of read is "To interpret the written form of a language" with interpret being fairly easily argued as synonymous or inclusive of comprehension.
Seems a poor debate that is just going to be arguing over semantics that you've already stacked in your favour.
Yeah, I wrote up an in-depth post and then lost it at around 95% completion when my computer crashed. With the holidays underway, really couldn't be bothered to do it again and basically the debate comes down to "Can a debater make up a new definition midway through the debate when they realise they messed up in the debate intro and R1 definitions" so thought I might as well be blunt about it seeing as the answer to that , and therefore all of pro's arguments, should be very very obvious IMO.
I don't want an argument, I'm critiquing your topic and definitions. Take it however you will.
But your definition of read is "To interpret the written form of a language" with interpret being fairly easily argued as synonymous or inclusive of comprehension.
Seems a poor debate that is just going to be arguing over semantics that you've already stacked in your favour.