As you have already noticed, terms in argumentation, such as “honor system,” often consist of more than one word.  They sometimes contain several words.  “A term [as that word is used in debating and argumentation] may consist of any number of names, substantive or objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions required to join them together; still it is only one term if it points out or makes us think of only one thing or object or class of objects."[2] In such cases a dictionary is of little use.  Take the term “honor system,” the meaning of which was not clear to you.  A dictionary offers no help.  How is the student who wishes to discuss this question to decide upon the meaning of the term?  Notice how your friend made it clear to you.  He gave a history of the question that he wished to argue.  He showed how the term “honor system” came into use and what it means where that system of examinations is in vogue.  This, then, is the only method of making sure of the meaning of a term:  to study the history of the question and see what the term means in the light of that history.  This method has the added advantage that a term defined in this way will not only be entirely clear to your audience, but will also tend to convince them.

A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the meaning of a term.  He may be relying on a dictionary or the statement of a single writer, while you are familiar with the history of the question.  Under those circumstances it will be easy for you to show the judges and the audience that, although he may be using the term correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong when the special question under discussion is considered.

To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance.  Suppose that you are debating the proposition, “Football Should Be Abolished in This High School.”  Football, as defined in the dictionary, differs considerably from the game with which every American boy is familiar.  Further, the dictionary defines both the English and the American game.  If your opponent should take either of these definitions, he would not have much chance of convincing an American audience that it was correct.  Or if he should define football according to the rules of the game as it was played five or ten years ago, he would be equally ineffective.

You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you will use the term “football” as that game is described in Spaulding’s present year’s rule book for the American game, and that every reference you make to plays allowed or forbidden will be on the basis of the latest ruling.  You then have a definition based on the history of the question.  As you can see, the case for or against English football would be different from that of the American game.  In the same way the case for or against football as it was played ten years ago would be very different from the case of football as it is played today.