The Instigator
Kaizer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should there be a world language?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,937 times Debate No: 26557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Kaizer

Pro

Greetings Fellow Debaters,

This is my inaugural debate, an the question which I have chosen concerns one of the most important elements of human interaction -- language.

Language is a fundamental and inseparable part of the culture of every nation, community, ethnic group, and any other social formation. It is the modus for the communication of individuals, and it facilitates every single human activity. With my topic I do not contest the need for a diversity of languages, but I only humbly propose the notion that an universal system of communication would create a plethora of possibilities for people around the world who are hindered in their everyday life by language barriers. What is more, it may transpire a global sense of unity and eradicate one of the main means of discrimination.

I do not parade an understanding of linguistics, nor do I have any certified education in the discipline. Therefore, I do not post this debate in an attempt to prove scientifically my side in the argument.

Lastly, I shall try to give some rough format to the flow of the debate. In the first round, both rounds give brief opening statements, and then they continue expanding their stance.

Please, follow decorum, and be sensible.

Kaizer
Heineken

Con

I accept the challenge and look forward to the discussion.

I will argue the CON position, asserting with clarity, evidence and solid reasoning,
that a universal language would be harmful or less desirable than the unique, culturally
distinct languages we see today.

My opponent has not laid out any distinct rules, so I will provide the bullet points we both seem to agree on.

  • This debate is not about one language replacing all others.
  • This debate is about a single language augmenting in Universal communication.

My opponent will bear the burden of proof on the following:

  • A Universal language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist.
  • A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.
  • A Universal language will eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.

I will bear the burden of negating or diametrically opposing the three premises of my opponent.

Best of luck to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 1
Kaizer

Pro


I would like to express agreement with the outline that my opponent has offered above.


Firstly, referring back to the historical background of humanity, numerous cases show how a dominant country, through its power, has imposed a cultural hegemony over other states; thus spreading its official language. For instance, the modern reign of the USA as a superpower has resulted in the elevation of English as the most important and recognizable language worldwide. Another example of this is the Roman Empire. Latin was the lingua franca of the Western world until the 18th century. Various languages have become more widespread and have gained more applications in different times in history. What is more, they have contributed to growth of human knowledge and to the formation of a set of common ideals among all people. To summarize, the importance of a language is determined by the dominant state, and in turn this language system defines the development of human activities.


Secondly, as there has been always a country which has assumed the role of a superpower in the past several centuries, there has always been a language that has become of greater importance than all other. Examples are Latin, French, and English, among others. Therefore, they have obtained the greatest magnitude of universality in their respective years of hegemony. These universal languages were used in the projections of human activities on a global scale. This is exemplified by commerce. Today, the world’s largest economy is the USA. Therefore, if a foreign corporation were to trade with an American company or on the American market all transactions and agreements would be documented and negotiated in English. Consequently, the scope of the aforementioned languages has made them the languages of the world.


Thirdly, according to the theory of Universal Grammar, it is natural for humans to have a basic understanding of the structure of different languages; hence, to be able to learn them. Therefore, it would be feasible for any person to learn the world language of his/her time. Through this this individual would gain many benefits. For example, the enrollment of students at British and American universities, which are the most renowned today, is done through examinations in English. As a result, anyone who has learnt English has the opportunity to receive an education from these institutions (provided that he possesses all other necessary skills). Moreover, since 1997, English is the language of aviation. All the flight communication in the world is in this language. Consequently, knowing English would enable a person of becoming a part of the airline industry. In these examples, two key concepts can be observed. On the one hand, the dominant power of the day either offers the best opportunities for development, or has influence over different human activities. On the other hand, this ubiquitous presence makes understanding and knowing the world language of the time the only way to have the chance to progress in these areas.


As a conclusion to my statement in this round, I would like to say that I have outlined above the first point of the argument FOR, i.e. a world language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist.


Heineken

Con


Pro stated: “Firstly, referring back to the historical background of humanity, numerous cases show how a dominant country, through its power, has imposed a cultural hegemony over other states; thus spreading its official language. “

Rebuttal:
I agree with my opponent that history is filled with “dominant powers” which “impose” a culture and language over their lesser satellite neighbors. In fact, this point is so important to my case, that I'll establish the following premise:

Premise 1: Imposing a language or culture through economic prowess, warfare or manifest destiny is often seen an tyrannical. Consider the example of the Native American. Through reasoning of manifest destiny, their culture was decimated. The surviving remnant was absorbed and largely ignored. The majority opinion amongst American Indians is that they are still being oppressed by the United Stated government. [1]

  • Native American population suffers an 83-85% unemployment rate.

  • 97% live below the national poverty standard.

  • The average life expectancy for a Native American is 48, a far cry from White America's 77.5.

  • Over 50% of Native American Adults have diabetes from aggressive alcoholism.

  • Native American cervical cancer rate is 500% of the National average, no health care.

  • School drop-out rates exceed 70%.

  • Over 1/3rd of the housing population lacks running water and electricity.



Conclusion: Imposing a national language or identity causes immense suffering and flagrant human rights violations.

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


Pro said: “For instance, the modern reign of the USA as a superpower has resulted in the elevation of English as the most important and recognizable language worldwide.”


