The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should Latinos be allowed to speak their language recreationally within the USA?

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for asta to post argument for round #4. If you are asta, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 233 times Debate No: 113991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




-No backing out. If your convinced on either side, say "I'm convinced" in your round. It also is bad for your reputation if you do back out, which would cause you to lose points.
-Round 1 is an acceptence round. Rounds 2+ is where we put our arguments.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


What do the separatist movements of:

1:Austria Hungary
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession
5:Belgium vs Flanders
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds
7:United Kingdom vs Wales
8:Canada vs Quebec
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

All have in common? They are all on the basis of cultural differences between the parent country and the smaller power.

Why am I telling you this? Because I am afraid of the same thing happening to the United States (US).

Unassimilated Latinos are coming into this country and they are in the process of making super majorities in certain areas in the country. Once they accomplish this, they then will want to secede from the rest of the country.

If you think this is just nonsense, unfortunately, it's not. The president of Mexico has said that he is the president of 123 Mexicans; 100 million in Mexico and 23 million in the US. La Raza and MEChA, which aren't extremist groups, but they are mainstream activist groups, advocate for Mexico to take back the southwest US, even though the US bought this land for a very good price; about $750 million in cash and debt payoffs for land with less combined taxpayers than Tempe, Arizona, a place most people in this country can't locate on a map without guessing.

So, the US is probably going to break up on this basis and the only way to stop it is to force everyone in the US to Americanize.

There are people that are worried about how they would lose their culture. However, how is culture even important? It does not make you who you are, what makes the individual who they are are the things that they accomplish in life, not their ethnicity.

If the US broke up on the other hand, it would be significantly less able to defend freedom worldwide. Since the US would have to deal with a separatist movement from Latin Americans, it would mean it would be less able to focus on defending the world from North Korea(NK) and ISIS.

People say NK made peace with South Korea(SK), but whether or not this happens in the long term is up for speculation.

If the US is unable to deal with NK and ISIS due to the Latin American separatist movements, then SK and Japan both become communist from an invasion directed by NK and China because there is no USA to stop them. Russia would probably invade all of Europe because there is no USA to stop them and spread communism there. ISIS would take the middle east and all of Africa because there is no USA to stop them.

This will happen form the US being unable to fight them due to the US having a local Latin American conflict to deal with. Since the UN would preach, (Self determination, you should have assimilated them while you had the chance), the US would resist this and as a form of protest, eliminate the UN within it's borders, which is headquartered in the US. At best, the UN is headquartered somewhere else, at worst, it ceases to exist. The nations become more divided, even if they are already divided.

In summary, if Latinos are allowed to keep their culture, it would make them want to secede. This claim is backed up by some of the many times in world history that different cultures break away to preserve their culture. If the US breaks up, then freedom worldwide would be lost. Over 6 billion people would be under a communist system, with some Islamic law in there. I estimate that 600 million people would get killed under the fascist governments, because that's how they work; by killing all your political opponents.

Either immigrants endure the necessary assilimination pain or the US dies as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


-- Alec Stanton


My opponents argument consists mainly of the point that if Latinos don't assimilate then the U.S. will face a series of secession wars that will lead to the dissolution of the Union. Never mind that seceding from the Union has already been tried in a time when the U.S. military was far weaker (even adjusting for available technology.) The U.S. military would likely have no trouble putting down some scattered insurrections. On a more important note, my opponents argument lies in the assumptions that insurrections are inevitable and that enforcing a universal language is the only way to ensure assimilation. Firstly, I would adamantly agree that all people in this country should learn to speak English, but forcing the complete abandonment of the Mother Tongue is one surefire way to breed animosity between Latinos and the U.S. Moreover, the proposed policy stands in complete contradiction of the values and moral standards of the United States. Restricting any form of speech in any language is, in my opinion, and in the opinions of the founders, contrary to the duty that a government has to ensure freedom of speech and constitutes a violation of the Social Contract. This is made especially true by the fact that violent insurrection, or even secessionist movements are not inevitable. My opponent brings up several historical examples of previous secession movements. But many of the examples have fundamental problems when applied to his argument. Let's start at the top and work our way down on the ones with issues.

