The Instigator
docargument
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,151 times Debate No: 2284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (15)

 

docargument

Pro

As i do not want to use up all of my resources, I will keep my opening statement quck and easy.

There are hundreds, even thousands of minority languages that are on the decline. The globalization of the communication industry is lending itself to the elimination of smaller, lesser languages, such as france in Canada, or some of the hundreds of tribal languages in the backlands of New Zealand, or the languages in the central amazon river basin.

These are all very important things to consider when thinking about the globalization of the communication industry.

The point of this debate is to see if anyone will disagree (or accept for the sake of debating) that someone or some body of government should NOT step in and intervene in the preservation of these languages.

Thank you and good luck to my challenger.
Yraelz

Con

Sure, I will debate you.

My advocacy is the opposite of yours. I advocate instead that steps should be taken to create a global language so that all of earth can understand itself. Minority and dieing languages only further the barrier between humans and while only like 7% of human communication is done through speech this is still an extra 7% that is denied many people around the world.

While learning multiple languages is always a possibility there are far to many out there to learn Thus the better solution would be to create a global language that only had to be learned once. This would be one step closer to a global government that would take care of people as a whole over our current multiple government system in which each government portrays separate interests and sometimes hurt each other.

The benefit of lessening the language divide is much greater than increasing the divide.
Debate Round No. 1
docargument

Pro

Thank you for accepting, Yraelz, and from what I have seen you are quite good.

First I would like to bring up one of your points. "multiple languages is always a possibility there are far to many out there to learn Thus the better solution would be to create a global language that only had to be learned once. This would be one step closer to a global government that would take care of people as a whole over our current multiple government system in which each government portrays separate interests and sometimes hurt each other."

This passage is slightly confusing, but I understand waht you are getting at. I disagree, because a language is not only a language. It is a culture, something that goes along with a lifestyle. For example, the people that only know Maori do not lead the same lives as those that speak Piraha.

The following is research taken from Harriet Jones-Fenleigh, and She is the winner of the 2004 International Mace and 2004 Oxford IV. Harriet has represented Cambridge at the World Universities Debating Championships, as well.

Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of group identities. For example, the definition of "Basque" is "those who speak in the Basque tongue". Likewise, the Roma, who have no land and no clear defining characteristics, rely on their Romany language to maintain a cultural identity. The same is true of the Orang Asli in Malaysia. By helping to forge these communities language contributes to social stability. A shared language aids social cohesion by providing speakers with a ready-made support network. This in turn has been linked with reducing feelings of social dislocation and related problems, such as crime.

I completely agree that languages make a culture, and vice versa.

I wish to qoute more from her next round, pertaining to your rebuttal. Thank you and good luck.
Yraelz

Con

Haha, ooo lala! I think I will enjoy this debate.

First off I'm sorry, I should really review my arguments before I submit them, I am getting bad at doing so. Leads to confusing paragraphs like the one you cited.

What I was attempting to say:

We should get rid of the language barrier. Learning every language so one can fully communicate with the rest of the world is rather difficult. Thus developing one universal language would be the better choice.

So now I am going to quote you a bit and write my responses.

"I disagree, because a language is not only a language. It is a culture, something that goes along with a lifestyle. For example, the people that only know Maori do not lead the same lives as those that speak Piraha."

>>Yet I disagree. Say you took the people who spoke Piraha and gave them a different language to speak. You wiped their memory of their old language and replaced it with a different one. Even replace it with Maori if you'd like. Would this change anything in their society? I argue it will/would not. And I support this with 2 points.

1. This is an example. Envision yourself as a tribal man. You wake up each day, and go on a hunt. Most days you catch something and bring it back to your village where you cook and eat. You spend some time with your children each day teaching them to hunt. And you spend a little time with your wife each day. Suddenly a wise man comes to the tribe and teaches you a new language. Does this change your culture? I argue that the only thing it does do is take an hour out of your day to learn the new language. It doesn't actually influence your past at all.

