The Instigator
rtg0713
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Xboxlive
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

English is necessary

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 20,817 times Debate No: 17369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

rtg0713

Con

In my opinion, learning English is not that necessary.
First, Twice as many people speak Chinese then English. We have lots of multi language to learn like French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch. Learning English is not a law. We are self-motivated to learn multi languages!
Second, "English" is not an official language anymore. We believe this because nowadays there are translation tools such as Babelfish. This tools translates any information on the Internet into your languages. We also have Universal Translator 103. You simply speak into the UT-103 and it repeats back to you in your language of your choice.
Third, Kids get stressful because of academies. Kids are getting stressed out because they have to go to the academies. But not only academies are the main reason of their stress, but their homework. Homework eats up half of their time. They won't have many times for rest.
Last, we lose our culture.
Due to learning English, we might lose our culture. If we keep learning the western culture (English, which is also western) we might lose our own traditions and cultures so that is why I believe that we don't have to learn English.
Xboxlive

Pro

Hello, I look forward to a fun and informative debate

I would also like to establish the framework that as a society as a whole English is necessary

C1- Language in the world
As the united states, united kingdom and Canada are prominent players in the world economy, all countries that wish to do business with or engage in long term diplomatic ties with America, England, or Canada must first be able to communicate. Indeed if any person wishes to deal with an American company, they will most certainly have to learn English [1]. Diplomatic ties with countries such as the united kingdom and the united states require that a person know a proper amount of English, this is a given.

C2- language in the countries
English is the dominant language in Canada, England, America, Australia, Bahamas, and new Zeal and. And is the official language of India, Pakistan, Ireland, Jordan, Sudan, and so many more [2]. So if any one country wishes to

Now I will do a line-by-line of my opponents case

>>>>Twice as many people speak Chinese then English

-first this does not refute the idea that English is necessary, second this does not mean that English is not prevalent in the world, it just means that Chinese is too

>>>We have lots of multi language to learn like French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch. Learning English is not a law. We are self-motivated to learn multi languages!

- First this has nothing to do with the topic, secondly,this contradicts here last contention, thirdly it still doesn't answer the resolution

>>>>"English" is not an official language anymore

-extend 2nd contention

>>>>translation tool

-once again it has nothing to do with the topic.

>>>>Kids get stressful because of academies. Kids are getting stressed out because they have to go to the academies. But not only academies are the main reason of their stress, but their homework. Homework eats up half of their time. They won't have many times for rest.

-ok,one she doesn't claim spillover on schools, 2 this isn't unique to learning English, 3 once again no link to the topic, 4 no impact and stress isn't an impact, 5 no cited back-up

>>>>>we lose our culture.
Due to learning English, we might lose our culture. If we keep learning the western culture (English, which is also western) we might lose our own traditions and cultures

-First off, I'd like to clarify who "we" are, second, she claims no impact for loss of culture, third she doesn't claim spillover so you can't say that western presence will disappear post-fiat, Fourth no link, even if you buy an impact of loss of culture this doesn't mean that English is unnecessary

1-http://www.ncpa.org...
2-http://en.wikipedia.org...

I await my opponents response
Debate Round No. 1
rtg0713

Con

Thank you for joining my debate. Now I would like to do rebuttal of my opponents case.
C1- Language in the world
As the united states, united kingdom and Canada are prominent players in the world economy, all countries that wish to do business with or engage in long term diplomatic ties with America, England, or Canada must first be able to communicate. Indeed if any person wishes to deal with an American company, they will most certainly have to learn English [1]. Diplomatic ties with countries such as the united kingdom and the united states require that a person know a proper amount of English, this is a given.
C2- language in the countries
English is the dominant language in Canada, England, America, Australia, Bahamas, and new Zeal and. And is the official language of India, Pakistan, Ireland, Jordan, Sudan, and so many more [2]. So if any one country wishes to
However, I don't believe in this fact because it was from wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, but wikipedia is suspicious because they have people's opinions.

First, my opponent said that if we wnat to be successful and attend to the foreign companies, we need to study English. However, what about people staying in their land. Not all of the people wants to go to foreign countries and compete there. Besides, we can't always say that USA is prominenet country of world economy. Besides, should we MUST GO TO ENGLISH SPEAKING COUTNRY? For example, we can go out to China for buisness, and we don't need to speak English there.
Second, my opponent said that English is the dominant language. Once again there are people who doesn't go to that countries, so I don't think that English is neccessary.

