The Instigator
briantheliberal
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Juris
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
briantheliberal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,566 times Debate No: 38848
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

briantheliberal

Pro

With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home). If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English.

If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why exactly you do. Your argument must be logical and if necessary, please provide evidence to support your claims.
Juris

Con

Specifically, you required that all children in the United States be taught other language aside from English at home or at school.

Honestly, I admire your proposal but that is so impractical and unlikely to happen.

*With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States.

Nobody is contending the importance of communication to globalization, but you have forgotten that English is the standard language of the world, hence, knowing that language is enough to be able to communicate around the world, without having the hassle to understand difficult languages.

*I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home)

With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you’re right, because you’re obliged to give solid evidence that you are correct. You did not provide any evidence with your statement above, but you just listened to your gut feeling without any support.

*If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well.

How can you possibly implement your proposal? You said you would require language learning at home, but how can this even be possible?

Lastly, you have to provide evidence first so that I can refute that with another evidence, because anyway, the status quo is working then why fix it?

Debate Round No. 1
briantheliberal

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge.

Before I initiate my rebuttal please take note that, the points I made in my argument are not meant to be enforced, it is simply just a proposal. In my opinion, children should be exposed to more languages because it is beneficial for children to learn more languages in a global society.

Despite English being the "standard language of the world", learning more languages is still essential and highly recommended when applying for jobs and enlisting in the military. The reality is that many employers look for workers with proficient language abilities, more specifically for jobs that require one to travel to foreign countries. Learning a language is less of hassle if children are exposed to them early on in childhood development.

You claim "With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you"re right"

Well, with all do respect to you sir, what I feel has actually been proven by experts in linguistics, child development, communication and neurology. Children are more inapt to learn more languages because their brains retain certain information much quicker and holds on to that information much longer than adults. This is why exposing children to languages early on is important, because as you get older, learning languages becomes more of a chore and less of an adaptability. "Experts say that kids should begin to learn a foreign language from a young age; the younger, the better." A child is born with the ability to learn any language in the world and adults should take advantage of this ability before it becomes more challenging for the child to adapt to new or foreign languages. Sources are provided below.

Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial.

http://www.parents.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

I patiently await your response.
Juris

Con

Of course sir, we are not going to enforce that. But for your information, you should be aware of the practicability case of the debate. You should not only focus on the necessity and benefits, but also the practicability.

For example, there is a proposal that all men should be required to go to outer space because it would enhance their understanding about the universe. Yes this proposal sounds good, but does it sound practical? NO! Just like your proposal, it has good intentions but not so possible.


I am not saying that learning other languages is not important, but what I’m saying is that requiring ALL CHILDREN to learn another language is not so possible. Let them learn it by themselves if they want, without requiring it at home or at school.


Your stated, “Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial.However, it is impossible for me or anyone to contend that learning other language is not beneficial, but I can only contend that practicability of your proposal.

Your proposal is not very possible.

Debate Round No. 2
briantheliberal

Pro

Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen. Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one. One does not need to go to outer space to learn about outer space. Just as one does not need to live in another country to learn languages.

For your information, there are plenty of countries where the majority of the population is multilingual due to the immersion of bicultural and bilingual education. For example...

The official main language of Spain is Castilian Spanish. It is spoken all over the country being the native language of 89% of all Spaniards. However, there are about three other official languages of Spain as well as a few other lesser known languages that are spoken by over half of the Spanish population. Catalan is the main local language of the Catalan region, but Spanish is taught in schools as a main language. Galician and Basque are spoken in Northern Spain but everyone there also speaks Spanish. Spain is a multilingual nation.

http://spanish.about.com...

There are two official main languages of the Hong Kong province of China. English and Cantonese Chinese. Both are taught in schools and both are spoken locally. Many people of Hong Kong also speak Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Hindi and Vietnamese. The people of Taiwan not only speak Mandarin Chinese as an official language, but they also speak Taiwanese Hokkien locally and at home. Many of them also speak English, Mongolian, Cantonese and Korean as well. There are more fluent English speakers in China than in the United States.

http://gohongkong.about.com...

