The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should global langauges be allowed?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 80257
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Dear users who are watching this debate and my fellow debater, me on the opposition side firmly believe that Global languages shouldn't be accepted. Before introducing my main point, I'd like to introduce English, which is now a Global Language. English is organized with 26 letters from A to Z. English was influenced by French and British English. Also, I'd like to define the meaning of global languages. Global language is a language that is used all over the world in meaning to have a fluency of communication by only using one language during meetings, etc. Now let's start the first round. The first reason why global languages should not be accepted is because languages serves other functinos besides of communication. Language also forms the basis of many art forms. The differences between the way a language sounds and the difference in meanings embodied in words make certain languages more suitable for poetry and others more suitable for technical writings. It's hard to imagine that one universal language could fulfill both roles.


Right, sorry for the wait.

Now, I'll treat English as a global language as you said but I'd just like to remind you that it's not used absolutely world-wide. It's the most prevalent, indeed, but some parts of the world still use Spanish, French or Chinese for example as a norm of international communication.

Ok for the first round.

You said that language amongst other purposes forms the basis of many art forms. I don't quite see your point here as one (communication) doesn't exclude the other. English itself is an example of how those two coexist as it is in a major use as a tool of communication and also an art form, see Shakespeare or Byron. Whichever language you yourself are speaking I'm pretty sure you use it in a creative, artistic way and communicatively as well, right?

You also mentioned "one universal language" which doesn't actually fall under this topic because English as an example of a global language is actually spoken far more as a second language. This means that a global language is and can be used without making other languages to die out, thus actually not making it a universal language after all (hope you catch my drift). To be fair, global languages are somewhat a threat to smaller languages but it's up to those people themselves to protect and preserve that heritage.

For my opening statement. Communication is a very handy and important tool nowadays to make the world function unitedly. So handy and important, in fact, that it firmly outweighs the counterargument of it not being suited for art or poetry for instance, which is still in question, by the way.

I think that the main reason you think a global language is a poor idea is because of it's massive abuse at an incompetent level so that it loses its emotional touch. Example being masses of people who learn or study it so that the only adjectives thay can use are "good" and "bad". I agree that it's a problematic matter but these circumstances can be fixed. Unaccepting global languges entirely wouldbring along more problems that it would resolve.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, again sorry for the amount of time you waited.

Before to move on to my second point, I'd like to answer your rebuttals and rebut your point.

You said that English itself is an example coexist as it is in a major use as a tool of communication.
However, English is pushing away the tribal languages. The colonies of U.K. and U.S. were all speaking English.

Now I'd like to rebut your argument. You said that communication is a very handy and important tool nowadays. However, mixture languages such as Kongish, Japlish, etc. would appear. Same as the global language. Because people all over the world has their tribal pronounciation so mixture languages always appear.

Second, it's hard to make a global language. Only 56 percent of the Internet are being written or stored by English. Well, 44 and 56, there isn't a major difference. Even English are influenced by French, Spainish, and British form of English, British have ezetts, French has accents. These things make the other 44 percent a major rising language. Also we could not disregard Chinese. According to, Chinese is only an official language on China, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, and Taiwan. However, including all of Chinese language types, 1,146,755,000 people are using Chinese as a first language. Including second language speakers, 1,343,755,000 speaks Chinese.

Well, I'd like to ask to the proposition speaker. Which language should we actually use as a global language that we are going to use?


"However, English is pushing away the tribal languages. The colonies of U.K. and U.S. were all speaking English."
What does this exactly mean? First of all, U.K. didn't have any colonies, it was the British Empire and U.S. was a colony itself before the declaration. Now, it's been a pretty long time since any country has had a colony and with that in mind we can assume that a global language isn't going to push away tribal language. As already said, if a language becomes extinct it's really the fault of the speakers for not passing it on.

I said that communication is handy and important and you supposedly refuted it by saying that mixture languages would appear.
1) What's the correlation, how does this refute my argument?
2) Mixture languages "always" appear, what's the proof of this? Right now there are basically British English and American English. And they are almost exactly the same language, the only difference being some pronounciations, spellings and words.

56% of the Internet is being written or stored in English. So, what's the other 44%? It's obviously all the other languages combined, the very most another language can get is probably around 10% I would say and 56% vs ~10% is a really big difference.