Rebuttal:
I agree with my opponent again, yet I fail to see the merit in this claim. At what cost has English become recognizable, and is America the exclusive author? This brings me to my second premise:

Premise 2: A combination effort between the United Stated, Empirical Britain and Australia has seen the spread of English throughout the world. While a portion of this spread may indeed be through passive humanism, the majority impact has been an imposing, war-capable, economic suppression of culturally distinct minorities. Consider the Irish population in the United Kingdom. British oppression of the Irish culture reaches back several hundred years. Through economic suppression and warfare, the Irish lived in such poverty that it inspired such morbid satire as Johnathan Swift's” A modest proposal”, in which he suggested that the Irish poor should eat their own babies, since they cannot provide for them. [2] Indeed, we cannot pretend that such oppressive influence is archaic and likened to the Dark Ages of Europe. The war between the Irish resistance and Britain is still active today. Indeed, it's grown more deadly than ever. [3]


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


Pro established
: Another example of this is the Roman Empire. Latin was the lingua franca of the Western world until the 18th century.
Rebuttal: Indeed, the most oppressive, war-capable and aggressive culture on earth spread it's influence far and wide. Yet, it is no secret that the Roman legion was feared throughout the world. Manifest destiny is not a positive example to burden my opponent carries. I therefor establish my next premise:

Premise 3: My opponent cannot fulfill the majority of his burden at this point of the debate. He is charged with proving that:

  • A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.
  • A Universal language will eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.

My opponent has already conceded that history is filled with examples of dominant culture imposing influence on it's lesser neighbors. Inevitably, my opponent must concede that a global language cannot be influenced without further imposing on human rights. Unless my opponent can prove that Roman conquest eradicated discrimination and created a global sense of unification, I fear his burden is lost.

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


Pro established:
Secondly, as there has been always a country which has assumed the role of a superpower in the past several centuries, there has always been a language that has become of greater importance than all other. Examples are Latin, French, and English, among others.
Rebuttal: As I have demonstrated, such influence comes at the cost of massive human tragedy and suffering; not one historical example shows a “sense of unification” or an “eradication of discrimination”.

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


Pro established:
Thirdly, according to the theory of Universal Grammar, it is natural for humans to have a basic understanding of the structure of different languages; hence, to be able to learn them.
Rebuttal: I concede that humans have a natural ability to learn language. However, the ability does not logically conclude in cultural harmony. This has been demonstrated several times. In fact, I propose the following:


Premise 4:
Cultural and lingual individuality are important properties of a psychological sense of self-worth and identity. A universal language will eventually, despite it's intention, diminish the cultural identity of the adopting civilization. Consider, Native American culture has been dramatically diminished, the Aboriginal culture is almost entirely vanished. Japan, Korea, China and the Philippines have deserted huge portions of their rich culture to compete with western industry. The South American heritage has been under attack since the Spanish invasion in 1492. The Native Population dropped from 310,000 to less than 25,000 in just under two hundred years. [4] All this tragedy was accomplished under the guise of good, Christian intention to teach the scripture to unreached populations.


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


Conclusion: A Universal language has been imposed throughout several historical periods, each of which are well defined by the bloodshed and oppression of lesser civilizations. Not a single example exists, where a superpower has risen without radically oppressing or destroying lesser civilizations.

To this extent I propose that my opponent's burden is lost. Indeed, no evidence exists that his model would create any global unification or end discrimination. In fact, the result would be dyamterically opposite. History has proven this.



Debate Round No. 2
Kaizer

Pro

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I have not commented on the second and third components of the debate as it was not mentioned in the rules in which rounds what should be debated. Furthermore, as my opponent has not attempted to dispute my first claim, i.e. a world language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist, I conclude that he agrees with it.

Secondly, I would like to offer the following answer to my opponents stance:


Opponent’s argument:

Premise 1: Imposing a language or culture through economic prowess, warfare or manifest destiny is often seen an tyrannical. Consider the example of the Native American. Through reasoning of manifest destiny, their culture was decimated. The surviving remnant was absorbed and largely ignored. The majority opinion amongst American Indians is that they are still being oppressed by the United Stated government. [1]

Counter-argument/Answer:

The example given by my opponent has to be looked at through the notion of the “American Melting Pot”. The US has adopted the policy to create a homogeneous society through cultural assimilation, i.e. the government encourages all the peoples that live in the borders of the country to share a cultural identity and a language. Therefore, the maltreating of Native Americans in the boundaries of the US is not conclusive proof of the global effects of a world language. What is more, Canada, having a multicultural societal model, exemplifies the exact opposite actions in regards to policies about indigenous peoples. The Canadian territory of Nunavut, homeland to the Inuit, a Native American peoples, serves as a paragon of the proper way of treating culturally distinct societies in a modern state. The following facts further support this claim as they reveal the benefits of the inhabitants of Nunavut:

-Nunavut is known worldwide for its exceptional carvings, prints, and tapestries that can be distinguished by the Authentic Nunavut brand. The arts & crafts sector contributes $33 million to the territory’s economy.

-Nunavut is governed by a Legislative Assembly of 19 elected members. The members choose a government leader, speaker of the house and eight ministers by consensus. There are 10 departments with offices in nine different communities.

- Nunavut’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $1.75 billion in 2010 (Statistics Canada) an increase of 11.4 per cent.

- Nunavut’s population is 33,330 as of October 1, 2011. Inuit make up 85% of this total.