In the Philippines, there are between 125 to 175 languages spoken in each region. But almost everyone in the Philippines can speak English, Spanish or Tagalog.

Bilingualism is not only taken very seriously in Spain, Southeast Asia but most countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and even South America. Even in North America, Canada has two official main languages, English and French. Both are taught in Canadian schools and French is spoken in the Province of Quebec.

So based on the this information, my proposal in regards to teaching bilingualism to children is very possible and should be reinforced.

I await your response.
Juris

Con

You stated, “Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen.” Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You’re very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it’s basic debating.

Also you said, “Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one.” I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you’re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak.

Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you’re medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking.

First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word “require” which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending.

Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.



Debate Round No. 3
briantheliberal

Pro

"Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means."

Practicability is the capability of being practiced, synonymous with the term feasibility. My proposal is very well capable of being enforced. And I have given you several examples supporting the possibility of enforcement in the REAL world, you just completely overlooked them. The fact that I stated that I do not expect my proposal to be enforced right now does not make me "ambivalent" towards my side of the argument.

You claim "I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you"re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak."

Yet, you haven't explained why you feel that way nor have you provided any examples to support your opinion. In what ways is there flaw in my proposal? Why is practicability of my proposal "weak" and in what ways is it not possible? If my proposal is "impractical" then why are there other, LESS diverse, nations in the world who have had little to no issue with introducing bilingual education in schools?

You also claim "First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. '

I think you completely misunderstood what I was referring to when I said "at home". I meant students should be required to practice their language learning abilities in the household with resources provided to them by their educational facilities. And that parents should encourage this by allowing their children to be immersed into a language aside from the one they are already used to speaking at home.

For example...

When a child starts school, there should be language courses on campus to introduce a new language aside from the one the child already speaks (which would most likely be English) in order to introduce bilingualism early on in childhood development. Throughout their educational career, children would be introduced to a new level of difficulty in the area of language they study as they move forward in grade level, much like schools currently do with mathematics and reading courses. Homework should be given to the child addressing what exactly they learned in school that day, encouraging the child to study and learn the new language at home and if possible, the parents can aid in their language development by encouraging them to keep up with their language abilities and take them seriously, just as any other school course.

Many schools in the U.S. have already taken advantage of this method bilingual education and language learning early on in childhood development and most parents are in favor of this. I will provide video evidence of this, feel free to take a look.

Expert Tips on Encouraging Bilingual Education -
http://www.portlandfamily.com...

As you can see, it is possible. Learning languages in schools is no different than learning how to read or learning how to multiply or divide. And as children move on to the next grade they are more immersed in the material that was introduced to them in the previous grade level. Many places in the world have already done this as well which is why their countries have a significantly larger bilingual population than most other countries in the world that only encourage monolingual education.

You then claim "Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced."

I said my proposal was not "meant to be enforced" because it's just that, a proposal. It is not a new law in which I desire to pass. The topic of my debate is for the debate only. I do not expect anything to happen because I made a suggestion. The question should be "Is the proposal possible?" in which I have already answered, yes it is because there are plenty of schools globally that teach children new languages and encourage bilingual education in education facilities. The second question should be "Is this good for society?" and you even said that it is, so as far as I am concerned you already answered that question for me. Bilingual education is clearly beneficial in society.

A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education -
http://www.cal.org...

Bilingual Education Holds Cognitive, Social And Health Benefits (INFOGRAPHIC) -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I await your response.
Juris

Con

When you say that you do not expect your proposal to be enforced means that you don’t really understand policy debate. Your statement contradicts your understanding of what practicability means.

Flaws of your proposal:

1. You failed to define what “require” means.

2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages.

3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country.

4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. It just happened that they are able to speak English because it is the lingua franca of the world. Also, they can speak Spanish because the Philippines was colonized by Spain for over 333 years. So your comparison with those people in other countries that they can speak many languages is just immaterial.

5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages.