Now I'll response to my opponent
>>>>Twice as many people speak Chinese then English

-first this does not refute the idea that English is necessary, second this does not mean that English is not prevalent in the world, it just means that Chinese is too
: True. However, we don't need to learn English if we don't want to
>>>We have lots of multi language to learn like French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch. Learning English is not a law. We are self-motivated to learn multi languages!
- First this has nothing to do with the topic, secondly,this contradicts here last contention, thirdly it still doesn't answer the resolution
: I mean that we have other languages to learn more than English
>>>>"English" is not an official language anymore
-extend 2nd contention
>>>>translation tool
-once again it has nothing to do with the topic.
: Why is it? We can translate the words to our own language and we can still understand them
>>>>Kids get stressful because of academies. Kids are getting stressed out because they have to go to the academies. But not only academies are the main reason of their stress, but their homework. Homework eats up half of their time. They won't have many times for rest.
-ok,one she doesn't claim spillover on schools, 2 this isn't unique to learning English, 3 once again no link to the topic, 4 no impact and stress isn't an impact, 5 no cited back-up
: In Korea, about 90% of kids go to academey according to the news. We don't go there for free. We have to pay for it and parents' money problems increase.

Now, it;s your turn.
Xboxlive

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a quick response

I'll just do a line-by-line of my case and my opponents case

First on my case, my opponent completely ignores my framework for the round, on a whole society needs the English language, This pretty makes my opponents case attacks moot at this point, because all her examples are on an individual level. The first and second contention say that foreign and domestic workings require one to know English

>>>>we can't always say that USA is prominenet country of world economy
-It's pretty much common sense that the world's superpower has some sort of say in the global market

>>>>should we MUST GO TO ENGLISH SPEAKING COUTNRY?
- considering you need many imports that are unique to English-speaking countries, I would say yes

Now onto my opponents case

>>>>True. However, we don't need to learn English if we don't want to
-necessary- noun-Inevitably resulting from or produced by the nature of things, so that the contrary is impossible- For a country to be economically and diplomatically stable, It is necessary that that country to work with English-speaking states

>>>>I mean that we have other languages to learn more than English
-this doesn't answer any of my attacks

>>>>Why is it? We can translate the words to our own language and we can still understand them
-Because the English language is necessary for you to translate something from English

>>>>In Korea, about 90% of kids go to academey according to the news. We don't go there for free. We have to pay for it and parents' money problems increase.
- no answer to spillover impacts, and no internal link, and no link argument

I await my opponents response
Debate Round No. 2
rtg0713

Con

Now, as the last round of the debate, I would like to organize my opinion.
1.English is not the all
Math is important using math you can predict strategies and where to place your team mates so you would win the competitive sport easier. Even if you were swimming it could help on your swimming for example if you were a novice swimmer you would need to know your own skill and how long you can swim, tread water, and how many meters you can do. Science is needed in many industries, and having a good knowledge of chemistry is essential for many jobs. Not just in industry jobs actually, but chemistry is also important in commerce, teaching and lecturing, science journalism and even in some law related jobs like patent agents. Today we live in the age of chemistry-based technology, and future demands will increase the expertise needed in many areas of chemical, biotechnological and pharmaceutical industries. In conclusion, English is not the all.
2. Damages our culture
When it was the period of Japanese Colonial, Japanese people forced Koreans to learn Japanese, and forced to teach their traditions. Thus, our language and traditions disappeared.
3. Translators instead
Nowadays there are translation tools such as Babelfish. This tools translates any information on the Internet into your languages. We also have Universal Translator 103. You simply speak into the UT-103 and it repeats back to you in your language of your choice. Even though we didn't learn English, we can translate with this translator. Which means that even though we didn't learn English, we can understand due to the translators and dictionaries.
These are the reasons why I believe that English is not neccessary for us.
Xboxlive

Pro

Ok let's start off the last speech by saying the Con DROPS ALL MY POINTS- This is the biggest voter in the round.

This means that the con drops my case- basically you have to vote pro, because i prove that english is necessary for buiness and to live in a country that speaks english. Vote pro

Also, she basically kicks out of half her contentions, extend accross basically all my attacks

l-b-l

ok on her first point- one this is a new argument you cannot weigh it, two This is the same as her other contention it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESOLUTION, She basically says that we need math and science and chemistry- ok I'll conceed, but it doesn't mean english isn't necessary too

>>>>When it was the period of Japanese Colonial, Japanese people forced Koreans to learn Japanese, and forced to teach their traditions. Thus, our language and traditions disappeared.
- Ok one since the con doesn't claim spillover- She can't claim post-fiat means no one invades anyone again or insists culure, 2 NO LINK- you can claim it destroys cultures-doesn't mean it isn't necessary, 3 No impact

>>>> Translators instead
-Just extend across all attacks- she doesn't answer any of my arguments.