- Nunavut has the highest birth rate at 25 per 1,000, compared to 11 per 1,000 for Canada as a whole.

-Along with the Inuit Language (Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun), English, and French are also official languages.


From these statistics the following conclusions may be derived:

-Nunavut has a growing economy through which the art of the Inuit is preserved.

-Nunavut consists of mainly Inuit people and has an increasing population.

-Nunavut is self-governed and its people communicate through three official languages.

In conclusion, the territory of Nunavut exemplifies a way through which people from varying cultural backgrounds may collaborate and “speak a common language”.

Opponent’s argument:

Indeed, we cannot pretend that such oppressive influence is archaic and likened to the Dark Ages of Europe. The war between the Irish resistance and Britain is still active today. Indeed, it's grown more deadly than ever.

Counter-argument/Answer:

The example which my opponent gives with the conflict between the Irish and the British has been exaggerated. I admit that in its zenith it was an indescribable human tragedy. however, numerous peace acts, negotiations, agreements, and treaties, culminating with the Hillsborough Castle Agreement in 2010 ensured that “the Troubles” between Irish and British were largely left in the past and that the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and Northern Ireland had taken a path of hope, peace, and prosperity.

Opponent’s argument:

Unless my opponent can prove that Roman conquest eradicated discrimination and created a global sense of unification, I fear his burden is lost.

Counter-argument/Answer:

I believe that my opponent fails to grasp the concept that with time human perception of discrimination and unity change. Hence, today, what is regarded as discrimination and unity is inapplicable in the Roman Empire.

In contrast, in the XXI century, there are many examples of the hampering of discrimination. Now, I shall address the former idea.

There exists a form of discrimination named linguicism. It was defined by linguist Tove Shkutnabb-Kangas as, "ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language." From this the simple assertion that groups differ on the basis of language can be made. Therefore, if there were to be common denominator for these societal formation, i.e. a world language, there would not be a problem of such an extent. I shall clarify this through the following scenario: if a Japanese person were to emigrate to Spain and were he to only know his mother tongue, then he would suffer from linguicism as the number of people in Spain that are fluent in Japanese is rather small. However, if the same person were to speak Spanish or English, both of which are world languages, he would be able to avoid linguicism as Spanish and English are widespread in the country.

Opponent’s argument:

Cultural and lingual individuality are important properties of a psychological sense of self-worth and identity. A universal language will eventually, despite it's intention, diminish the cultural identity of the adopting civilization.

Counter-argument/Answer:

My opponents point can be interpreted in other ways than the one he has stated. His examples (which I have not cited) may be seen in a different light as well. Although, in the past, the interaction of many cultures has occurred after violent conflicts, today most languages and cultures spread without bloodshed. The influence of America on Japan, Korea, and China can be seen as the formation of a new amalgamation of Western and Eastern cultures. Some traditions in the these Asian countries may disappear but that would have happened eventually as it is only natural for a society to partially change its lifestyle over time. An example of this natural evolution of traditions and customs is the removal of the ban of meat during the Meiji reforms, which resulted in a change in Japanese cuisine and culture. Therefore, one could potentially look at the interaction between American and Asian cultures as only a natural trend in the modern globalized world. What is more, my opponents example of the negative effect of the colonization of South America may also be disputed. Through the Spanish conquest of Latin America, 360 million people have a unifying component in their lives. The consequences of this are numerous and may be seen in the creation of larger opportunities for people throughout Hispanic America, in the sense of unity between Hispanic people throughout the globe, etc.

In conclusion, in this round I have listed the following:

-reasons for the beneficial effect of a world language in the eradication of discrimination and the creation of a sense of unity

-reasons for the inadequacy of my opponents examples due to their being artificially contorted to fit his position

I would like to urge my opponent to cease his making of bold conclusions that may case is lost.

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

Sources:

gov.nu.ca/en

infoplease.com/spot/northireland1.html

wikipedia.org

Heineken

Con

Pro stated: Firstly, I would like to clarify that I have not commented on the second and third components of the debate as it was not mentioned in the rules in which rounds what should be debated.

Rebuttal: The second premise concerns the mechanism of implementing a universal language. I have given an evidence supported argument that the method of spreading a Universal language comes at the expense of human life and dignity. My opponent has decided to drop this point.

The third premise concerns my opponent’s burden. The premise established that my opponent lost his burden through concession. He is quoted as stating that “numerous cases show how a dominant country, through its power, has imposed a cultural hegemony over other states; thus spreading its official language.

This statement directly concedes the following:

  • A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.

  • A Universal language will eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.

Conclusion: The opponent has dropped both of these arguments. I extend my arguments into the next round.

Pro stated: Furthermore, as my opponent has not attempted to dispute my first claim, i.e. a world language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist, I conclude that he agrees with it.

Rebuttal: The opponent did not establish a single example to support a “plethora of possibilities”. How could I argue a missing premise? Until the opponent furnishes evidence and examples to support his premise, I will assume that he has dropped this argument also.

Pro stated: The US has adopted the policy to create a homogeneous society through cultural assimilation, i.e. the government encourages all the peoples that live in the borders of the country to share a cultural identity and a language. Therefore, the maltreating of Native Americans in the boundaries of the US is not conclusive proof of the global effects of a world language.

