The Instigator
Caylie
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DeeAnn
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

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...
DeeAnn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 53670
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Caylie

Pro

Why is foreign language learning only available starting in middle school? Sometimes it's only available at high school! And even then it's considered a "privilege". Students should be exposed to a new language as young as possible! Younger children are able to pick up on languages quicker and with more ease than older students. And learning another language makes it easier to learn even more languages. Therefore I wish to argue pro on making foreign language part of the elementary school curriculum.
DeeAnn

Con

May I ask a few questions first, to clarify?

-Since you are arguing foreign languages should be taught to kids in elementary school, are you saying it should be changed for everyone, or only some schools and not others?
-Is it safe to assume the nation is america, and english is not considered a foreign language?
-Is Elementary School K-5 or K-6?
-What grade would kids start learning? 6/7 years is quite a difference.
Debate Round No. 1
Caylie

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate and yes, I'd be happy to answer your questions.
1.I don't completely understand your first question so if you could rephrase it that would be much appreciated.
2. Yes it is America. The reason it is America is because in America we don't really prioritize foreign language learning because we speak English and many Americans believe that everyone else in the world speaks English or will learn it so that they can speak with them. At school we've even been told that other countries require English in their schools so us "English speaking Americans" have no need to learn another language.
3. Elementary school is just the age that it should start. Around pre-k through Grade 1 should be the required starting times. But foreign language should be a required subject throughout every year of a person's schooling.
4. I briefly addressed your last question in my prior answer but if you have any more questions or anything you can message me.
DeeAnn

Con

http://imgur.com...

This is where my opponent messes up. First of all, education is a province of the state, not the government. The state dictates what we learn; so having the US government require all schools in the US to teach a foreign language would be a violation of the constitution.

Proof, if you happen to want any:

According to amendment 10 of the bill of rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere on the constitution does it state education is within the federal government's power boundaries. This is therefore a right of the state.
Debate Round No. 2
Caylie

Pro

Your argument is completely off topic and irrelevant. The debate topic was whether it SHOULD be required not if it could be required. And I do believe there are many government imposed things on state regulations for schools. The government comes up with what they want in all schools ( common core, NCLB, "healthier" lunches, etc.) and then they offer the state money. Yeah, some states refuse the money so that they can dictate what is to be taught in their schools, but most are desperate for the money and take it at any cost. So your argument had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but hopefully next round you can come up with something relative to the topic.
DeeAnn

Con

My argument is not off topic nor is it irrelevant. I have asked my opponent on how she proposes this issue be solved and she has stated that the US government should administer it. She has stated before that we should have foreign languages taught in school, and I only asked to clarify her stance on the issue. My opponent's ultimate resolution on the issue is that the US government should require all schools to offer a foreign language. That means my opponent is arguing for it to be Common Core (as mandatory education essentially is common core). I have proven it was unconstitutional and my opponent has only provided a fallacious rebuttal.

Yes, there are government imposed things on state regulations for schools, but that is through only the Commerce and General Welfare clauses of the US constitution. Seeing as foreign languages falls under neither category, that is therefore irrelevant to our debate. Common core is regulated by the NGA and CCSSO, according to http://www.corestandards.org... -> Overview -> Who led the development of the Common Core State Standards?. The NGA is the National Governors Association Center and the CCSSO is the Council of Chief State School Officers and:

"The actual implementation of the Common Core, including how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers as they help students reach the standards, is led entirely at the state and local levels."

That is the only one of my opponent's examples that a foreign language pertains to, and I have proven it wrong.

My opponent has then stated that the US government can require Foreign Languages being taught at school through bribery. Not only does she not have any proof of it working in the past, but it is unlawful.

"The General Federal Bribery Statute punishes the offence of bribery in the U.S[iii]. According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery. The punishment prescribed by the statue is a fine of an amount not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both. Additionally he/she can be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the U.S government." - See more at: http://bribery.uslegal.com...

So even if I were to allow my opponent to take that back (note: this does not mean am I allowing my opponent take it back) , my opponent has yet to provide a constitutional way for this to happen. (Logically we would go to the NGA and CCSSO to propose making foreign languages. I have no objection to that.)

The best my opponent can do is argue she did not mean for the US government to regulate it. So unless my opponent wins this point with one last, irrefutable round, and then continues to offer irrefutable arguments why foreign languages are beneficial, I believe I have won this debate.

I also would like to point out for future reference that being knowledgeable in all aspects about a topic before debating it helps, as then your opponent would not easily find a loophole in your argument and use it against you.
Debate Round No. 3
Caylie

Pro

Caylie forfeited this round.
DeeAnn

Con

Thank you for this debate, Caylie. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Caylie 2 years ago
Caylie
The US government
Posted by DeeAnn 2 years ago
DeeAnn
I mean do we go up to every single district and ask, or do we go to the US government to require all schools?
Posted by Caylie 2 years ago
Caylie
All schools
Posted by DeeAnn 2 years ago
DeeAnn
Just to clarify: So the US government would be the one requiring that foreign languages are to be taught in school?
Posted by Caylie 2 years ago
Caylie
Every school in America that receives money, follows laws set by or has any affiliation with the U.S. government should be required to teach foreign languages in all schools.
Posted by DeeAnn 2 years ago
DeeAnn
I mean, how should it be changed? Should only a few schools change or should all schools change?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
CaylieDeeAnnTied
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: Forfeiture. Con wins the debate do to the multiitude of sources to back the arguments that were brought up by Con.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
CaylieDeeAnnTied
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: Pro would get a point for conduct, but her complete snobbery in one of the last rounds brings her to a tie with her opponent's failure to reply. Pro gets the arguments, because of the fact that learning languages at a younger age is easier than learning them at a later age. I do not consider Con's constitutional argument valid for the following reasons. A) Should and Could. The two can be separated. For instance, the Underground Railroad should've helped free slaves, but according to the law, they couldn't. Secondly, the constitution can be amended. Thirdly, Caylie said 'US Government'. US Government encompasses all of our nation, and so arguing from the stance of the Federal isn't necessarily legitimate. While Pro did not provide these refutations, she did provide Pros of her own to convince me, and Cons arguments did not convince me at all.