The Instigator
RESEARCHisbest
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BlueSkies
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A language that everyone memorizes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 46400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

RESEARCHisbest

Pro

Rules

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. The resolution, in which, I will be affirming and my opponent will be negating, is that there should exist a language that everyone memorizes.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

Presentation

A language that everyone has memorized would be very useful, especially in emergencies, so all people can understand each other.
BlueSkies

Con

Sounds good.
Debate Round No. 1
RESEARCHisbest

Pro

Oh, I already presented my argument in R1. You may now both present your arguments and rebut mine.
BlueSkies

Con

First of all, in order to ensure the broadest, fairest, and most encompassing debate possible, I'd like to introduce a weighing mechanism of net benefits for all of mankind. I'll proceed with this in mind.
My opponent has begun by stating a single contention, that being the assumption that a single language would be useful for understanding one another, bringing up the specific instance of emergencies. And I agree that yes, should we be living in a bubble, my opponents idyllic world view does seem useful and even superior to the one we have today. However, sadly, we don't, and consequently my opponent has overlooked ten specific realities of life that not only make the notion of a common language and its implementation not only less useful than one would think, but also detrimental to society for other, more pernicious reasons.
1. The implementation of such a language would be impossible to complete due to logistical, societal, and fiscal limitations
2. Due to the aforementioned reasons, specific regions would be unable to learn the language, and they would not be able to understand the rest of the world (ironically, exacerbating the issue that was being "fixed")
3. Due to the nature of human society, the language would quickly be bastardized by the cultures of specific areas of the world, hindering communication in the future as different dialects are formed
4. Given the mono-linguistic tendencies of many countries (such as the United States), the implementation of a common language will force the previous language to be lost and with it, much of the culture of the region
5. The roots of the language would have to come from somewhere, and that place being favored could be seen as prejudicial and unfair
6. Attempts at this very goal have been going on for a long time (see: tower of Babel fable) and none have yet succeeded
7. The different speaking styles, syntax, and accents of different regions would hinder comprehension even in a common language
8. The unique perspectives of different cultures, reflected heavily in their language, would be a terrible thing to lose
9. The transitory period in which children were learning this new language would create a barrier between them and previous generations in that they could not communicate well with them
10. Unique connotations of specific words in a language would be literally lost in translation as the whole of human experience (in terms of literature) would have to be translated into the new language
For these reasons, a common language, while useful in an idealistic, short-sighted sort of way, is overshadowed by the overwhelming negative affects it would inadvertently cause. Also, for these reasons, my opponent's initial argument is flawed in that the implementation and subsequent use of this common language would be plagued by misunderstandings between cultures, limiting its usefulness.
Debate Round No. 2
RESEARCHisbest

Pro

Rebuttal

1) "
The implementation of such a language would be impossible to complete due to logistical, societal, and fiscal limitations"

Please list claimed fiscal, logistical, and societal limitation(s) that prevents the succession of the implementation of such a language, please.

2) "
Due to the aforementioned reasons, specific regions would be unable to learn the language, and they would not be able to understand the rest of the world (ironically, exacerbating the issue that was being "fixed")"

If at least SOME specific regions won't be able to learn, and adapt to, the new language (Although you can translate the definition (From English (Or the heritage language of the person who implements it)) to THEIR language)(Unless their language isn't mentioned anywhere), it won't make a difference for them whether or not we implement the language; Say, there's a japanese person who can't speak their language. Either languages, said region will never understand said japanese man.

Also, there's a benefit. Some specific regions may not be able to learn it, however, there may be some which will do. And now we'll have proper communication (If both people have not memorized the other's language). Take advantage of that; It wouldn't be costing anyone.

3) "
Due to the nature of human society, the language would quickly be bastardized by the cultures of specific areas of the world, hindering communication in the future as different dialects are formed"

So?

4) "
Given the mono-linguistic tendencies of many countries (such as the United States), the implementation of a common language will force the previous language to be lost and with it, much of the culture of the region"

There may be a tendency to lose knowledge of some words in your primary language. However, from it being your heritage, you can NOT lose knowledge of the entire language itself. It's like trying to learn German as an American, speaking English.

5) "
The roots of the language would have to come from somewhere, and that place being favored could be seen as prejudicial and unfair"

No, it doesn't. A country (Or any particular region) is not a prerequisite for a language. It may form the cultural portion. However, that is not a prerequisite; Not only is it a translation of words from ALL language, but its PURPOSE is for everyone to understand each other, which is useful in case of an emergency.

6) "
Attempts at this very goal have been going on for a long time (see: tower of Babel fable) and none have yet succeeded"

That attempt, I admit, was pitiful; No matter the fact that the Lord duplicated the Tower of Bable onto ALL places, they simply were letters with no translation of definition for ANYONE to ever understand, neither did the Lord EVER define such new words[1]. Also, we'll never even begin to succeed, IF WE NEVER TRY!

7) "
The different speaking styles, syntax, and accents of different regions would hinder comprehension even in a common language"

But not like they can't learn new styles and syntaxes, and adapt to the accent, of said language. Also, this is SOME! Like said in my response to your 2nd contention, "
There's a benefit. Some specific regions may not be able to learn it, however, there may be some which will do. And now we'll have proper communication (If both people have not memorized the other's language). Take advantage of that; It wouldn't be costing anyone."

