THBT we should learn english with a native speaker than a non-native speaker
Thank you to PRO for enforcing this debate. Seeing that PRO has not provided any definitions nor laid down any ground rules, I would like to do so for him.
Native speaker: A person who has spoken the language in question from earliest childhood 
Non-native speaker: Someone who has another native tongue than the language being used 
1. Please observe civilised etiquette and refrain from ad hominem
2. Should one forfeit, they must state their reason for forfeiture in the comments section or in the succeeding round, the legitimacy of said reason will be determined through negotiation
3. Have fun!
Once again, thank you to PRO and I look forward to an interesting debate!
brianjustin3709 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Native Speakers can not learn students challenges.
CON states that native speakers cannot fully empathize with the difficulty their students face. This can be rebuffed in two ways. Firstly, the motion states the contention to be whether 'we' should learn WITH native/non native speakers, not learn FROM. Hence, CON's arguments which is based on a student-teacher relationship does not stand. Secondly, we see (as per my definitions) that the difference between a native and non-native speaker does not concern that of ability. CON's argument ignores this and assumes that there is a difference in ability between the native and non-native speaker, thus giving rise to the student-teacher scenario.
Since the topic at hand is learning WITH, we shall be discussing both the non-native and native speaker as students. Generally speaking, it is precisely because there exists a difference between the native and non-native speakers in terms of their understanding of more intangible aspects of a language that makes for a more fruitful learning experience for both students. There can be an exchange of perspectives, whereby the native speaker with a more in-depth understanding of the language at hand, in this case, English, can share his take and viewpoint on English with that of a non-native speaker, while the non-native speaker may be able to offer another candid and more culturally neutral way of viewing English that the native speaker may have never even thought existed.
Please bear in mind that I am comparing non-native speakers with native speakers in terms of their understanding of a language's 'intangible aspects', rather than purely ability. A non-native speaker can have equal or better mastery of a language in terms of being able to speak it fluently and use it on a daily basis in any occasion, but they may not grasp more abstract aspects of a language (etymology, regional slang, idioms, etc.) as thoroughly as the native speaker.
Thank you and I await CON's response. Please be reminded that no new arguments should be brought up in the next round as it is the final round of this debate.
Responding to non-native speakers of English
Most instructors encounter non-native speakers of English or ESL students (students with English as their second language) in their classes at one point or another. Although native speakers of English also have problems with writing, non-native speakers' problems can be quite different, and the approach taken by the instructor needs to be different as well. The following list of ideas and suggestions will help you recognize and respond to the typical problems for ESL students. Some services are available on campus to help non-native speakers, but the majority of the improvement will need to come from comments made by the instructor. Although standards for grading must remain the same for native and non-native speakers in a class, the instructor may need to alter the approach of teaching and commenting slightly for the non-native speaker.Overall
Generally, instructors find non-native speakers' papers overwhelming because there are several issues that need to be addressed. It is sometimes difficult to determine if the student is simply a weak writer, or if too little time has been spent on the draft, or if the kinds of mistakes stem from a lack of knowledge and experience of U.S. academic writing standards. While their American peers are usually satisfied and sufficiently directed with a few well-worded comments, most non-native speakers expect and need more extensive commenting. In fact, the role of the teacher in most countries is to correct everything, so even the comments the American instructor gives may seem inadequate to many of the international students. Most ESL-trained teachers say that they take the following approaches with their students.
Recognizing grammar problems is so easy that it tends to mask the more serious problems of the ESL writer. It may also mask the good points of the paper and cause you to overlook the depth or insights presented in the paper. Writing grammar corrections all over a paper causes a student to focus only on grammar and not realize that "fixing the grammar" may not significantly improve the other problems. Most ESL writers cannot focus on both grammar and development of ideas at the same time. They must first write their ideas and then edit for grammar.
Possible alternative approaches:
At this point I would normally thank my opponent for his arguments/rebuttals/analysis, but I am afraid this cannot be said in this case. I am going to discount CON's content in the final round for two reasons:
1. CON brings up new arguments on why native speakers of a language cannot act as suitable teachers for ESL students, despite my statement in the third round which calls for no new arguments in the final round. CON him/herself also agrees upon this by clarifying in the first round that the final round be reserved only for 'concluding'.
2. Though I appreciate CON pasting the link from which he used as a reference for his content, I would like to point out that all of what he/she has 'written' in the final round is actually a carbon copy of the text that is on said link. Please be reminded that including the link does not exempt one of plagiarism, nor does doing so automatically accredit the content to you. One may take statistics, photos, videos or even paraphrase text off of another source, but never copy it word for word. This is, after all, a debate, not a competition to see who can find the best sources.
Though I am technically not obligated to do so, I would still like to point out major flaws in CON's "arguments".
1. Once again, I reiterate that this motion uses the word 'with' instead of what CON sees to be 'from'. I learn WITH other students, and I learn FROM my teachers. CON's entire chunk of text in the final round talks about how teachers are incapable of comprehending the challenges that students face due to cultural and capability barriers, to which I have never denied. For CON to use this argument in the context of this debate, he/she must justify that native speaker students have the same detrimental impact on non-native speaker students when both are placed in the same learning environment.
2. If CON is to refer to my definitions (I took the liberty to define since he/she did not), he/she would realise that native and non-native speakers are not segregated by a difference in ability, but rather when they take it upon themselves to learn the language. Thus, all of CON's arguments concerning an inconsistency between non-native speakers and ESL speakers in terms of their understanding of things such as grammar and commentation and the teacher-student correlation in general does not stand.
Thank you to CON for establishing this debate, though I was hoping for a more orderly and exciting debate, but a duly win on my part for this debate would suffice. Vote PRO as PRO was the only side of the house that actually conjured up original arguments which were unrefuted and were relevant to the motion. Thank you.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|