Rebuttal: Absurdities. Please consider:

  • The United States does not have a single policy on creating a “homogeneous society through assimilation.”

  • The Government does not encourage sharing a language. The Unites States does not have an official language. [1]



Pro stated:
What is more, Canada, having a multicultural societal model, exemplifies the exact opposite actions in regards to policies about indigenous peoples.

Rebuttal: Canada speaks English and French and it has imposed its languages on the Nunavut with great fervor. In fact, the implementation of English and French in the territory has eroded the Inuit language. Only 38% of the Inuit people consider themselves fluent in their native language. The source is quoted as stating:

North American Aboriginal languages have one of the worst survival records. Many Aboriginal languages are now extinct because of harsh assimilation policies and residential schools that prohibited students from using their mother tongue….In Nunavut, where 85 per cent of the population is Inuit, 40 per cent report that they are losing the ability to speak in their mother tongue.” [2]

The opponent built a straw man. The Nunavut Inuit are a poor example of a Universal language implementation. They are losing their language to cultural oppression.

Pro argued: The example which my opponent gives with the conflict between the Irish and the British has been exaggerated.


Rebuttal:
My opponent needs to keep up with current events. Consider:
  • Attack on Army, Real IRA [5] - March, 2009

  • “Just minutes after Britain transferred police and justice powers to Northern Ireland, completing the 1998 peace process, the Real IRA bombed Britain’s MI5 intelligence headquarters in Belfast.” [3] – April 2010

  • IRA splinter groups: More attacks, better bombs. “That was Northern Ireland in
    2010, not 1970.” [4].
    – April 2010

  • Bombing attack in Londonderry [6] – Jan 2012

All arguments extended to next round.

Pro argued: “I believe that my opponent fails to grasp the concept that with time human perception of discrimination and unity change. Hence, today, what is regarded as discrimination and unity is inapplicable in the Roman Empire.”

Rebuttal: Sourceless argument. The opponent provides no proof that victims of Rome failed to recognize discrimination as we see it. In fact, I could find no evidence that such a premise is true. The opponent is grasping at straws. So I ask again:

During the rule of Rome, did the cultural influence of the empire over its satellite neighbors result in an elimination of discrimination?

All arguments extended.



Pro argues that
:”…From this the simple assertion that groups differ on the basis of language can be made. Therefore, if there were to be common denominator for these societal formation, i.e. a world language, there would not be a problem of such an extent.”

Rebuttal: Logical fallacy. This argument assumes that language is the only barrier. Unfortunately, a universal language could not logically eliminate discrimination based upon sex, race, religion, culture, income, age, and intelligence or education level. My opponent seems to believe that a Universal language would unify the world. I propose that religion is bigger barrier to unification than language.

In order to unify the world, we would need to create a Universal wealth, Universal faith, Universal race, Universal education, etc.

Pro’s entire premise lacks realism.



Pro argued:
Although, in the past, the interaction of many cultures has occurred after violent conflicts, today most languages and cultures spread without bloodshed.

Rebuttal: Economic, cultural and even lingual oppression results in human suffering and death. War is not the prime mode of killing a population. Global unification requires more than a common alphabet. World history is witness to this truth, over and over again. Consider the American civil war. The only purpose that a common language served was that the army didn’t need to hire a translator.

Sources:

http://www.us-english.org... [1]
http://newsinreview.cbclearning.ca... [2]
http://www.csmonitor.com... [3]
http://abcnews.go.com... [4]
http://news.bbc.co.uk... [5]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk....html [6]

Debate Round No. 3
Kaizer

Pro

1.The first element of this debate was agreed to be the following statement:

A Universal language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist.

I give the hereby mentioned arguments in defense of this claim:

Argument:

Knowledge of a world language would create numerous opportunities for the development of a given individual.

E.g. 1: Since 1997, the aviation industry ha adopted English as its official language. Ergo, to become a part of this sector, one must speak this language. As English is the most widespread language today, it is very accessible. Hence, having knowledge of the world language – English – would enable a person to apply for any job in the aviation industry.

E.g.2: English is the globally-accepted language of business. Even though there is no institution to ascertain this, de facto world trade is dependent on a widespread system of communication which, nowadays, coincides with the English language. Therefore, a person who would want to find a job that is concerned with international business would have to learn English in order to be competitive.

E.g. 3: The first version of the Science Citation Index, which contains several thousand academic papers, journals, and articles was compiled in 1960 by the Institute for Scientific Information. Today, the rights to the indices released by the aforementioned institution are owned by Thomson Reuters. These collections of scientific documents are used for legal citation and defense of patenting rights. What is relevant to the topic of the debate in this case is that 95% of the indices are written or documented in English. Hence, this language allows for any individual to have access to the ISI database and to able to cite it in academic work.

Conclusion:

The examples mentioned above concern the fields of commerce, services (the aviation industry), and academics and display the benefits of learning and using a world language for any individual in the specified circumstances. In every case it is clear that the knowledge of English would provide many opportunities in career development (E.g.1; E.g.2), the range of a specific activity (E.g.2), and the creation of an academic work (E.g.3).

Thus far my opponent has not shown or at least has not clarified how learning a language would hamper the development of an individual.



2. The second component of the debate is synthesized in the following statement:

A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.