1. Austria Hungary was forcibly separated after WWI by the allied powers. The internal problems never manifested in revolution and were largely the result of recent military conquest and mismanagement by the Empire.

2. The people of Ukraine and Crimea want to join Russia not because of cultural differences as is shown by polls showing heavy, near universal support for Russian annexation because of a higher quality of life in Russia regardless of ethnicity or culture.(1)

3. Catalonia wants to secede from Spain for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is over the top taxation and mismanagement by the struggling Spanish government. The Basques are agitated about the massive decrease in the regional autonomy they had enjoyed for centuries.

4. Texas wanted to secede from mexico because of the abolishment of the 1824 constitution which granted them greater freedom, and the fact that Texans at the time held slaves while slavery was illegal in Mexico. They had to call them "indentured servants" which the Mexican authorities grudgingly went along with it but the issue would flare up many times.

I could go on and on but the point is that there are always a multitude of reasons for secessionist movements besides culture.

More importantly, We need to decide if we believe that the Con side will solve for his impact. The question is: "will forcing Latinos to stop speaking Spanish force cultural assimilation?" The answer, dear voters, is a resounding no. I ask you. is language culture? is that all culture is? Of course not. Culture is music, art, holidays, religion and a myriad of other components. In order to force complete cultural assimilation in the way con suggests, forcing the abandonment of cultural components, we would also need to ban Spanish holidays, Latin Music, Authentic Mexican food, perhaps even Catholicism itself. I refer you back to my previous point when I say that all of this would lead to massive animosity and agitation that may lead to the insurrection con is scared of as this does constitute cultural oppression. The rest of my opponents argument is all "what if?" questions about what could happen if the U.S. collapses because of revolts. This could all come to pass much easier if the U.S. stoops to cultural oppression as several of the nations on his previous list had. The Roman Empire comes to mind. Since I have shown that his solution does not link to his impact none of this will come to pass in the way he thinks it will.

To conclude this round, none of what my opponent says will come to pass because of language. However, It may all come to pass because of the actions he would take to prevent it. In the words of French Poet Jean De La Fontaine: "A person often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has said that a civil war wouldn't be effective since the US fought a civil war and failed. However, during the 1st civil war, the United States barely won. While the North had significently more recources, the South had better tacticians and generals ( To put it in perspective, General E Lee, the Southern General, was a desendant of George Washington, a general who led a renegade army to get independence from at the time, the biggest army in the world (The British army). That's how good Washington was which meant that Washington's genes were inside Lee. It was because of this that according to the video 1:45 to 2:16. that the deciding reason why the Union won was because a messenger from the south failed to deliever a message from Generall E Lee and this message was intercepted by the Union, which allowed them to catch the confederates off guard. If this rare event didn't happened, the Dixies would have won the civil war. Just because the US won the civil war once does guarantee a victory a 2nd time. This mentality would be like a baseball team thinking that they will always win just because they won once before.

"my opponents argument LIES". I am saying that languages have had a repeated history of breaking countries apart and that it can happen to the United States as well. I did not say that a universal language or even a national language would be the only things that would be required for assilimination, but it is part of assilimination.

*"Forcing the complete abandonment of the Mother Tongue is one surefire way to breed animosity between Latinos and the U.S.". This isin't inheritely what I believe nor is it true. Latinos can know Spanish and Portuegese, but within the public sphere of the United States, they should not be speaking their iberian languages within the US. Just as other immigrints that have came to the US tended to not speak their native tounge (Armenian Americans tend to not publicly speak Armenia recreationally, Greek Americans tend to not publicly speak Greek recreationally, etc). Exceptions to this are when they are talking to someone of their ethnicity, and even then it is only sometimes Since Armenian and Greek immigrints relize that their language isin't going to be commonplace in where they are moving, they tend to hide their language so Assilimination happens much faster. They are rare within the United States.

However, areas that have significent populations in the US, like Hispanics, tend to lose their culture more slowly since they have the nessesary population percentage to keep it. Remember how immigrints on tend to keep their foreign language hidden unless This then would lead to them wanting to scede.