Yeah! But the word “require” demand supervision of a the proposal. By just giving them tools or materials so that they can learn at home destroys the idea of having it required. In reality, you cannot really require students learn hence you will not know what they will be doing at home because of lack of monitoring from teachers or even parents.

Wow! You even presented videos of the benefit of teaching new language to students.


Your Proposal is not possible because you’re requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible. All you just did was to specify some schools that are already teaching other language, but it does not mean that it is applicable to all students in the United states. Your example is just no representative enough. You offered a weak example to pursue your claim.

I will repeat this again: “No body is contending that learning new language is harmful, what I am criticizing is the practicability of your proposal.”

I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible.

With this, you failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate.

You completely fail to understand the terms of this debate

Debate Round No. 4
briantheliberal

Pro

"1. You failed to define what “require” means."

Why would I have to redefine a word that has already been defined?

Definition of the term "require"

Require (verb) - to demand; impose obligation: to do as the law requires.

In my previous argument I clarified the specifications in regards to the overall possibility of my proposal which I must say was pretty much self-explanatory. If you would like me to repeat it, I will do so. By "require" I meant that school systems should be obliged to make bilingual education apart of the necessary curriculum of each student.

"2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages."

I already have. Again you chose to overlook it. The overall purpose of my debate was to argue whether or not students should be required to learn new languages in early childhood development. My argument was not specifically based on the benefits associated with my proposal, but they were a key part in supporting my side of the debate. Your job as the the Con in this debate, was to argue against my proposal and to list the disadvantages associated with my proposal. You started this by saying "It was not possible" and I responded by using the various real world examples supporting the possibility of implementing bilingual education in early childhood education.

"3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country."

You don't think? Well if you consider the fact that almost every educational institution in the U.S. has some sort of mathematics, reading and science course in pretty much every school, I have to disagree. To say that it's not possible at all is very closed minded. You have failed to consider the circumstances.

Every year, there are about 40% fewer jobs for qualified educators nationally, especially in the areas of language (more specifically those with a major pertaining to French and Spanish). With the implementation of more language courses in schools, the government will have significantly decreased the unemployment rate while also introducing bilingual education in schools.

http://www.theguardian.com...


"4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language..."

Despite the fact that the Philippines was colonized by Spain, the official language of the country is no longer Spanish. Spanish was the original official language of the country for more than three centuries, and became the "LLingua Franca" (also called a working language, bridge language, vehicular language or unifying language) of the Philippines in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in the Spanish language. However, it was only spoken by a total of 60% of the population in the early 20th century as a first, second or third language. Under occupation by the United States, by the year 1901, public education used English as the medium of instruction. Around 600 educators (called Thomasites) replaced U.S. soldiers who also took the place bilingual educators. The 1935 Constitution added English as an official language alongside Spanish but eventually the Spanish language was removed by the first half of the 20th century.

As of now, Spanish is mainly taught in public schools, private schools and Universities due to it's importance in Filipino history, but it is not used as a national language. Most people in the Philippines who speak Spanish fluently are either Hispanic immigrants, people from very few islands of the country where Spanish is the dominant language or learned the language in schools. Most Spanish speaking Filipinos who speak it as a second, third or fourth language. The main official languages of the country are English and Filipino (also known as Tagalog) which is the national language. According to the most recent statistics, only about 65% of the entire population of the Philippines can speak fluent English as a second language.

http://www.ncca.gov.ph...

http://en.wikipedia.org...


"5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages."

Actually I did... I stated in the introduction of my debate,

"From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical.

Again, you chose to overlook it.

You see, the problem I have with your argument is that you failed to even argue against mine from a logical standpoint. You repeated claim "It's not possible" despite the fact that I provided multiple examples that prove that it is in fact possible. You overlook the evidence I provided and then proceed to attack my argument without any evidence to support your side.

For example... You claim, "You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible." after I did MULTIPLE times.