Your argument that over 1.3 billion people speak Chinese as a second language is strictly incorrect. If that was correct thos 2 would accumulate into almost 3 billion people total speaking Chinese, doesn't sound very realistic, does it? Actually, over 1 billion peple speak Chinese as their first language and a couple hundred million as a secong language. English has 4 times the people speaking it as a second language whilst for Chinese it's about 0.2 times. This means that Chinese is almost exclusively spoken in China and is not a global language. It can also never be because the Western world uses arabic alphabet whilst the Chinese use hieroglyphs.

We don't have to invent a new global language, English is fine as it is. It's simple and frankly a well structured language.
Debate Round No. 2


Hello again Proposition speaker. Before starting my main point. I'd like to answer your rebuttals, and rebut your rebuttals.

First, sorry for calling British Empire U.K. It was my mistake. My point of 'However, English is pushing away the tribal languages. The colonies of U.K. and U.S. were all speaking English.' I had a bit of information error of the term 'all', but however, major of people were using English among the British Empire's colonies, and current and past U.S. colonies. According to Wikipedia, In British Empire's colonies, there are Dominica, Grenada, Malta, Vanutu, Barbados, India, etc. are using English as a legal official langauge. Also, Guyana, New Zealand, U.S. itself, Canada, Australia, Ireland which were also British Empire's colonies, most of the citizens are using English as a mother tongue. In US's current and past colonies, Philippines, Marshall Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianans, etc. are using English as a legal official language.

Next, you said that communication is handy and important. I agree with this idea. What my point was 'Commuication is handy and important. But, global languages don't make communication handy and important.'

Third, I provided a mixture language of Japlish, and Konglish which is mixture of Japanese and English(Japlish), and mixture of Korean and English(Konglish). However, you answered it as a wrong example. Well, actually British language, Australian language, Indian language. English have many types. You said that the only difference is some pronouncations, spellings, and words. That's right. But, I think that is quite a major difference that we could not ignore.

Fourth, you said that 40% are organized with lot of '10%s'. Well, that could might be true on the data, but it's not actually proven. What I'd like to add is that we are not using English in Internet that much. What you had mentioned in the last sentence. 'English is fine as it is. It's simple and frankly a well structured language.' However, the data around 50% being used in Internet is not enough.

Finally, I am afraid that you interpretted by point incorrectly. I said that 'Also we could not disregard Chinese.' Didn't I? The purpose of the point is that there are many Chinese speakers so we could not actually disregard Chinese. But you are rebutting like I said that we should make Chinese a global language. What I all wanted to say is that Chinese speakers are exercising a massive power so we could not ignore Chinese.

Well, I think this is all of the answer to your rebuttal.

Now, finally moving on to my main point.

Third, global language could make people lose their jobs. What if we use a strict global language, then overwhelming majority of people would not speak their mother tongue language, becuase it has no need to speak, because even in our country. We need to use the global language, becuse it is the legal official language. Mother tongue speakers will drop rapidly. It's because two reasons. The first reason is because people could not realize the importance to speak the language besides of the global language because it has no needs. Then, linguistic organizations would disapper. The second reason is leads to less people knowing that language.
For this reason, it makes massive people to lose their jobs.

Do you think this is actually necessary to stick to use a global language and violate the jobs of the world citizens?


Back to the colonies, ey? I don't think this topic is relevant to this debate as all the former colonial countries are free to change their official language as desired. As I've already said independent countries are bound to protect their own language, it's not up to others to ban global languages to accomplish it.

Communication is handy and important and that is exactly what a global language provides. Without a global language there would much less international communication, simple.

What I meant as a mixture of language is something that is actually recognized as a different dialect officially. When accessing an internet site you may be prompted to choose between American English and British English for instance. Never will you see Japlish or Konglish. Furthermore, your whole statement of more mixture languages going to appear was purely hypothetical. For all we know it is actually more likely to not happen because as of now different English dialects only appear in countries that have English as their official language. And a global language doesn't have to be an official language.

According to there are 6909 distinct languages. That means that the remaining 44% of languages used in the Internet consist of 6900 something. By saying that one language could go up to 10% I was just being dramatic to prove a point that EVEN IF it did, it would still not come close to the amount of English spoken.

It is true that Chinese is a massive power, however, it is that only in China itself. Almost 90% of people who speak Chinese do so as as their first language. That means that Chinese simply isn't a "proficient" enough of a language to practise it as a global language. English is simple and it uses the alphabet and language structure commonly known to the Western world. Sometimes quality>quantity.

Your last pont is simply incorrect as a global language DOES NOT have to be an official language. English is a global language but it is an official language in only a few countries. Moreover, your whole statement that global languages cause job loss is VERY far fetched. On the contrary, think of how many jobs a global languages provides. It is actually a massive amount.

