The Instigator
ForSerious
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
farm3r
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

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 2 votes the winner is...
farm3r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 58492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ForSerious

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Standard
Round 3: Standard
Round 4: No New Arguments

Time to Argue: 24 hours
Argument Max: 1,000 Characters

Interpretation of the Resolution:
A language is a complex system of symbols. Complex means that a speaker could form an original sentence. To be considered universal, the language would need to be at least an auxiliary language in almost all countries. Auxiliary means that, even if it is not the predominant language, the majority of citizens know it as a second language. Claiming that "universal safety symbols" or the "laws of nature" are universal languages is NOT in the spirit of this debate.



Do not accept this debate if you are going to deviate significantly from the interpretation.

Sources may be included in the comment section to save characters. Be sure to label which speech your sources are referring to if you do.
farm3r

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ForSerious

Pro

I. Communication Barriers

The idea of a 'universal language' clearly does not understand what communication barriers actually are - they have little to do with not speaking the same language.
There is more to understanding one another than simply knowing what words mean. We should be focusing on improving relations and understanding foreign values - not memorizing words. It is important to stop assuming your cultural values are correct, to stop assuming other cultures are like yours, and to be more comfortable around differing cultural values.


II. Respect

Universal Language creation clearly values convenience over respecting the beautiful variety of cultures.

It would be convenient for travelers not to have to learn a new language. However, respecting cultures by not imposing a common language on them is more important than the ease of tourists and international businesses. You can always hire a translator.

Attempts to artificially manufacture the "Universal Language" should stop.

farm3r

Con

I will simply outline my arguments in this round. Any contentions rebutted by my opponent will be expanded upon in the next round.

My Argument

Greater ease of communication

It is blatantly obvious that having a universal language will make communication easier. This goes from social interaction to business discussions to countries working together for technological berakthroughs. I highly doubt there will be an argument against this point.

My Rebuttals

Communication Barriers

Unfortunately, communication barriers have very much to do with not speaking the same language. Why do world leaders use translators? Because language is the primary vessel of meaning. Secondly, learning another language does not mean leaving their culture - it can be in conjunction.

Respect

We never said this universal language had to be imposed, it can be optional. Not learning a language does not implicate a lack of respect, simply a lack of time. Translators add an additional barrier and cost money.
Debate Round No. 2
ForSerious

Pro


I. Communication Barriers


Different languages have quirks that cannot be translated directly such as “Hygge” and “Esprit d'Escalier” [1]. Cultural values affect how many words a language has for central terms. For example, there the Eskimos' have 50 words for snow [2]. In the US it is highly offensive to be late. In Spain it is seen as weird to show up exactly on time. A single language cannot compensate for all cultural needs, nor can it solve miscommunications due to differences in cultural values.



II. Respect


I do not claim there will be a hostile language takeover. However, any artificially created language could not possibly include all perspectives.



III. Don't Force It


A naturally developed universal language would be lovely. It would be a sign of global unity. However, it must not be forced.



A. Convenience


Not having a universal language is not causing significant harm. We have translators: human and machine. We have bilingual international business branches.




farm3r

Con

This is actually a really limiting character limit, so I'll spare you my eloquence.

Communication Barriers

Just because we cannot translate every culture's word does not make a universal language useless. "Hygge" and "Esprit d'Escalier" are not necessary for every type of interaction. Again, you are listing disadvantages rather than why any attempt should cease to exist. I extend my argument that the good outweighs the bad. Being late has nothing to do with this. A universal language does not have to be the 'single language'.

Respect

I repeat the point that a universal language does not have to be the 'single language'. Why do people still learn Hebrew?

Don't Force it

Nowhere in this resolution does it say it has to be forced in any way. I'm glad you agree with me. Global unity is a great point. Thanks!

Convenience

Human translators cost money and we may not trust their translation. There are numerous jobs demanding certain language qualifications, I will cite sources if asked.
Debate Round No. 3
ForSerious

Pro

Communication Barriers
If we aren't going to try to maintain the intricacies and cultural values of language, then there is no point. We may as well have machines continue to translate for us.

Respect
The disrespect comes from excluding other cultures in the decision making process.

Don't Force It
Artificially creating a language is forcing it into existence. I vote we allow it to occur naturally.

CON says Convenience and that translators are expensive. How will translators feed their families when the Universal Language makes their skills inconsequential?

In summary, an artificial universal language would not solve all communication barriers, would be disrespectful, and is not natural. Even if you give in to CON's claims about convenience, my points are more important than convenience.

Thank you for an on topic debate.
farm3r

Con

Communication Barriers

Language can be used for things other than a reflection of culture. It can still be a framework of recognisable words for easier communication. You cannot carry a machine around the streets and input what others say. There is simply impossible to believe that an EXTRA universal language (not replacing pre-existing ones) could be negative.

Respect

You can't accomodate for everyone's needs all the time. You don't include every country in the Soccer World Cup or the process would take too long. Does not detract from an universal language's usefulness.

Don't Force It

What is 'artificial'? Someone had to start by saying, 'Hey let's invent a sound for this particular idea!' If aritificial is something created by humans, then all language is artificial.

Translators

All translators may be recruited into the development of this new language, their input is sorely needed.

In summary, there aren't enough negatives to justify ceasing the development of an universal language.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ForSerious 2 years ago
ForSerious
Someone else missed the last line of the explanation too. Maybe I should bold it or something.
Posted by farm3r 2 years ago
farm3r
Oh I didn't know you could put sources in comments, I'll do the same next round then. I'll probably post it close to deadline though.
Posted by ForSerious 2 years ago
ForSerious
Sorry about the big gaps between paragraphs. I dozed off and barely had time to copy paste by the deadline. That's the closest I've ever come to forfeiting a round! Phew!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ForSeriousfarm3rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Better communication outweighs.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
ForSeriousfarm3rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Tempting to award conduct for the setup of this debate--1,000 character per round on this topic? Really? But Pro did put it in R1, so it was clear from the get-go. In the end, Pro pointed out difficulties with universal languages, but failed to give a proper justification for why attempts should cease. Con rebutted all the individual complaints that Pro raised, and noted that there are benefits in terms of communication to having a single Universal Language. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.