*Here, my opponent is refering to the 1st amendment, which allows for freedom of speech. However, Freedom of speech is a reference to freedom of political expression. Even George Washington believed in the assimilation of Native Americans west of the Application.(Para 6, line 6)( Even though it does directly talk about language, it shows that George Washington didn't care about the Native American cultures. He wanted the Natives to get assiliminated within American culture, this also could have extended to language, which the natives tended to assiliminate on theiir own. He also believed the Native American cultures would die out eventually and he thought them assiliminating to American culture was inevitible and good (

My opponent tries to explain why only some of my example sepratist movements are not legitimate. This is part of the rebuttle on his rebuttle.

"Hungary was forcibly separated after WWI by the allied powers." The TOV was signed in 1919, Austria Hungary broke up in 1918. They did not break up due to the allies ( "The internal problems never manifested in revolution and were largely the result of recent military conquest and mismanagement by the Empire." The mismanagement that caused Austria Hungary (AH) to break up was allowing multiple regional languages to exist in numbers as promonent as they were. If AH unified their culture, then the country would still exist today.

My opponenent claims that many Ukranans, especially those in crimea, want to join Russia because it can offer a better quality of life. However, if cultural has no correlation on whether or not East Ukriaine wants to join Russia, then how come the reigions within Ukraine that want to join Russia have more ethnic russians? It's not like Western Ukraine wants to join Russia nearly as badly as the east. I wonder why.

Catalonia does get taxed a lot. However, this alone does not explain why they want to scede. Otherwise, rich states within the US like Alaska would want to scede just like Catalonia. Alaskans according to your logic, Alaskans would have had even higher desire for sepertion then the Catalonians since the average Alaskan pays more money to the US government then the typical Catalonan does to the Spainish government. However, most Alaskans don't want to secede and out of their elections, the highest independence rate was less then 40%. However, Catalonians, despite less money being paid to their government, have a sepratist rate over 80% of the amount who voted, and this is on the low end of estimates.

The Basques already have lots of autonomy and Spain respects the minority languages within their country. A quote from the Spanish constitution, "all Spaniards and the peoples of Spain in the exercise of human rights, their cultures and traditions, languages and institutions."( Despite the language freedom and the autonomy, the Basque want independence.

My opponent also claims that there were ideological differences between Texas and Mexico. This is true, however, is it any different now? The states where Latinos tend to settle tend to be liberal. Just as the Anglo Texans wanted to suceed on the basis of language and ideology, so would the Latinos in Liberal states.

If the question is, "will forcing Latinos to stop speaking Spanish force cultural assimilation?" The answer, dear voters, is a resounding yes. Language is not all of culture and I don't want to eliminate all parts of culture, however trivial they may be(some are trivial, some are not). However, the question is not, "Should Latinos be allowed to keep their culture?" I had that debate before and my question is now rephrased. Latinos can be catholac, they can eat tacos. That's not the debate. The debate is "Should Latinos be allowed to speak their language recreationally within the USA?". There are times when they can speak their language. If they are in their houses, its okay since sepratist moveent rates are minimized. If it's for educational pourposes, then they are learning the language, that's also fine. However, in all other regards, their culture would cause a sepratist movement unless something is done about it now.

My opponent is saying that forcing Latinos to give up their culture will actually make them more likely to seceed. However, history confirms the opposite thesies.

Actually, the former nations that were on that list had let other cultures within their countries to exist, and they broke apart because of it. The Roman Empire put many foreigners in concentration camps. However, According to Alternate History Hub's, "What if the Roman empire never fell part 1", it states (1:45-2:00) that one problem with the Roman empire was that it was very diverse. He is refering to the lingwistic and cultural diversity within the empire. If they were lingwistically homogenous, then the empire would have a higher chance of surviving. Religious minorities can be solved a different way then making them illegal. That's for next round though.

"A person often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." This quote can apply to people who want to allow others to keep their culture to prevent them from suceeding. This quote can apply to both our ideologies, since both of us want to keep the US together. The quote does not apply in all situations. An example, an epitome even of when this quote wouldn't apply is if people study for tests in order to avoid getting a bad graade on them. The more you study, generally the better grade you will get. THere are some situations where this quote applies and some where it does not. It does not apply here. More assilimination tends to lead to less likely for a group to scede.

