The Instigator
english_pws
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ChelsiaG
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should one language be standardized as the worldwide primary language?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 74879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

english_pws

Con

We should not standardize one language as the worldwide primary language. Yes, it can make international communications easier but right now - without such a language - we're managing just fine.

At this point in time the world has more than enough problems and teaching everybody one language - without there being an actual need for it - is a waste of resources. It's much more important to focus on creating piece, enable everybody to get a proper education etc. than it is to 'force' everybody to teach a language they don't need.
ChelsiaG

Pro

We should standardize one language as the worldwide primary language because if there are many different languages, it will prove to be a major barrier. For example, say you work at a hospital. You receive a patient who appears to have had a heart attack. You try to ask her if she has a history of heart problems or is in pain. There's only one issue; she doesn't speak English. Now you have to search for someone who can translate. This could cause your patient to die. This would not happen if there was one standardized language.
Debate Round No. 1
english_pws

Con

While it is true that it can lead to problems, is it really worth going through all the hassle it would take to teach everybody a new language just in case something goes wrong? Besides, things like that can still go wrong: if you have a deaf person who doesn't have a translator then you can still have problems like that even if everybody did speak the same language.

The world has bigger fish to fry than this. If someone chooses to learn a second language because they feel that it would come in handy then fine! Go ahead! But forcing everybody to learn something will just discourage people, nobody likes to be told what to do.
ChelsiaG

Pro

Yes, teaching everyone a sole language would be difficult but it is all worth it in the end. It would mean being able to trade world-wide and boost our economy big-time. Only one generation would have to learn the language. Say the language was Mandarin. About 14.4% of the world speaks Mandarin. If one generation after another learns from the other, we could get that number to 99%. Of, course deaf people would have to learn Modern Chinese Sign Language.
Debate Round No. 2
english_pws

Con

english_pws forfeited this round.
ChelsiaG

Pro

ChelsiaG forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DCPolitical 2 years ago
DCPolitical
A universal language should not be implemented because it would damage the world's cultures and lessen diversity. Although it would make it easier to communicate, the monetary cost would be too large, it would damage culture/diversity and to force the world to learn a single universal language is a violation of our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Sorry voice to text . Your argument is the statusquo.

Eventually language will become very universal, however dialects and hopefully by then some attempt at send inhumanity out into space Will divide languages get again.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
You're arguing with the status quo.
No votes have been placed for this debate.