The Instigator
Preston
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

English (Language) comes ftom Australia.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Preston
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,541 times Debate No: 60010
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (52)
Votes (6)

 

Preston

Con

First round Acceptance
Aerogant

Pro

UK English comes from Australia; English come from UK English.

I already accepted, so having a round for acceptance is redundancy at its finest.
Debate Round No. 1
Preston

Con

It gives time for planning argumentation, that's why its important. ok ill start.

1) The Americas were colonized before Australia was by the English.

"Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet, comprising 11 ships and around 1,350 people, arrived at Botany Bay between 18 and 20 January 1788. However, this area was deemed to be unsuitable for settlement and they moved north to Port Jackson on 26 January 1788, landing at Camp Cove, known as 'cadi' to the Cadigal people."

this gives us the year 1788, however james town, the first English colony was founded in 1607 thus English existed before austrailia had been colonized, this makes it irrational to suggest that English comes from Austrailia.

[http://australia.gov.au...]
[http://policy.yale.edu...]

2)aboriginal Australians spoke other languages.
Australia's government provides a list in the link below of aberrational languages. if they spoke English before colonization why do these languages exist? and why is english not listed? because it isnt a language rooted in australia.

[http://austlang.aiatsis.gov.au...]

3)BOP
Remember my opponent must provide the Burdon of Proof as AFF that states English is derived from Australia. if they cannot do this or instead they post red herrings then I win by default.

Conclusion:

English is not rooted in Austrailia, Vote NEG.




Aerogant

Pro

Americans being colonized before Australia, doesn't defeat my point - it just tells us that Americans did not become influenced by Australia's language, which explains why our language is laughable.
Debate Round No. 2
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
you sadden me. I pity you now.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
It's not a statement, a phrase or a sentence. It's a word.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
you obviously don't get that saying either...
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
homxxex
i n m
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
yes, yes you can, ad hominem, home is not in there.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Can't spell ad hominem without home.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
and now your using an ad hominem
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
See? You deny my evidence and rejected a power man because you couldn't handle his manliness. I pity you - you will never learn, until you let go of what you think you know.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
it is still a red herring and youre continuing to use Inflation of conflict
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
How dare you defy the leading commander! He fought these wars for you to sit all day to take it all for granted. Just look at him and his valor shine so bright beneath the sun as he stands over this dreaded cliff solemnly, to reflect on his honor and the deeds he's done for his fellow men: http://snag.gy...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 3 years ago
YamaVonKarma
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This... this was not a debate.
Vote Placed by saboosa 3 years ago
saboosa
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: was this really a hard decision?
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: pro really didn't try. AT ALL.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has BOP, Con disproved.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: While I hate truisms, pro put up no fight. Con backed his case with sources, etc.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
PrestonAerogant
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided sources and Pro really didn't put up much of a valid argument as he never really refuted Con's point, but really just said Con's point was irrelevent.