Here's a quote that may aply to your argument, but not to mine. "If you give them an inch, they take a mile". If you allow people some rights, they tend to want more.



Here are the real reasons the South lost the Civil War and how those would affect any new civil war in pockets of Latino aggression.
1. resources. Confederacy was at an early disadvantage because of their lack of war time resources. Any pockets of Latino revolutionaries would also be hopelessly outmatched in resources against the U.S. military.

2. Administrative capacity. The North developed a much stronger group of governmental leaders. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox, and others brought great skill and efficiency to their roles.

The American Civil War was one of the first industrially-driven wars. The flow of supplies and transportation was vital to success. The North managed these systems better and ran a more balanced economy to support them. The Confederacy suffered 9,000% inflation, and troops struggled for supplies. Any Latino revolutionaries would also struggle administratively because of the nature of pockets of resistance. They would also require an influx of money from an outside source which would lead to regional inflation.

3. Contrary to my opponents claims, Generalism. The focus of the Civil war is often focused on the East where Robert E. Lee makes it appear that the Confederacy had better leadership. However, Generals Grant and Sherman in the West can easily compete with, and many scholars claim outshone Lee. Furthermore, Lee's focus on the East led to over committal in the East by the Confederacy so when Lee's army was annihilated at Gettysburg the South lost any hope of victory. All the while the Union was tearing the Confederacy apart in the West. The U.S. military would almost certainly have much better generals than any revolutionaries.

My opponent makes the claim that language has broken apart countries before and so my argument is false. However, it isn't language, but culture that leads to animosity which I have already shown and shall no doubt go on to reaffirm later this round. If you only ban language which is what this debate is, then you would not actually force assimilation you would only breed animosity and make things worse.

None of what my opponent says in his next point contradicts my point. Nothing. He only states that when people don't need to speak their language they tend to stop. This has nothing to do with animosity and is not comparable because the Greeks and Armenians choose not to speak their language. Using force to compel Latinos to stop speaking their language would make them hate you.

My opponents next point states that George Washington wanted natives to assimilate and that he believed it was good. He did offer them the tools to assimilate according to my opponents source, but he did not force them to take it. Big difference. His source never says that any American policy of the time compelled natives to give up any of their culture against their will. Which means he has not shown my claim to be false and in fact, has reaffirmed it as Washington only attempted to persuade them to assimilate. He did not force them to.

"Austria and Hungary were treated as two completely new countries after these treaties were signed. Both lost land to neighbouring countries; the new state of Czechoslovakia was effectively created out of this carve-up of land; large blocks of land went to Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. Part of Austria went to Italy." later there would be pressure from the allies for Austria-Hungary to break up completely. Wikipedia was wrong. Imagine that. The treaties mentioned were the two treaties of Versailles that Austria-Hungary was forced to sign which was indicative of the beginning of Allied pressure for dissolving the Austrian Empire. He also dropped the point on recent military conquest.

My opponents point on Ukraine and Crimea fails to address the pivotal point that annexation has near universal support across ethnic lines as was evidenced in the source I cited last round. While ethnic Russians MAY have a stronger desire to be annexed, it as less to do with culture and more to do with other variables.

My opponents point on Catalonia doesn't hold water. He claims that since Alaska pays high taxes and doesn't want to secede, and Catalonia pays high taxes and does want to secede that taxation must be irrelevant or at least less important than culture. While culture does play a part, the biggest reasons the Catalans themselves give is over taxation.

His point on the Basques is also false. The Basques have been seeing a decrease in autonomy since the 1800's and there are more recent attacks on the autonomy statute recently. Also, only 17 percent of Basques want independence from Spain at all.

Just because your demographic leans left doesn't mean you want to secede. Especially when half of the Nation supports your viewpoint anyway. They already live in parts of the country where they are in a general political consensus with their neighbors regardless of ethnicity. That isn't a reason to secede. In Texas, the majority of the country disagreed with them and there were laws on the books that banned what they believed in, which as I already said, was slavery. These two things are nothing alike.

