The Instigator
EzequielCruz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Should people have a basic understandment of English before they move to USA?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 45628
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

EzequielCruz

Con

Should people be required a basic understandment of the English language before moving to the United States?

People should not be required to have at least a basic understanding of English before they are allowed into this country. This has been a debate that has sparked controversy over the years; many are in favor of those who say that it should be mandatory for foreingners to verse themselves in English before they consider moving to America. However, others say this would make America a secluded country, and limit cultural diversity, some even define it as "xenophobic".

Of course, it would be much more convenient for people planning to move here to know the language that we speak; for it would aid greatly in communication between each other, but their entrance into the country should not be barred if the traveler is not familiar with the language.

Furthermore, people should be allowed to keep their vernacular, even when in a country that does not speak the same as they do. Of course, don't believe that this stands as an argument against learning English, for it is not. It is more an argument against the fact that people will be barredentrance to our country simply because they do not have the English language in them.

Also, Americans do not have the need to verse themselves in foreing languages before deciding to move to a different country, and they are not barred entrance from such countries, why would we? Simply because the language is not know at the time of entrance does not mean that it will not be learned after.

Nevertheless, some people loath the multicultural direction America is taking, and I quote "Multiculturalism is disputed topic in the United States. For example, in 2009 and 2010, controversy erupted in Texas as the state's curriculum committee made several changes to the state's school cirriculum requirements, often at the expense of minorities: juxtaposing Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address with that of Confederate president Jefferson Davis; debating removing Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and labor-leader C"sar Ch"vez; and rejecting calls to include more Hispanic figures, in spite of the high Hispanic population in the state." accordig to the website https://www.boundless.com... which has a document on the subjerct shows the little tolerance of the people toward these minorities. If English is made a requirement this would onoly hep widen the gap.

In conclusion, People should not be required a basic understandment of English before moving to USA, as it would seclude the country and widen ethnic and cultural gaps in society.
Jonbonbon

Pro

My opponent clearly doesn't understand English well enough to know what this debate should be about. How can he understand everyone else when he isn't speaking real English? Here is an example of English:

WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote 1
The droghte 2 of Marche hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich 3 licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth 5
Inspired hath in every holt 4 and heeth
The tendre croppes, 5 and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, 6
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the night with open ye, 10
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages: 7
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmers for to seken straunge strondes, 8
To ferne halwes, 9 couthe 10 in sondry londes;
And specially, from every shires ende 15
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The holy blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke. 11
Bifel that, in that sesoun on a day,
In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay 12 20
Redy to wenden on my pilgrimage
To Caunterbury with ful devout corage,
At night was come in-to that hostelrye
Wel 13 nyne and twenty in a compaignye,
Of sondry folk, by aventure 14 y-falle 15 25
In felawshipe, and pilgrims were they alle,
That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde;
The chambres and the stables weren wyde,
And wel we weren esed atte beste. 16
And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste, 30
So hadde I spoken with hem everichon, 17
That I was of hir felawshipe anon,
And made forward 18 erly for to ryse,
To take our wey, ther as I yow devyse. 19
But natheles, 20 whyl I have tyme and space, 35
Er that I ferther in this tale pace, 21
Me thinketh it acordaunt to resoun,
To telle yew al the condicioun 22
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche 23 they weren, and of what degree; 40
And eek in what array that they were inne:
And at a knight than wol I first biginne.
A KNIGHT ther was, and that a worthy man,
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To ryden out, he loved chivalrye, 45
Trouthe and honour, fredom 24 and curteisye.
Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre, 25
And thereto 26 hadde he riden (no man ferre 27)
As wel in cristendom as hethenesse,
And evere honoured for his worthinesse. 50
At Alisaundre he was, whan it was wonne;
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne 28
Aboven alle naciouns in Pruce. 29
In Lettow 30 hadde he reysed 31 and in Ruce, 32
No cristen man so ofte of his degree. 55
In Gernade 33 at the sege eek hadde he be
Of Algezir, and riden in Belmarye. 34
At Lyeys 35 was he, and at Satalye, 36
Whan they were wonne; and in the Grete See 37
At many a noble aryve 38 hadde he be, 60
At mortal batailles hadde he been fiftene,
And foughten for our feith at Tramissene 39
In listes thryes, and ay slayn his foo.
This ilke 40 worthy knight hadde been also
Somtyme with the lord of Palatye, 41 65
Ageyn another hethen in Turkye:
And everemore he hadde a sovereyn prys. 42
And though that he were worthy, he was wys,
And of his port 43 as meek as is a mayde.
He nevere yet no vileinye 44 ne sayde 70
In al his lyf, un-to no maner wight. 45
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
But for to tellen yow of his array,
His hors were goode, but he was nat gay.
Of fustian 46 he wered a gipoun 47 75
Al bismotered 48 with his habergeoun. 49
For he was late y-come from his viage, 50
And wente for to doon his pilgrimage.
With him ther was his sone, a yong SQUYER,
A lovyer, and a lusty bacheler, 80
With lokkes crulle, 51 as they were leyd in presse.
Of twenty yeer of age he was, I gesse.
Of his stature he was of evene lengthe, 52
And wonderly delivere, 53 and greet of strengthe.
And he hadde been somtyme in chivachye, 54 85
In Flaundres, in Artoys, and Picardye,
And born him wel, as of so litel space, 55
In hope to stonden in his lady 56 grace.
Embrouded was he, as it were a mede
Al ful of fresshe floures, whyte and rede. 90
Singinge he was, or floytinge, 57 al the day;
He was as fresh as is the month of May.
Short was his goune, with sleves longe and wyde.
Wel coude he sitte on hors, and faire ryde.
He coude songes make and wel endyte, 58 95
Iuste and eek daunce, and wel purtreye and wryte.
So hote he lovede, that by nightertale 59
He sleep namore than doth a nightingale.
Curteys he was, lowly, and servisable,
And carf 60 biforn his fader at the table. 100
A YEMAN hadde he, 61 and servaunts namo 62
At that tyme, for him liste 63 ryde so;
And he was clad in cote and hood of grene;
A sheef 64 of pecok arwes brighte and kene
Under his belt he bar ful thriftily, 105
(Wel coude he dresse his takel yemanly:
His arwes drouped noght with fetheres lowe),
And in his hand he bar a mighty bowe.[1]

Now, people who didn't know this was English because of the modernized version you kids use would be labeled as an uncultured swine by the American public and would be shunned throughout the land. We don't want people to feel unwelcome in America, but we can't help this blatant cultural value. People will be told things like, "Toward yer owne countrey should ye ryde." This is just unacceptable. People, even in America, are shunned every day for things like this.

It's an atrocity that cannot be allowed to continue.

--------------------------------

Source:

[1] http://www.bartleby.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
EzequielCruzJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I give the full win to the intro of Canterbury Tales and knowledge of original English. Well played pro.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
EzequielCruzJonbonbonTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro played this debate like a champion. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro as Con did not speak in proper English. As for convincing arguments, well, yeah. If you'd like clarification, feel free to message me. As for sources, I feel like Pro's source (Canterbury Tales) is about as reliable as they come for debates like this. Well played, Pro.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
EzequielCruzJonbonbonTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well played, PRO. Well played. I don't know how else to elaborate. PRO had a source while CON did not. CON made a major typo (I do not believe 'understandment' is a word.)
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
EzequielCruzJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used correct English spelling and grammar while effectively showing why immigrants should understand it before coming to the US.