The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The Whole World Should Have Only 1 Language For Everyone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 80940
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




As the world keep growing, most of us need to understand each other better and there is one thing, which blocked us from sharing, COMMUNICATION. We should let there only be 1 language for the whole world so that we could communicate with each other around the globe more easily. I think that we should make this possible as we do not understand each other well.


I will accept this debate. Arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


According to BBC, it is estimated to be more than 5,000 languages around the world, 90% of these languages are used less than 100,000 people. Why should we keep them when there is so less people using it? and it benefits us if we keep only 1 language for all of us.

People will be more united as they communicate with each other often and they would understand each other. If the people are more united, there will be less conflicts and wars between each other.

Lots of money and time are spent on learning different languages. If the whole world have only 1 language, people do not need to learn any other languages. By doing so, lots of money and time can be spent on anything else.

I will continue in the third round.


Thank you for posting your arguments. I will post mine also.


First I will post my rebuttals.

Pro's case in his first paragraph.

"According to BBC, it is estimated to be more than 5,000 languages around the world, 90% of these languages are used less than 100,000 people. Why should we keep them when there is so less people using it? and it benefits us if we keep only 1 language for all of us."

Right now what Pro is saying we need only one language. Pro is not saying that we can only keep the important ones. Pro is basically posting an argument for the wrong side. Later on I will expand this argument.

Pro's second case.

Languages are not for communicating with others. Do you think long time ago, they wanted to communicate with other countries? They just wanted to keep what they were saying as an secret. This is why there are Morse Codes and all those things. Also there is translators. They won't really predict what they said. The translators can communicate with other countries with no disagreement.

Pro's third paragraph.

"Lots of money and time are spent on learning different languages. If the whole world have only 1 language, people do not need to learn any other languages. By doing so, lots of money and time can be spent on anything else."

But however if we change the language to only one, the people who were not really using those languages. They have to learn that language really fluently. We are just learning some langauges to know them not really good as American people's English. We have to learn these to the people who did not learn the language. Also think about this. The children or people alerady learned them. If we don't use that language anymore, that money is a waste because we use it on a thing we don't use know. This is why we shouldn't change langauges. They had alerady learned those languages. There will be more of an waste than.


Con team is not saying we have to learn more than one language. It is jsut that we should not be forced and also we can choose what languages we want to learn.


1. Which language are we going to use then?

What the resolution is saying should must be fixed. Right now Pro thinks that it will be much easier and not complicated. However this is false. This is because, what language will we choose? What happens to the other languages. Do the languages we used to learn go away and we never use them again. Then how will we choose what language. This will be a huge debate and many disagreements of which language we should choose. This will take much more time.

For example, just think about a country like France. They choose English. Do you think the leader will like that. Every other country will hate that and not obey. This will contain way more wars because there is an diagreement between countries. If we stay calm and have more languages, and each use their own, there is really no disagreement. This is why I think that we should not have only one language.

2. The languages represent their culture and where they were from.

This argument is about knowing where they were from. If everyone spoke the same language, do you think anyone knows where you came from? The won't know. This is because they know that you speak that language, you are probably a citizen from there. For example, someone lived in Mexico. If the 1 language is English, not many people know that they are Mexicans. If you speak in a different language, that can explain where you were from and your palces culture.

Languages are quite important things for countries. The languages represent their culture. If we do not use those, they will be forgotten. If we don't use them, the culture of them dissapear.

Basically. languages are deeply related to their ethnic culture, so losing their language is equivalent to losing their ethnicity. We think about everything using our first language, so the language is based on the idea. One world language might make our world boring, and make it uniformity.

3. The Right of the people, country.

As I said in my second argument, the culture disappears. Also people have the right of choice. Right now what Pro is saying suddenly, they change it so the world only speaks one language. Do you think that everyone will believe that we should? How about the citizens and the government in the other countries. Do you think they would just let go of the languages they were speaking? The country has an right of freedom. They can't really know who is speaking any other language. Also that is just cruel.

Just think about someone comes in and says you can only talk with an british accent. What about the people who can't? They have to learn. But however how do they learn the language when you teach by explaining with that langauge? Secondly it is just very cruel to go into a different territory and saying you have to speak their language. If you don't obey, there will be war. This is why we should just give our citizens right and the government to speak their own language.

Countries have the freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want. This includes saying any language. Before they make that law, they had alerady not obey one of their laws so citizens cannot obey the rules of 1 language also.


Even though I have more arguments, I just wrote three. Other arguments are that just learning other languages is fun and good practice. You can enjoy and compare your countries language and their countries language. Also countries are always different and people are always different. We should respect each others differnences.

Thank you for reading


Debate Round No. 2



Students will get to focus more on subjects such as Mathematics and Science as there is less subject language. Also, less subject language means that other subject language textbook will not be needed. Students living in poverty often couldn’t afford to buy textbook for their studies.

Global economy will also gradually increase as trade and travel got much easier in communication as people can go anywhere they like at any time without having to learn the language first.


It is very useless to have more than 6000 languages. What’s the point of it? Do we use them much? I still have to say that the whole world should have only one language for everyone



Thank you for your arguments. However you should not put arguments in the last round. I will post my rebuttals then my conclusion.


1. The schools pay these things to these kids. Even though you do less subjects in school, there is more play time.

2. If they go anywhere, they have to learn the language because you can't really communicate and also then they can't do anything because they don't know how to speak those languages


I think that we should have more than 1 language. This doesn't mean we have to learn it though but we shouldn't have 1 language

Why I won

Pro did not rebut. Bad arguments from Pro.

Thank you. Vote for the right winner.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
thanks for the vote!
Posted by JkJw 1 year ago
Sorry about that. Is my first time having a debate here, so I don't know much. >.<
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
it is just that there aren't many sources.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Don't cite quora >.> It's as bad as yahoo answers.
Posted by JkJw 1 year ago
Ok done treeless
Posted by treeless 1 year ago
I would accept this, but I do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria. If you changed the settings, I would debate this with you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con due to the fact that not only did he have more sources, but he effectively used them in his debate to increase the effectiveness of his arguments. I also have to give arguments to Con on the grounds that Pro had dropped several key arguments that were important to the debate and since BOP was on Pro it will cost him the debate.