First off, if you actually want to achieve your stated goal of cultural assimilation in the way you want to go about it then you need to attack all areas of culture not just one aspect. Also, Simply forcing them not to speak Spanish in public doesn't seem like it would do much. You claim it would reduce separatist sentiments but you don't make any attempt to prove your claim. That's an important step you skipped. If they are allowed to carry on in private no cultural assimilation would happen.

I gave a listen to the video you mentioned and it makes the claim that the if the Romans had continued to expand they would have taken on more Germanic characteristics. Which would lead to Germans wanting more power. The video does not make the claim that this is why Rome would have fallen only that the Empire would decentralize and the German people would eventually attack Rome looking for autonomy. Again, this has less to do with culture and more to do with a desire for self governance. This same pattern holds in revolutions such as the American Revolution which also was because of a desire to govern themselves even though they shared a common culture.

I agree that more assimilation leads to less liberty desire. But FORCED assimilation leads to a greater liberty desire because of the policies needed to enforce it. the idea I presented does work here. Forced Assimilation rarely works in any case. After the Moors were driven out of Iberia during the Reconquista many Muslims remained in Castile (which is now spain.) There was suddenly and completely unexpectedly... BOOM! the Spanish Inquisition! Among their chief weaponry were such diverse elements as surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and cool red uniforms! After the Inquisition many of the Moriscos continued to practice Islam in secret rather than give in to Catholicism. The forced assimilation failed here as it had many times in the past. Meanwhile as the Inquisition occurred in 1478 the Morisco Revolt happened in 1568. Had the Muslims been allowed to live in peace, there may have been no revolt.

I happen to believe that giving people the right to express their culture is a just action that should not be dissuaded because they might want more rights. Maybe those rights are just as well.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asta 3 minutes ago
Just because the confederates lost does not mean everyone will lose.
Posted by mosc 4 minutes ago
""You tend to be believing that just because the United States had a civil war once automatically means that they will always win civil wars. ""

Most foul accusation Sir. The Confederacy lost the war, and I represent the patriots of the Confederate States of America.
Posted by asta 2 days ago
You go off topic here. My claim is that cultures have had a repeated history of dividing nations.

You tend to be believing that just because the United States had a civil war once automatically means that they will always win civil wars. This is not true. Just because you win once does not guarantee a 2nd victory.

It's better not to have a war to begin with. This saves money and lives. Even conservatives(like myself) don't support war unless there is a good enough reason. If the United States would have to fight to keep it's country together, it's better to not have the element causing the civil war in the 1st place.

Prevention is the best cure.
Posted by mosc 2 days ago
America the melting pot, America had open doors to political refugees. The words of the Statue of Liberty. No i do not intend to be rude. But the notion that foreign languages produces Civil Wars seems totally absurd to me. The American Civil War - fought over how to read the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Generally a revolt does not just happen, it simmers light a chili cooks on low heat and then explodes. Slavery existed as the point of explosion, but States Rights and the autonomy of the States to conduct trade independent of Washington - this defined the Civil War. Can Washington regulate the sale of property from one State to a territory or foreign country? The North read the Commerce Clause, and post war passed the Inter-State Commerce Clause in the 1880s. The North favored a Central Bank and opposed Jacksonian/Jefferson ideas of the Republic.
Posted by asta 4 days ago
It is proven with current evidence. You are kindof being rude mosc.
Posted by mosc 5 days ago
Bunk. Language causes poltical unrest. Bunk. You have a big huge gigantic unproven theory.
Posted by asta 1 week ago
The Latinos should be speaking English within the United States in order to prevent separatist movements within the country.
Posted by mosc 1 week ago
The southern states of America have, in many cities, a spik majority population. What language should the people of San Antonio speak, they have a spik Mayor?
Posted by asta 1 week ago
Sorry about posting the same thing 2x.
Posted by asta 1 week ago
In Belgium, they have 3 official languages (Dutch, French, German).

Because of this, 44% of people in Flanders want to break away from Belgium. I wonder why.

The language wall has also allowed Walloon to claim Brussels in the event of Flanders breaking away. If Brussels wasn't an exclave, this would be non disputably part of Walloon.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.