The Instigator
Radicalguy44
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Antonio12
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points

Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States

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 12 votes the winner is...
Radicalguy44
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,815 times Debate No: 11661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (12)

 

Radicalguy44

Con

Hey guys. I am Radicalguy44, and I will be debating that English should be the official language of the US.

I would like for this to be an LD type debate.
Nothing to say now, except good luck PRO!

~Radicalguy44
Antonio12

Pro

Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States

Definitions
English-a language
should not be-ought not be
official language- language in laws,and documents
united states-inside the US border

V:diversity-different races
C:human life-life of humans

I will now state my case

V:diversity-not all people can speak English,they speak different languages
C:human life-with humans who will speak the different languages

Contention1-Not everyone can speak English
People all over the world immigrate to the US and their home country may have not spoken English.
So if they make English the official language in laws,and documents then the non-speaking English Americans will miss out.

Contention2-Relationships between countries can make learning English dangerous
Let's say a man from Vietnam immigrates to the US.
Then relationships between the US and Vietnam becomes sour.
The Vietnam government says that learning English or adopting US customs becomes an act of treason.
But,the man's family still lives in Vietnam,so if he learns English his family might get harmed.

good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Radicalguy44

Con

Thanks Antonio12 for accepting this debate. I wish you luck in this debate! :)

I'll start by attacking my opponent and also reading my case.

1st off= DEFINITIONS)
I disagree with the definition of "English" since he defined it as a language. There are many languages in the world, but English is one type. I offer this counter-definition that works better in the debate.

English = European language belonging to the West Germanic branch; the official language of Britain and closely to the United States and most of the commonwealth countries.

http://dictionary.reference.com... >

I accept all the other definitions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd off, addressing the value and criterion of my opponent
v) My opponent's value was diversity, which was defined as "not all people can speak English,they speak different languages"

First off, that definition is incorrect, since diversity is not the lack of English speakers. Second, having English as the official language does not deter diversity from occurring. There will still be different cultures, and those languages will still be spoken, but they won't be the official ones.

c) My opponent's criterion is quite arbitrary to the resolution. Human life, that's the right to life. We aren't debating on human life, but merely about official languages. Human life is not damaged when an official language is used. There are official languages all over the world, and human life is still preserved

http://www.infoplease.com... >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, for the feature presentation. Attacking my opponent's case.

His contention 1)
"Not everyone can speak English...."

There are ways in which people CAN learn different languages. We can't stop something just because some of the people can't speak English. These some of the people are the minority. According to an article website (http://findarticles.com...) only 17.6% of the population don't speak English at home. That is the minority, and we can't base ourselves on them only. There are easy ways to learn English, and you wouldn't necessarily be required to speak it. Why? Because making a language an official one, doesn't MAKE you speak it.

His Contention 2)
"Relationships between countries can make learning English dangerous"

This is an arbitrary contention regarding the resolution. He said that if a person comes to the US, the relationships between US and Vietnam become sour. This doesn't happen. We have people coming from all over the world, some of them from Mexico. Our relationship with Mexico is still quite healthy, despite them not knowing English. Leaving a country is not treason, it doesn't affect them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOw, on to my case

v) Similarities (Having something in similar.. quite straightforward definition)
c) Utilitarianism (The greater good for the greater number of people)

CONTENTION 1: English being the official language is beneficial, since that way, we can all communicate in one way. If we have all these different languages, chances are, some of them, you won't know, and communication will be difficult

CONTENTION 2: What's there to loose in using English? Nothing, but much more to win. By using English as the official language, we will be able to communicate even more effectively.

CONTENTION 3: States that have English as the language, don't only speak english. When it regards safety, public health, tourism, learning foreign languages, etc., you are allowed to speak what ever language you wants. Also, state authorities speak what ever they want.
http://www.proenglish.org...;

This is why I believe CON should win. I have stated why English is necessary. There isn't much to loose. And besides, a little question for my opponent. What language is he currently speaking?

~Radicalguy44
Antonio12

Pro

First I will attack my opponent,then defend my case.

My opponent's value is similarities,but he doesn't give any examples/
My opponent's criteria is utilitarianism (The greater good for the greater number of people)
but,what the greater number want isn't always the greater good,the people of Nazi Germany wanted to follow Hitler's Final solution,and the outcome was 12 million killed my the holocast.http://www.hawaii.edu...

His contention1 he says "English being the official language is beneficial",you might think that might be good in the beginning but in the long run,it is bad because people will get frustrated and leave and the US will suffer.

His contention2 he said"What's there to loose in using English? Nothing, but much more to win."
If we do trade with another country who doesn't speak english then we won't be able to do trade and the US will suffer

His contention 3 he said "States that have English as the language, don't only speak english."
But the laws are in english and non-eglish-people won't understand it.