You vote pro because
1.the con doesn't answer a single one of my points
2.Every contention the con provides has no link
3.The con doesn't answer anything in my case
4.I have actual sources- the con does not

Vote pro- I thank my opponent for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Aww come on, debates like this get 7 votes already, but great ones rarely get more than 3?
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
Yes, English is important to be learnt by a major portion of a countries population, not only for their personal benefits, (for getting a large and useful resource pool) but also for competing globally. One good rebuttal of the Chinese argument would have been that the distribution of Chinese speaking people is concentrated mostly over China, while those who speak English are more scattered.
Posted by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
I do think all Indians should learn English. That is the only way we can dominate the world in science, technology and business. On other hand, American attitude in this regard is a problem. My English literature knowledge as well as grammar is quite good compared to many English speaking people. I do struggle with accent. Every time, I have talked to an American, they have commented on it! My usual response is - if my English is bad, can we talk in Hindi or Urdu please?

On other hands, Germans are quite cooperative with anyone struggling with their languages, which makes learning it much more pleasant. This was my experience with Tamil also (an Indian language).
Posted by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
Neither side defined 'necessary'. However from context of OP, it was clear that the intent was to discuss everyone learning English in school or college (which is also the issue in many Asians countries)

Pro's case:
Why not Chinese: Con thinks, learning Chinese is also necessary. Weak response. This could have been extended to Spanish, Hindi / Urdu ... And then Pro could have asked how many languages Con really knows... Sadly this was not done.

Babelfish ++: Dropped by Con as irrelevant. But it is relevant.

Burden on student: Dropped by Con as irrelevant. Not really, specially due to his response to first point.

Culture: Pro did not develop on this.

Con's case:
Diplomacy, Employment: Con argued that only those who need to be involved need to learn it. Pro did not press this point much.

Official languages: Con does not trust Wikipedia! We never find out what she trusts.

Arguments from both the side were weak. Overall I decide to award it to Con. It is possible I was a bit lenient towards her. I don't think that matters; considering the lopsided voting till now which does not reflect the minor difference in quality.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
English is the most widely spoke language, counting people who speak it as a second language. There are about 1.8 billion who speak English. Mandaran has more native speakers than English, but only about 1 billion total.

The great majority of scientific papers are in English, and it is the de facto international language of commerce. Wikipedia has a lot to say about the status of English in India. http://en.wikipedia.org... English is an official language of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Whether English is necessary depends upon where a person is and what they do. Since the majority of the world does not speak English, obviously for many people it is not necessary. The debate resolution was unclear, but neither side tried to define "necessary."
Posted by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
Sorry for typo.

"However, Hindi is 'mother tongue' of less that 50% of people..."
Posted by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
English is not official language of India. Official language of India is Hindi. However, Hindi is not the 'mother tongue' of less that 50% of people, India defined something known as scheduled languages. There are 22 schedule languages! The languages are: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu (The last one being my language). Did you notice that English is missing!

English was official language of India during British rule. It has been retained as an option for official purpose. It is essential because Hindi is not understood in many parts of India.

On other hand, all people having higher education understand English. It is the language of all scientific education in India. Students of other 'medium' have to struggle and learn English in Colleges.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Con made it easy for Pro as he responded to her argument line by line, and showed its weakness. I just wish he would make his own case.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
This sounds like a difficult debate for pro
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Oh you're from Korea. Interesting topic.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
rtg0713XboxliveTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A weak win for Pro. Both sides need to work on spelling / Grammar, organization of argument and presentation. Detailed analysis in comments.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
rtg0713XboxliveTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a source and actually addressed all contentions.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
rtg0713XboxliveTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A nearly illiterate debate, full of poor grammar, spelling errors, poor punctuation, and broken sentences. At least run spell checker. Pro argued weakly, but better than Con. Con dropped many points.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
rtg0713XboxliveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The issue with this debate is that neither participant made any effort to clarify the resolution, and each found themselves making entirely different arguments. Sin Con as the instigator is responsible for this, Pro automatically wins argument. Con loses conduct for failure to acknowledge Pros arguments in round 3.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
rtg0713XboxliveTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ignored Pro's arguments and had no sources
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
rtg0713XboxliveTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 1.the con doesn't answer a single one of my points 2.Every contention the con provides has no link 3.The con doesn't answer anything in my case 4.I have actual sources- the con does not
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
rtg0713XboxliveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.