I give the hereby mentioned arguments in defense of this claim:

Argument:

The faculty of a world language would allow a person or a group of people to have/form/experience a sense of unity.

E.g.1: The complex process of the unification of Germany may exemplify the aforementioned argument. The War of the Second Coalition (1799-1802) and the subsequent Treaty of Pressburg (1806) led to the disbanding of the Holy Roman Empire and to its diffusion into an array of over 300 entities of varying size and governance. The French dominance over these German territories resulted in the rise of German nationalism. The peoples in these hundreds of states which had a constantly-changing number, size, and form all shared one common feature. They spoke German. Consequently, as a reaction to the foreign rule, these peoples began devising the prospect of a independent German state. As philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte remarked:

"...Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole."

The common language of the German peoples was one of the factors that lead to their later unification. This example shows the property of language to unify.

E.g. 2: The Alexandria Protocol of 1944 established the League of Arab States, which has, today, 22 member states. The official language of these countries is Arabic, which is a modern world language. What is more, the League of Arab States unifies an estimated 340 million people. One very conspicuous factor in this union, which could even be called a cornerstone of the League, is Arabic. Other geopolitical factors affecting the formation of the union, but at the heart is the shared culture of the Arab people. In fact, it is defined largely by Islam. Yet again, since the Qur’an is written in Arabic, the core principle behind the sense of unity among Arabs is the Arabic language. Therefore, a world language – Arabic – has proven that it can create a feeling of unity among people on a global scale.

Conclusion:

The first example which I have presented proves that language has a great impact in the unification of a nation. The German peoples, which were scattered in Central Europe, emerged as a unified nation greatly due to the fact that they shared a mother tongue.

The second example which I have given reveals the effect pointed out in the first escalated to a global level. The Arab people are connected through Arabic. From this very natural and basic way point many more complicated external and internal relations between the Arab states may exist; however, this bond has proven to persevere for well over a millennium.

My opponent has shown that it is possible through cultural hegemony for a nation to impose a language over another peoples. Still, the phrasing of the second component of the debate is the following:

A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.

Hence, if my opponent cannot prove my examples to be false, he cannot by any means of logic show that it is a fallacy that a world language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.



3. The third and final component of the debate is phrased in the following manner:

A Universal language will eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.

I give the hereby mentioned arguments in defense of this claim:

Argument:

Knowledge of a world language is able to prevent one of the main forms of discrimination.

E.g. 1: My opponent has urged me to respond to his question on the discrimination in the Roman Empire. I quote:

“During the rule of Rome, did the cultural influence of the empire over its satellite neighbors result in an elimination of discrimination?”

Yes, it did. The following instance exemplifies this phenomena on the highest possible level in Roman society:

Emperor Trajan was the first Roman Emperor born in a province, i.e. Hispania Baetica or Spanish Baetica. Not only was his birth place the Eternal City, but also he descended from a non-patrician family. Consequently, his mother tongue was not Latin. However, his conquest of Dacia, victories in the Parthian War, and social, administrative, and infrastructural policies have elevated him into one of the most successful Roman Emperors. Being the first “provincial emperor”, Trajan showed that even though he came from a culturally distinct region, he was able to become emperor. Hence, Trajan’s emperorcy may be interpreted as an elimination of discrimination towards Rome’s satellites through cultural influence.

Conclusion and Notes: The positive effects of a world language on career development, for examle, mentioned in point one may also be viewed in this section. As knowing a language needed for a certain position would set applicants on equal terms in view of purely job requirements, it may be said that a universal language would be beneficial to all. However, my opponent has rightly pointed that other factors for discrimination than language play a role in this pross. Still, he has to prove that knowing an additional language is harming one's social stature.

Sources:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu...

http://thomsonreuters.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.roman-emperors.org...

Heineken

Con

Pro cited that English is used universally in Aviation.

Rebuttal: That’s a misrepresentation of the facts. Consider:

  1. The laws only apply to international aviators. French pilots still communicate in French, while operating within their national boundaries.
  2. Aviation is an industry, not a national entity (as defined by culture, geographic location, custom, heritage, governance, race or religion)
  3. Aviators speak Jargon, not common English. Consider this conversation:

Pilot: Gateway Tower, A329 Comm check, how copy?
Tower: Lima Charlie A329. How me?
Pilot: Lima Charlie also.
Tower: A329, Report JP5 level for fuel farm.
Pilot: Gateway, A329 reporting 14k in 3 and 4. 12 K in 1 and 2. Request 25k to top off.
Tower: A329, 24k total, farm is notified.
Pilot: Gateway, be advised. Forward Radar intermittent, ILS unreliable. FVR due to low ceiling. Requesting VOR beacon freq.
Tower: A329, VOR1 at 145 MHz.

Conclusion: The opponent cited an industry standard, not a Universal language. Are people outside of the aviation industry being taught this language? Is the French aircraft mechanic forced to learn it? How about the Italian baggage attendant? Obviously not.
During WW2, every ship captain in military or industrial maritime was familiar with Morse code. An industry standard is not an example of an international language implementation.
I have included a video of another industry standard. Lineman communication for launching and recovering aircraft. (See video one)

_________________________________

Pro stated: English is the globally-accepted language of business.

