Jeder Mensch soll wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen koennen
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this challenge.
In order for reason in knowing two or more languages to exist, there must be at least two widely spoken languages. However, this isn't good, as then a language barrier would exist. If there is only one language, then everyone can talk to anyone and convenience is restored. So, to recap:
(P1) For reason to exist in each person being able to speak at least two languages being necessary, there are necessarily at least two widely spoken languages.
(P2) But a world would be better if there was only one language.
(C) Therefore, it is not true that each person knowing at least two languages is necessary.
Absence of reason
I see no reason why each person should have to know at least two languages. Perhaps Pro would like to inform me on that one.
Der einziger Regel die ich hatte, war das der erste Runde nur fuer die Annahme war. Mein Gegner hat den Regel gebrochen. Vielleicht koennte er die Regeln nicht lesen weil die auf deutsch geschrieben war. Das ist genau der Grund wof"r Menschen wenigstens zwei Sprachen sprechen sollen.
Nun zur die Debatte:
(P1) Es gibt, tatsaechlich, viele Sprachen die weit gesprochen sind. Chinesisch ist am meisten gesprochen, und dazu gibt es Englisch und Spanisch.
(P2) Es konnte sein das die Welt mit nur eine Sprache besser waere, aber so ist das nicht.
Eigentlich, gibt es hunderte von Sprachen auf der Welt, nicht nur eine. Deswegen is der Beschluss meiner Gegner falsch.
Die Welt wird immer kleiner mit Internet und Flugzeug Reisen. Es wird immer mehr Noetig das die Menschen der Welt mit einander sprechen k"nnen. Wenn man nur eine Sprache kennt, ist es nicht so leicht als fuer einer die mehrerer Sprachen kennt, Kommunizieren zu koenen.
Mein Gegner will wissen warum ein Mensch zwei Sprachen kennen soll. Es ist ganz einfach. Wenn mann gescheftlich, fuer den Ausbildung, oder fuer persoenliche gruenden mit Auslaender Kommunizieren moechcte, hilft es sehr viel wenn mann mehr als eine Sprache sprechen kann.
So hat Mann hat viel mehr Gelegenheiten!
Meine Gegner koennte diese Debatte besser geniessen, hat er deutsch gesprochen. Leider muss er wieder auf Englisch zur"ckschreiben. Schade.
I am sorry that I broke a rule.
Pro never actually gave enough reason to back up his side of the argument, that each persn should speak at least two languages. The argument he used to attempt to do this is that if we could speak to each other, then there would be less of a language barrier. Yet this does not mean that each person should speak at least two languages. Pro's ideal world can be acheived by taking the most widely spoken language, and then teaching it to everyone who doesn't yet speak it. Inevitably, there would still be at leat one monolingual person that only knows this widely spoken language and still, no language barrier.
Pro provides incredibly weak rebuttals of my arguments. He first says:
(P1) There are, actually, many languages R03;R03;are widely spoken. Chinese is the most spoken, and for that it is English and Spanish.
Sure, my opponent probably didn't understand the rule, since it was in German, in which case, helps to prove that a person should, in fact, at least know two languages.
Now, my opponent tried to translate what I said and failed miserably. It seems he tried to use a computer to do the translation, which resulted in bad grammar and a loss of the true meaning of what was said. Again, more proof that a person should know more than one language.
Since my opponent couldn't understand what I was saying, his responses were not accurate.
I was attempting to state what the most widely spoken languages were.
In any case, my opponent attempted to argue that if the entire world only spoke one language we wouldn't need to learn others. That's nice, but that's not what the debate is about. In reality, there are hundreds of languages spoken in the world and in reality, knowing more than one language will be beneficial.
If the world was flat, we would fall off of it .... "If" isn't an argument for what is real.
So, in closing, I want to say that I won this debate because my rule was broken, my opponent couldn't fully understand my arguments and by not being able to understand, he proved my point that being at least bilingual, is necessary in today's world.
Please do not vote, if you couldn't understand the debate, yourself.
My opponent's argument is that being at least bilingual is necessary in today's world (for there to be less of a language barrier), yet this is false. It is not necessary. As I've pointed it out before, there can be less of a language barrier if we take the most widely spoken language and then teach everyone it. Inevitably, there would still be a monolingual who only speaks this widely spoken language.
My opponent tries to shake off this objection, but I see no refutation worth answering to.
But still, even if his argument were sound, he fails to prove that each person should speak at least two languages. His argument attempts to prove that bilingualism is a good idea, but he has made no connection between bilingualism being a good idea (rather subjectively, might I add) and each person should speak at least two languages. He has only said it subjectively. Any fool can make an opinion.
Conduct - Pro, as I broke a rule.
Spelling & Grammar - Tie.
More convincing arguments - Me, as Pro made no good arguments at all.
Sources - Tie, no sources used were relevant to arguments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.