2. This is an example from my personal life. I grew up speaking English, as I live in the U.S, however during my years in high school I also learned to speak Spanish. Has this changed my culture in any way? No definitely not. I am still the same as I was before I knew Spanish.

"Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of group identities."

>>Language is often a way that culture identify themselves yes. However changing the language, to something else, doesn't change the culture. For example my people are twork because they speak tworken. Suddenly we change our language to worken now we are work. Despite the fact that language has changed we can still identify ourselves as a people using language. (More on this soon)

"By helping to forge these communities language contributes to social stability."

>>Keep in mind language is not the end all. There are other things that can forge a community. For example many modern day clubs all wear an article of same colored clothing to demonstrate the fact that they are a special community. (Political parties are a good example in the U.S red vs. blue)

"A shared language aids social cohesion by providing speakers with a ready-made support network. This in turn has been linked with reducing feelings of social dislocation and related problems, such as crime. "

>>Si, but this helps my point also, as I am arguing for a universal language. Universal = shared by everyone = even less crime (more on this later)

"I completely agree that languages make a culture, and vice versa. "

>>Languages can help keep a cultural identity. They don't persay actually create a culture. A culture will find new ways to survive without language differences. Once again look to my club example.

So here is my argument on this. There are somewhere around 200 countries on this earth (recognized by the U.N anyways) right? You tell me language helps to keep a culture together and draw the distinct lines between all of these countries and I totally agree with you on that point. However I don't see this as a good thing, as you do.

The fact that we have so many different countries has created almost every problem our world has had in the past. These countries act as interest groups that almost always are trying to further their own interests even if at the expense of another country. This creates an unstable world community.

Now lets take a moment to evaluate your point saying that social disclosure creates crime. Why is this? My argument is that an individual does not feel as if he/she is part of a community. This leads him/her to do anything that well help him/her even if it hurts the community. However this is the smallest scale situation. Lets go to a slightly larger scale with this.

Individual finds some more people who feel socially disclosed and forms his own community. Now we have two communities. The community individual formed feels it is superior because the individuals are a part of it (small scale nationalism). Therefor this community puts its own needs before the other community and will harm the other if need be. This of course would be considered crime.

Now lets say the communities both grow to a great size and form their own countries. Once again they both feel they have allegiance to their own community over the other community. (Want another example? Look to 9/11. 3000 Americans killed, we turned around and killed how many Afghans? Whats worth more, American or Afghan life?) What can this lead to? A war.

When two communities compete over a resource that they both feel they need at times it can become a war.

You say that feeling your part of a community can decrease crime and a very much agree with you! If you feel you are part of something then you probably don't want to bother hurting that something.

Example: 4 random people are more prone to hurt each other than 4 people who all feel they are each others friends.

But this is where your idea actually hurts the world. What humans don't seem to realize is that we are all part of one large global world community. We still as humans divide ourselves into separate countries and seem to think of ourselves as different than the other countries in some way. This thinking is flawed. I am a human, as is every other person on this world, they are not somehow worth less than me because they are in another location, or speak another language. This flawed way of thinking lead to arguably the greatest mistake in human history, being the holocaust. Where Nazi Germany felt that its community was somehow greater than that of the rest of the world.

My advocacy is to create one global language. This will better help everyone feel that they are part of one global community and understand the point. Leading to, as you said, lesser crime and on a large scale fewer wars. If everyone is attempting to benefit the global community instead of their small interest group/country we will not have the problems we see today. While the creation of communities has decreased crime it has still allowed for crime between communities. Having only one community does not allow for such.
Debate Round No. 2
docargument

Pro

I think you took apart my sections vey nicely, but I have more hard facts to offer up. I like to keep my closing statements short, so lets go for it. I also want to point out that some of your debate was opinion, which was quite interesting but still unneeded.

actually more from our favorite cambridge debater!

"Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts of their history by granting money for museums and the restoration of buildings of historic value. There is considerable cultural capital stored in languages. Understanding a language is often the key to appreciating the full meanings and allusions of a group's heritage; for example, Aboriginal history is predominantly oral. Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." And this is not what we want to do to a society. This is what i meant when I was talking about the culture ebing made orally and by voices.