I also have a question for Con. Why do you think English as a global language started to exist? Maybe it's just the evolutional development of mankind to communicate with each other. Without global languages there would be less communication, that means less travelling, which means less trading which means less resources for everyone. The importance of communication a global language provides should not be dismissed. It is what distinguishes us from animals after all.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry for the wait, because I was busy this days. Now let's start the Round 4. It's almost done! Well, as I did it on Round 3, and according to my introductions, I'd like to answer your rebuttals, and rebut your arguments in the same time. Well, one thing different might be in Round 4, we don't have the right to post the another main point. Now, please let me start.

First, you mentioned that independent countries are bound to protect their own language, and they are free to change their official language. However, what I was focusing on was the current influence of the past colonized nations. Actually English is having a great impact that we can not ignore. Also in current past colonized nations, they are using English. This could be the small sample for the global language's effect after being legalized.

Second, I am afraid that you understanded my point incorrectly. I meant that Japlish, and Konglish changes the pronounciation, so it makes communication more complicated. I had never mentioned that we could see those languages on the Internet. Can you think oppositely? Let's imagine that English become a global language. Before, English be a global language, each nations may have various different extraordinary types of languages. Every language has pronounciation isn't? So, my point was those people may be too adapted on tribal languages, so they have hardships on pronounciaions.

Third, I think your data is wrong. You said that only China is using Chinese. Hong Kong, and Macao could be a part of China. However, Singapore isn't. Well, it's one country besides China. However, because of the amount of people. I think China is a major power. This is kind of off topic. But, that's the reason of development in Chinese economy.

Finally, I'll answer your final question you asked to me. It is kind of true that English made trips more convenient. However, I think you also far fetched. According to your logic, trips are only more uncomfortable. However, it doesn't leads to less trip. Also when we trade or have agreements between countries, there are diplomats to help the communication. It won't lead to a less trade. When we use global languages, diplomats may disappear. For this, I proved my logic about losing job.

Now, Good Luck!


Stensson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Cause it's the last round, I'd like to finally organize my main points and my rebuttals.

1. My main points

1) Language forms the basis of many art forms.

2) It's hard to make a global language.
-56 percent of the Internet are being written or stored by English.
-Being influence by French, Spanish, and British English makes English hard. French has accents, British have ezetts. English being influenced by these languages make English harder.
-We could not disregard Chinese. Chinese is only an official language on China, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, and Taiwan.
1,146,755,000 people use Chinese as first language. Including second language speakers, 1,343,755,000 speaks Chinese.

3) It make many people to lose their jobs.
-majority of people would not use mother tongue languages
-could not realize the importance

2. My rebuttals&Answer to your rebuttals

1)Rebuttals for your argument in Round 1
-mixture languages of global languages make communication very complicated
-differs pronounciation, spelling, how to write, etc.

2) Rebuttals for your argument in Round 2
-tribal languages are losing native speakers rapidly
-many past colonized countries are using English as a legal official language, and mother tongue.

3) Rebuttals for your argument in Round 3
-I had never mentioned it Japlish and Konglish are in Internet. What I was trying to say was that because of Japlish, Konglish's dfferent pronounciation, it makes communication complicated.
-tribal language's mother tongue speakers are extremely rapidly decreasing. So, not every language are posted in the Internet.
-English made trips more conveneint, but TOO FAR FETCHED. Trading between countries->Diplomats resolve the communications.
-English make diplomats disappear.

(You forfeited Round 4 so I could not rebut and answer your Round 4)

Well, thank you for debating, pro speaker, and have a good luck!


Stensson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lewis25 2 years ago
Hi there, Pro speaker Stensson. Well, before you post the Round 3 arguments and do rebuttals and introduce your main points. I'd like to introduce Round 3~Round 5's rules. Sorry for introducing it on Round 1 when the debate starts. Okay.
First, in Round 3, you should answer my rebuttlals, and rebut my ideas. Also, Round 3 is your last chance to post your point.
Second, in Round 4, you should post your overall rebuttals of my point from Round 1 through Round 4.
Finally, in Round 5, you may do the same thing as Round 4, and organize your overall arguments.
Well, again sorry for posting this message too late.
Good Luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Stefanwaal 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really blow me away. His arguments stayed blurry. Language maybe forms the basis of many art forms, but why should I care? The arguments that it's hard to create a global language is also weakly connected to the resolution. The resolution is about ALLOWING global languages and not GETTING them. Pro's points also were poorly executed. But after pro forfeited two rounds his case got damaged, which means con could win.