"When a child starts school, there should be language courses on campus to introduce a new language aside from the one the child already speaks (which would most likely be English) in order to introduce bilingualism early on in childhood development. Throughout their educational career, children would be introduced to a new level of difficulty in the area of language they study as they move forward in grade level, much like schools currently do with mathematics and reading courses..."

Remember this?

You then claim... "I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible." If it is impossible, why has it already happened in many countries INCLUDING many educational systems in the United States with success. Why would it be more logical to simply allow young children to learn new languages on their own? THAT is impossible. Children cannot just go out and teach themselves how to speak a new language. Learning a new language requires the proper resources, consistent study and more importantly, the involvement of an adult.

Saying you would rather encourage student to learn new languages on their own is like saying "I would rather encourage student to learn how to read on their own" and that will get you nowhere. If we did that, children would be illiterate.

I am not the one who failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate.

I patiently await your response.


Juris

Con

Good for you that you know what “require” means. But you keep on offering contradictory statements, like you said, “my proposal is not meant to be enforced.” Clearly you do not understand policy debate.


No one is contending with the benefits of your proposal, the focus is on the practicability. It’s clear that you want ALL STUDENTS in the US be required to learn another language(you were not even clear what language is that and why that language), imagine that! All students? Worst, you want to oblige parents to do the same. Your proposal seems to be impossible to be applied to all students.



My job is not to discredit learning another language, because nobody can say that it is not good, but to attack your proposal at its core- practicability.



"From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical.

--->That’s bias. On the other hand English is spoken by almost all people in the world.

Reasons you failed:


1. You’re very inconsistent with your arguments as first you said that your proposal is not meant to be enforced but you said that you’re aware what “require” means. This is a policy debate, you’re very contradictory.

2. Nobody argues that learning other language is harmful, what is being contested is your idealistic proposal of requiring all students to be taught another language(you said Spanish). That’s so expensive and such a hassle.


3. You want Spanish to be taught simply because you said that it is spoken by almost 400 million people. But it is very insignificant to American students.



4. You are mistaken when you said that other countries are doing your proposal of requiring all students to learn other language. No! They are not requiring all students. Only few institutions do that, because it is unreasonable to require all students to learn a difficult thing without so much use to them.


5. I am here to criticize your proposal not give evidence against learning another language as there is no disadvantage of learning it aside from the difficulty.


6. Not because other institutions are teaching other language in the US that is already feasible to the entire schools in the US.


7. Your proposal failed to stand on the practicability!

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by briantheliberal 2 years ago
briantheliberal
I asked for votes? What does that even mean?
Posted by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
You have asked for votes that's why
Posted by briantheliberal 2 years ago
briantheliberal
Juris, you lost. Get over it...
Posted by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
The motion is not, "learning another language is beneficial," but "All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools." Clearly, the arguments presented by Pro were vague and merely supported the 1st motion that was not subject of this debate.
Posted by retrogamer176 2 years ago
retrogamer176
Juris, spanish is the #1 spoken language in the world. Isn't spanish the standard then?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
briantheliberalJurisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct on Con's side was noticeably rude and sarcastic. Sources to Pro, since not only was he the only one to USE any but they were credible, interesting, and varied in media type. Con also, despite his jibes to Pro for doing the same, did not understand the terms of the debate- the question was "should" not "will" or "could"- therefore the practicality of said measure was irrelevant to the discussion. He also did not properly rebut any of Pro's arguments for the benefits of second languages.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
briantheliberalJurisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting concept and idea. I was with Pro both before and after this debate, despite Con's attempts. Conduct was...interesting on both sides, however Pro won it in round four after Con's sarcastic jibes. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments go to Pro after Con more or less conceded and committed both strawmen and burden of proof fallacies that Pro skirted around without actually pointing them out. If it was "We *should* have children learn a second language" and Pro gave arguments without them being refuted then he wins! Con took this debate to be "We *could*....", but this is *should*. Therefore, Con's whole case is a strawman. In fact, Con stated various times that he agreed we should, but it was merely impractical. Absolutely irrelevant! Sources to Pro, too, because he used more reliable ones. Interesting and informative debate.