Rebuttal: Indeed. Yet again, this is an example of an industry standard. Pro must prove that a Universal language (applied on a Global scale) would establish a plethora of possibilities, end discrimination and unify the world.
English as a business standard does not accomplish these. Capitalism is about competition. A business seeks to make as much money as possible, while eliminating the competition and supplying a product at the lowest possible production cost. This often results in underpaid, unethical labor practices.

_________________________________

Pro provided a third example of an industry standard through the Science Citation Index.

Rebuttal: Science is not a national entity, it is a method. Should we conclude that mathematics will end discrimination because everyone uses it as a global standard for communicating quantity? Of course not. The mere existence of a common method does not automatically establish unification.

As stated previously, language is not the barrier in the road to global unification, non-discrimination and increased opportunity. The barriers are race, heritage, gender, religion, income, education and lifestyle.

My opponent has provided no mechanism for how a common language would eliminate the other dividers of mankind.

_________________________________

Pro said: Thus far my opponent has not shown or at least has not clarified how learning a language would hamper the development of an individual.

Rebuttal: That’s not my burden. My burden is to show that a universal language is harmful or less desirable than the unique, culturally distinct languages we see today.

That’s not difficult for me to show, since my opponent conceded that a loss of culture and language would be devastating to the Nunavut. It’s a dropped point, a conceded topic.

Additionally, I have given ample evidence that the imposition of a common language comes at the cost of human life and dignity. I have cited several historic examples.
My opponent set up another straw man. Consider:

Round two:
The effect of an imposing culture on the Native American.
The effect of an imposing culture on the Irish.
The effect of colonial imposition on South American Natives.

In round three:
Clarified the true effect of an imposing culture on the Nunavut Natives of Canada.
Established a contemporary history of the Irish/British conflict.
Gave an example through American History (Civil War) where a language served no unifying purpose. Race, heritage, economy, politics and civil liberty where the dividers.

I do not easily resort to calling out a lie, but it clearly would be a lie to claim that I have not proved that the imposition of a Universal language is far less desirable than allowing a culture to flourish in it’s distinctiveness.

_________________________________

Pro gave the history of Germany as an example of how a Universal language unites.

Rebuttal: I believe my opponent has just committed debate suicide. The German people indeed united through German Nationalism. That’s an example of people uniting under their unique, distinct cultural heritage, not a universal language.

His entire argument serves only to prove my burden. Well done, dear opponent.
Your burden is to prove the benefits of a Universal language, not national languages.

This, by far, is the best example of self-defeat I have come across so far.

_________________________________

Pro established the Alexandria Protocol of 1944.

Rebuttal: Dear opponent. Please visit www.CNN.com or www.FOXNEWS.com to witness the effect the Arab unification has had on the middle east.
I would like to provide as evidence:

The Uprising in Egypt.
The conflict in Syria.
The War in Iraq.
The War in Afghanistan.
The Israel/Palestine conflict.
The Iranian conflict.
The Shia vs. Sunni conflict.
Indeed, a common language has done much for the region. In fact, I doubt you would find a more unstable region anywhere on the planet.

_________________________________

Pro provided a single example of Roman non-discrimination in the rise of non-Latin nobility.

Rebuttal: Non-sense. Rome discriminated against all non-Romans, women and children. Consider Rome’s welfare program, which allotted grain to the needy. The only people qualified to receive the grain where Roman men. As per the source:

“…grain was available only to adult male Roman citizens, thus excluding the large number of women, children, slaves, foreigners, and other non-citizens living in Rome.” [1]

Did anyone else catch the word “slave”? Rome fell in 476 AD and regional slavery was not abolished until almost a hundred years later. Rome discriminated based on race, language, social standing, gender and intelligence until its final days.

My opponent has resorted to misinformation.

I extend all arguments into the next round.

Sources:

http://www.cato.org... [1]

Debate Round No. 4
Kaizer

Pro

As the conclusion of this debate has dawned, I shall summarize my arguments and answer my opponent’s, at times, misleading accusations of my stance.

  1. My opponent has stated the following
    1. Aviation is an industry and English is an industry standard; therefore, this is not an example of an implementation of a Universal Language.
    2. English is the industry standard of business. English is a business standard. However, it results in underpaid unethical labor practices.
    3. Science is not a national entity, it is a method. This does not establish unification.
    4. Language is not a barrier, yet race, gender, heritage, religion, education, and lifestyle are. My opponent has not provided a mechanism for how a common language would eliminate the other dividers of mankind.

My response is quite short and simple:

  • Universal: used or understood by all: a universal language. [1]
    Consequently, nothing prevents the aviation industry from adopting a universal language as its official standard and thus implementing a universal language. If my opponent still disagrees with this, I shall direct him to the following sources which shows how the absence of an English standard has impacted air travel and why it is crucial for pilots to learn to speak it properly. [2] [3; Crash Investigation and Report; 2nd paragraph; 2nd line]
  • All of my examples were given on the basis of a point ascertained by my opponent:

“A Universal language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist.”

Therefore, they did not strive to prove that a world language can unify or can end discrimination (I have provided different instances for both these capabilities of language). Moreover, these examples examined language barriers on the level of the individual. Yet my opponent has stated that the main flaw of my examples is exactly this: they do not prove unification or non-discrimination. Hence, I can only advise my opponent to read the whole argument because if he were not to, he would confirm that he is incapable of reading and assimilating information. What is more, my opponent's rebuttal of my examples of the ISI and business becomes obsolete.