8) "
The unique perspectives of different cultures, reflected heavily in their language, would be a terrible thing to lose"

I've already debunked this.

9) "
The transitory period in which children were learning this new language would create a barrier between them and previous generations in that they could not communicate well with them"

Not a barrier, but a puzzle that has to be completed before proper communication; That's what it really resembles; They may not have proper communication anymore, because the practice of a new language may result in a loss of knowledge of words in THEIR heritage/primary language. However, I have not aforementioned this, but if there aren't present English words in your mind (Let's refer to an American) during the practice, then they surely aren't if you were practicing, thus having the equal chance of loss of knowledge.

Also, say there's a Japanese and an American who can't speak each other's language. I have aforementioned this example, but they won't understand each other. So, this possibility doesn't overshadow this argument, but evens up.

10) "
Unique connotations of specific words in a language would be literally lost in translation as the whole of human experience (in terms of literature) would have to be translated into the new language"

Take a look at it this way; Let's say, me! I am developing a language. Having remembered MY primary/heritage language, if I implement a word, I should be able to define it in MY language. So, in MY language, I will have it translated in all existent (On the list) languages for ALL people to understand it.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

Source

[1] Genesis 11: 1-9









BlueSkies

Con

BlueSkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RESEARCHisbest

Pro

RESEARCHisbest forfeited this round.
BlueSkies

Con

BlueSkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RESEARCHisbest

Pro

RESEARCHisbest forfeited this round.
BlueSkies

Con

1)If you don't realize the obvious limitations in modern society that prevent the implementation of an entirely new language across multiple societies, I question your ability to even participate in this debate. All of the culture in the world would have to be translated, textbooks would all be obsolete, parents would have to relearn an entire language or risk becoming separated fro their children or friends, and the economic weight of all this would be enormous. And that's just off the top of y head: I' positive there are other ore pernicious and even ore serious ramifications of such as switch. And, considering the weighing mechanism I introduced in y first statement, these limitations alone are enough to condemn this action. However, for the sake of argument, I'll continue.

2) You see to have misunderstood my point. I was obviously not suggesting that an /entire/ country switching languages would hinder understanding more than it already is hindered: that would be preposterous. No, my point was that, due to the limitations outlined above, many countries that have multiple regions within themselves that are of different economic levels would be fractured into regions that have the economic capabilities to learn the new language and those that don't. This, as I stated above, would only further hinder understanding between people, even amongst those fro the sae country. Your other point, that dictionaries could be used to translate between languages actually hurts your position due to the fact that it underscores the logistical and economic weight of switching to a completely new language, as would be required to produce these new translation dictionaries. If translation dictionaries are going to be required anyway, why bother switching?

3) The significance of this point is that, as the language becomes bastardized by the different regions throughout the world, it would be harder to understand across cultures, defeating the purpose of a new language.

4) Again, you see to be misunderstanding my point. My point here was not that the language itself would be lost: I obviously understand that the language would be preserved to some extent. No, my point here was that much of the culture of a people is tied up in its language. Take the Eskimo, for example: they have around 50 words for snow, each with subtle but important differences to their meanings. The cultural damage associated with such a loss of unique human perspective would be catastrophic, not to mention to the exponentially higher losses when the fact that all other languages, and therefore cultures, on earth would have similar losses, and this becomes a much greater issue. People would be forced to choose, especially in monotheistic societies, between isolating themselves fro the rest of the world or condemning their native language and culture to obscurity and eventual atrophy.

5) Yet again, you have missed my point. Here, my issue with your premise is the fact that languages come in families. This new language would have roots of soe sort that would benefit a certain region or country, and this fact causes it to be prejudicial towards one of these, and therefore not fair to all.

6) I'll admit that I don't completely understand your response. Perhaps the Tower of Babel fable was a bad example: what I was actually referencing was the tradition throughout history of trying to consolidate languages, first at the tower of babel and more recently with Esperanto, a language of the type you're defending, that never caught on (most likely because people and governments recognize the limitations of modern life outlined in my first point). The failure to develop a world language, basically is what I'm trying to say, is not for lack of trying.

7) My point here was that the different accents of the world would corrupt the world language and hinder understanding in emergencies. See point number 3.

8) Your premise for "debunking" my point was that it is possible to keep hold of a language. However, as I said, the transformation of a language fro the primary one in a country to a secondary one would see the loss of soe of its words and the context of the language. Look to ancient Latin for this: having been transformed fro the primary language to any people, it is now considered a dead language and with it, i'm sure, much of the Roman culture would be lost. The development of a world language would be a strong catalyst for making many languages become dead languages.

9) In this point, I was referring to the fact that, due to the tendencies of any schools to teach only one language, the children and parents, only one generation apart, would be separated and lose a vital understanding of one another, inhibiting proper development, just one ore negative effect of this hypothetical world language.

10) In this, i was not saying that it wouldn't be possible for specific words to be translated. I was referring to the fact that much of the original literary intent of any works might be lost in translation as all of humanity's works would have to be re translated. Also, re translating all of it would take tie, and a generation or two might lose out on some amazing literature fro thousands of years of the human experience.

I agree with my opponent on some of the benefits of this proposed new language. However, as of right now, I don't believe that the benefits at all are balanced with the terrible costs.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.