My final point is that the pros for keeping these languages outweighs to cons by a few. Thus proving that it is MORE beneficial
to preserve these "Cultures" (haha) than not.

Thank you and I await your final argument.
Yraelz

Con

Aight, going to go paragraph by paragraph.

"I think you took apart my sections vey nicely, but I have more hard facts to offer up. I like to keep my closing statements short, so lets go for it. I also want to point out that some of your debate was opinion, which was quite interesting but still unneeded."

>>Thank you for the compliment. However you say I brought up opinions. I would like to state that this whole debate has been opinions and most of them are. Opinions supported by logic are very acceptable in debate. As far as the voter goes I would like you to notice that my opponent doesn't bother stating what exactly was opinion therefor neither I, nor you, can distinguish. Plus my opponent doesn't actually attack any of it, therefor it all still stands.

""Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts of their history by granting money for museums and the restoration of buildings of historic value. There is considerable cultural capital stored in languages. Understanding a language is often the key to appreciating the full meanings and allusions of a group's heritage; for example, Aboriginal history is predominantly oral. Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." And this is not what we want to do to a society. This is what i meant when I was talking about the culture ebing made orally and by voices."

>>The main point in this passage is that the history of Aboriginal's is predominantly oral. "Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." Two things on this, #1 if its dieing then obviously the people don't care so you can't infer that this is something we shouldn't do to them. In all reality trying to prevent a language from dieing that they are allowing to die is going against their will. #2 this point is flat out not true. Their history can be translated into any other language, some meanings may become a little skewed but all in all their history will be kept in tact. Any language can be translated to another. This does not result in historical death.

"My final point is that the pros for keeping these languages outweighs to cons by a few. Thus proving that it is MORE beneficial
to preserve these "Cultures" (haha) than not."

>>My cons were language enforces the social divide that is currently happening and stops humans from seeing themselves as the greater group of humanity in general. (I would rather see them as life in general but thats beside the point of this debate) This has lead to the formation of states as we now know them which is part of the reason for interstate crime and/or war.

Your pros on the other hand I fail to see. Every thing you attempted to have as a pro I refuted in my first two rounds and you conceded them all when you said, "I think you took apart my sections vey nicely" The only new pro you brought up in your last round was historical death which I refuted on two levels.

Conclusion: Cons outweigh Pros

War/crime/social divide/misconception > nothing.

Thanks for the debate.

(Don't forget my counter advocacy of creating one universal language)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
No prob, I had fun. Thank you.
Posted by docargument 9 years ago
docargument
Thank you for the debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Nah. I saw a few flaws in your arguments, but nothing to warrant this as being a close debate (especially since your opponent didn't attempt to exploit those flaws).

Take my Back to the Future debate for example. My opponent's responses had nothing to do with the debate, yet in terms of the votes, the debate was very close. Or heck, even my more recent colon cancer debate in which my opponents responses were flaccid and ineffective against my case.

The only thing that's wrong here is the current voting system.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Oh, I didn't think this was a close debate at all. -sigh- Maybe I will re-read the whole thing later and decide what I did wrong.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
What is surprising?

100 characters - 75 characters = 25 characters.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Wow..... That is surprising I suppose.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Good debate, but I'm obligated to vote con just from the fact that the pro dropped arguments in round 3.

Plus, as the con insinuates, the pro's plan advocates segregation (from a world wide perspective), which many realize as being one of the main advocates of chaos (or societal disorder to be more specific). The pro doesn't do much to show otherwise.

That said, the con's counter plan is nice in theory, but I have strong doubts about it even being possible as the benifits of having a cultural identity may seem too valuable to let go.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
docargumentYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
docargumentYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
docargumentYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
docargumentYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
docargumentYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
docargumentYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
docargumentYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
docargumentYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by docargument 9 years ago
docargument
docargumentYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by phunkyboy123 9 years ago
phunkyboy123
docargumentYraelzTied
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