  • My opponent has remarked that language is not a barrier but other, aforementioned factors are. This again is to be allocated to the category of redundant and pointless claims as the initial statement of the debate was that:

“…it [a universal language] may transpire a global sense of unity and eradicate one of the main means of discrimination. [linguicism]”

With this in mind, it can be said that throughout my opponent has avoided addressing this point and has even conceded it with his statements in the fourth round.



2. My opponent has stated:

    1. That his burden is to show that a universal language is harmful or less desirable than the unique, culturally distinct languages we see today.
    2. Six examples.
  • My opponent dubbed his burden in the beginning as “negating or diametrically opposing the three premises of my opponent.” Therefore, a much appropriate phrasing of it would be:

“the burden to show that a Universal language does not create a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist; is not capable of creating a Global sense of unification; will not eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.”

  • With the question of who has what to prove settled, it is only fair to address my opponent’s examples next. Enjoy this graphical representation:

Example

Answer

Native Americans

Most Native Americans were murdered during the colonization of NA. Those that are left have become American and have special privileges.

Irish-British Conflict

English has been introduced in Ireland twice before "the Troubles". At first it was spoken by only a small number of people but it naturally into the de facto official language. Irish language as well as culture is preserved in manuscripts and other texts. The conflict between Irish and British quoted by my opponent is not a case of imposition of a language.

South American Natives

Most natives were brutally murdered. The spread of language plays no role. The Spanish and Portuguese did not seek to spread their mother tongues.

Nunavut Indians

[4] --> Nunavut is one of the most prosperous territories in Canada. Its inhabitants have been given a homeland

Contemporary History of Britain and Ireland

Look at answer to 2nd example.

American Civil War

Does not concern any of the three main components of the debate nor their negation. What is more, a war has multiple causes and both the CS and the US spoke English before the conflict. Hence, language is not a cause.

3. My opponent contested:

    1. Alexandra Protocol example
    2. Example of Roman Empire
  • My opponent has contested the unity of the Arab people presented in my previous example through the following instances

Opponent’s Example

Answer

The Uprising in Egypt.

The conflict has a social nature. It did not erupt due to cultural or lingual differences.

The conflict in Syria.

Internal and social conflict.

The War in Iraq.

Invasion of the US and NATO. Nothing to do with language or imposition of culture.

The War in Afghanistan.

Invasion of the US and Allied Forces. Nothing to the with language or cultural imposition.

The Israel/Palestine conflict.

Israelis are not Arabs. This is not a conflict amongst Arab people. In fact, one of the uniting factors of Arab states is opposition to Israel.

The Iranian conflict.

Conflict between Iran and the West (+Israel).

The Shia vs. Sunni conflict.

At present there are no conflicts between the Shi’a crescent and Sunni countries in the Arab world.

To summarize, the aforementioned examples by my opponent are conflicts that do not exist between countries in the Arab League today. In fact, the Arab Spring is a testament to the development of the region and internal, social clashes are inevitable. However, politically and economically the 21 states of the Laegue remain united.

  • My example of Emperor Trajan’s rise to power was not “a single example of Roman non-discrimination in the rise of non-Latin nobility.” In fact, this was the first time a non-Roman became Emperor. Before discarding the symbolic and actual meaning of the example, I would advise my opponent to stop and think. What was the most important figure in the Empire? Was Trajan the only emperor from a province? (Hint: No.) If a person from a province could achieve such ultimate success what about others aiming for less prestigious positions in local government? I would also like to reiterate that the modern concept of discrimination is inapplicable in the Roman society. In those times, the status quo was different. Slavery was not regarded as a crime against a human being; it was the natural order.


4. My opponent has advised me to become more informed on the issues at hand. He has even very beneficently proposed that I should use Fox News and CNN as media outlets for my enlightenment. To this, I can only assure my opponent that I am up-to-date in world affairs. What I would like him to consider is the credibility of the aforementioned news agencies as I fear that he himself may suffer from misinformation were he to trust them so much. (Video 1)


5. I have thus far shown how the three components of the debate are valid throughout world history. I believe that learning a language will not harm anyone. What is more, for me knowledge is not detrimental. It is, in fact, one of the greatest blessings of/on Mankind.

My opponent has shown that cultural imposition can be harmful, but he has not adhered to the outline of the debate. There has been and will always be war and conflict. However, peace can only be achieved if everyone speaks a common, world language. Thus there should be a world language.

VOTE FOR

Sources:

  1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
  2. http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com...
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  4. http://gov.nu.ca...
Heineken

Con

My opponent was burdened to prove that a Universal language can:

  • A Universal language creates a plethora of possibilities where language barriers exist.
  • A Universal language is capable of creating a Global sense of unification.
  • A Universal language will eradicate discrimination based on regional or cultural distinctiveness.

The opponent dropped the 1st point of his burden. He has not provided a single example of a “plethora” of possibilities being produced where a language barrier exists. The few arguments that were supplied did not meet the burden and where sufficiently countered.

The Opponent utterly failed the 2nd point of his burden. He has not provided any evidence of a language creating a Global sense of unification. In fact, he radically failed in proving that language can create a regional sense of unification. I dare say, my opponent didn’t prove unification in his own zip code. Every example he provided was either an industry standard or flagrant falsehood and furthermore, not one of his arguments attempted to scale the evidence globally. Instead he focused on small regions, like northern Canada.

