The Instigator
AdamJ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
midnightJZ
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should a universal language be implemented which every student should have to learn?

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...
midnightJZ
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,906 times Debate No: 23196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

AdamJ

Con

Should a universal language be implemented? The simple answer is no. Although the idea looks good on paper, it would be almost impossible to implement and would cause more harm than good. Universal languages have been created in the past, but failed. Thus, with little scrutiny it is evident that cultures around the world should keep their own distinct languages, rather than conforming to a single one.
midnightJZ

Pro

A universal language would be extremely beneficial to the growing world. It would be, even if it contained only a limited – though sure to grow – amount of words/phrases, it would be very unifying for the generations who would be raised learning it. Con talks about it like it’s going to eradicate culture and individual languages, but it’s all about unity, which the world needs an awful lot of. Though it would be difficult, it would not be impossible to implement, especially because language doesn’t have to be explicitly written to be a language. Even just a verbal universal language would do more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 1
AdamJ

Con

As I stated before, a universal language looks great on paper. Not only would it allow people from different countries and cultures to easily communicate, it would allow society to move at a faster pace. But unfortunately, this would be a disaster of gargantuan proportions. According to Pro, a universal language would be beneficial because it would create unity. With unity, however, comes a loss of many aspects of cultures that we find most important. But how else could implementing a universal language affect society?
To begin my argument, I would like to make reference to the language "Esperanto", which was introduced in 1887 as an international auxiliary language. The idea behind Esperanto is the same as the international language we are discussing in this debate. The end result is that the language was a disaster, with only a few hundred native speakers. We learn from our mistakes, and the lesson we learned from Esperanto is that a universal language is not the answer.
midnightJZ

Pro

Con still says that by accepting a universal language, we'd be destroying "many aspects of cultures that we find most important" but neglects to realize that as long as the world doesn't consist of just one person, there will never be total unity; it just be breaking down a massive language barrier, that could lead to far fewer conflicts.
Also, in reference to "Esperanto"
(http://esperanto-usa.org...):
It was 1887. The world is much "smaller" now, the literacy rate is much higher, and, though this is strictly opinion, more people would probably be willing/able to learn a language like that.
Also, Con says "only a few hundred native speakers", but according to Wikipedia, which, yes, I understand must be taken with a grain of salt, says it was at least 2 million.
The main thing to keep in mind here is that I'm not suggesting we employ a universal language to replace other languages, just to open the waves of communication for students and people everywhere.
Debate Round No. 2
AdamJ

Con

Con suggests that there would be a higher probability of a universal language being successful today. However, what Con fails to realize is that this is not the case. First, today's students would not be more "willing/able" to learn a universal language, as students are spending less and less time participating in academics. What this means, is that people would be less likely to want to learn the language, which would take a great amount of time to learn.

Moreover, if a universal language were to be implemented, everything would need to be translated for it to have any use. This means web pages, books, movies, etc. Pro states that a universal language should not replace prevailing languages, but then what's the point of a universal language, if other languages will be the primary source of communication? Also, what about the millions of people who do not have the resources to learn the new language? Should they be left behind and have less opportunity?
midnightJZ

Pro

Con is generalizing. He says that students are spending less time participating in academics, and there for will be less likely to want to learn a language. That's a non sequitur. Just because some kids want to play videogames more than learn a language doesn't mean that they can't or that their guardians wouldn't make them. And just because they're learning it, wouldn't take away their own language. For example, there's nothing wrong with me knowing English and mostly using it, however also being able to speak the Universal Language at business meetings or in foreign tourist traps would be nice (or in some cases even life saving). And though I know we're talking about a universal language, I have to responde to Con's comment about leaving people behind who don't have the means to learn a new language, they don't have to learn the whole language. Knowing simple things like "We need an ambulance" or "Where is the train station?" would be very helpful.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
It's an impossibility.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
I've never heard of that idea, but it sounds brilliant to me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
AdamJmidnightJZTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to have to vote Pro here because most of Con's arguments didn't have any sources or reasoning to back them up, while Con did.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
AdamJmidnightJZTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible args. Pro had one source