Now I will defend my case

Cross-apply my attack to his criteria to his attack towards my contention 1.

He attacked my contention2 by saying This is an arbitrary contention regarding the resolution. He said that if a person comes to the US, the relationships between US and Vietnam become sour. This doesn't happen. We have people coming from all over the world, some of them from Mexico. Our relationship with Mexico is still quite healthy, despite them not knowing English. Leaving a country is not treason, it doesn't affect them.

I never said leaving a country is treason,I said going against their homecountry's law is treason.
Debate Round No. 2
Radicalguy44

Con

Thanks for responding so quickly!

I will defend and attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st off DEFINITIONS

He did not attack my counter definition, which therefore means my counter goes through
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to defend.
Values and Criterions

My opponent did not defend his value, nor his criterion, which therefore means I win those points

1) "My opponent's criteria is utilitarianism (The greater good for the greater number of people)
but,what the greater number want isn't always the greater good,the people of Nazi Germany wanted to follow Hitler's Final solution,and the outcome was 12 million killed my the holocast"

I am well-aware that this happened, but there is no reason for this to happen again. The language is not as serious as what happened. Worst case scenario, people don't follow the rule, but it will not get to the point where people will kill. There are official languages all around the world. For example: Britain, english is it's official language, and the Holocaust didn't happen

2) "My opponent's value is similarities,but he doesn't give any examples/

That is not a reasonable attack, since he is not attacking it with counters, therefore I win this point
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense time! :)

1) "His contention1 he says "English being the official language is beneficial",you might think that might be good in the beginning but in the long run,it is bad because people will get frustrated and leave and the US will suffer."

This is again, not true. Official languages are all around the world, and what he's done hasn't happened. Some states from the United States use English as the official language. Guess what? They haven't suffered!

< source: http://www.us-english.org... >

2) "His contention2 he said"What's there to loose in using English? Nothing, but much more to win."
If we do trade with another country who doesn't speak english then we won't be able to do trade and the US will suffer"

Arbitrary argument again. We are focusing on what the citizens will speak. This is not an international official language, so there is no reason as to why the country would suffer.

3) His contention 3 he said "States that have English as the language, don't only speak english."
But the laws are in english and non-eglish-people won't understand it.

That is where learning English comes into place. Another arbitrary argument. Translators are available!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE time

1) "Cross-apply my attack to his criteria to his attack towards my contention 1.

His attack wasn't really an attack. All he said was "he didn't give examples", which isn't an attack, and wins that point to the CON side.

2) "I never said leaving a country is treason,I said going against their homecountry's law is treason.

Not a defense at all. He is clarifying what he said, and not attacking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTERS:

My opponent did not attack successfully. In LD, he has the burden of proof, and his defense was very weak. All he said was that I didn't give examples, not worthy of a point. I have attacked all his points, and proven successfully that English should be the official language. My opponent's defense was weak, and not good.

I believe that the CON should win, because of the amount of better arguments presented. Thanks to my opponent for participating, good luck in voting

Please vote CON / NEGATIVE

~Radicalguy44
Antonio12

Pro

Contention1-Not everyone can speak English
People all over the world immigrate to the US and their home country may have not spoken English.
So if they make English the official language in laws,and documents then the non-speaking English Americans will miss out.

Contention2-Relationships between countries can make learning English dangerous
Let's say a man from Vietnam immigrates to the US.
Then relationships between the US and Vietnam becomes sour.
The Vietnam government says that learning English or adopting US customs becomes an act of treason.
But,the man's family still lives in Vietnam,so if he learns English his family might get harmed.

VOTERS:

My opponent did not attack successfully. His defense was very weak. All he said was that I didn't give examples, not worthy of a point. I have attacked all his points, and proved successfully that English should not be the official language. My opponent's defense was weak, and not good.

I believe that the Pro should win, because of the amount of better arguments presented. Thanks to my opponent for participating, good luck in voting

Please vote Pro / Affirmative

~Antonio12
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ur_mom 6 years ago
ur_mom
wow.. really? This debate shouldn't even be close. CON clearly had better arguments, and besides, PRO plagiarized their voters, not making it valid at all

CON should win by a clear margin.. this should not be tied at all
Posted by bored123456 6 years ago
bored123456
lol, that is true
Posted by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
I would appreciate if the PRO did not use my same voters.. that's called plagiarism sir
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Vigrant 6 years ago
Vigrant
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by ur_mom 6 years ago
ur_mom
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Donutdude143 6 years ago
Donutdude143
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MCJazz77 6 years ago
MCJazz77
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Demetra 6 years ago
Demetra
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 6 years ago
mackoman_93
Radicalguy44Antonio12Tied
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:60