Finally, my opponent failed his final burden. He did not provide a single example where language ended discrimination. I dare the voter to find even one such argument. Alas, the opponent even failed to desperately protest the overwhelming evidence which stands in staunch opposition to his burden.

I had the burden of “negating or diametrically opposing the three premises of my opponent.”

I negated my opponent’s attempt to show a “plethora” of possibilities.

  • English in Aviation – Industry standard only applies to international flights. Also not universal, since only pilots need to speak it, not the whole world. Also uses jargon, avoids language rules.
  • Business – Another industry standard. Largely non-humanists. Only applies to international marketing, not the whole world. Creates a victim group, which negates 3rd burden.
  • Science citation Index – Industry standard, method, not lingual, not universal.

I negated my opponent’s attempt to show global unification.

  • Roman dictatorship.
  • American Manifest Destiny.
  • British imposition on the Irish.
  • Spanish oppression of South Americans.
  • Nunavut Inuit language oppression.

I negated my opponent’s attempt to show an end to discrimination.

  • Middle East lacks tolerance despite language commonality
  • Language cannot overcome race, age, sex, religion, status, intelligence or political discrimination, which it must in order to end discrimination.

Pro said: The Uprising in Egypt. The conflict has a social nature.

Rebuttal: A common language failed to unify. In fact, Egypt’s neighbors(who speak the same language) took advantage of the situation and sent extremists into the area to destabilize it further. This resulted in the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Arguments extended.

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

Pro stated: The conflict in Syria - Internal and social conflict.

Rebuttal: …….exactly. A common language failed to unify.

Argument extended.

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

Pro stated: “(The war in Iraq was an ) Invasion of the US and NATO. Nothing to do with language or imposition of culture.”

Rebuttal: Incorrect.

  • Iran/Iraq war – Shiites vs Sunnis
  • Persian Gulf War – Iraq invades Kuwait
  • Post Persian Gulf atrocity – Hussein murders over 100,000 religious and ethnic minorities during a protest uprising.
  • Second Iraq War – A US led coalition invades Iraq. After Iraq was defeated, the Taliban began a campaign against the new Iraq government and its western supporters.

Indeed, yet the best example that a Universal language is not capable of joining all people under a single banner.

Arguments extended.

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

Pro stated: “(The war in Afghanistan was an) Invasion of the US and Allied Forces. Nothing to the with language or cultural imposition.”

Rebuttal: The war in Afghanistan is between the Taliban and the New Afghan Government. The US presence along with other international security forces is to keep peace. I am shocked that my opponent hasn’t researched his responses.

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

Pro remarked: Israelis are not Arabs. This is not a conflict amongst Arab people. In fact, one of the uniting factors of Arab states is opposition to Israel.

Rebuttal: Arabic is an official language of Israel as per the 82nd paragraph of the 1922 “Palestine Order in Council”. [1]

Argument extended.

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

Pro established: At present there are no conflicts between the Shi’a crescent and Sunni countries in the Arab world.

Rebuttal: Flagrant falsehood. The conflict has existed over a thousand years and continues to rage today. The most recent clashes occurred in Syria between Iranian Shiites and Turkish Sunnis. [2] I’m astounded at the bold assertion of outright falsehoods.

Arguments extended.

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

Pro stated: In fact, the Arab Spring is a testament to the development of the region and internal, social clashes are inevitable. However, politically and economically the 21 states of the Laegue remain united.

Rebuttal: Flagrant falsehood. See above evidence which clearly shows deadly turmoil extending into political, economic, religious and regional distinctiveness. Language failed to unifiy.


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

Pro stated: My example of Emperor Trajan’s rise to power was not “a single example of Roman non-discrimination in the rise of non-Latin nobility.” In fact, this was the first time a non-Roman became Emperor.

Rebuttal: Actually, it was a single example of Roman non-discrimination since you only provided one. Single=one. Additionally, you seemed to have dropped my arguments concerning slavery, gender and social class oppression. Direct concession.

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

Pro stated: My opponent has shown that cultural imposition can be harmful, but he has not adhered to the outline of the debate.

Rebuttal: My opponent concedes that I have succeeded in showing that language cannot do the things my opponent claims they can. Additionally, he seems to object to my method, but provides no clear objection or evidence to explain his position.

Direct concession.

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

Pro stated: There has been and will always be war and conflict. However, peace can only be achieved if everyone speaks a common, world language. Thus there should be a world language.

Rebuttal: Irrational. This statement assumes that language can overcome discrimination based on sex, religion, race, region, politics, social status or intelligence. My opponent never once provided an argument for this.

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

Conclusion:

My opponent dropped seven arguments, conceded three and failed to prove even one out of three burdens.

The choice is clear and fairly simple. I strongly urge a vote for CON.

http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Idiot. English is the language of business.
Posted by Batboy 4 years ago
Batboy
Yes, It's called French... It's the international language of business. Or Spanish which is spoken as the national language of over 15 countries... simplely done!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
KaizerHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: VERY GOOD OF BOTH PEOPLE! But the issue of free will to learn a language aside for mother tongue was a point that was never really negated by pro. Also pro seemed to have an idealistic view of what a world language entails, almost emotionally appealing if anything.