There should be an international auxiliary language.
Debate Rounds (4)
In this round, my opponent will accept the debate. In the next round, we will both provide our opening arguments. In the third round, we will make rebuttals. And we will provide conclusions and final rebuttals in the last round.
The rules should be self-explanatory. If we provide information from other sources, we must cite them. Proper spelling and grammar should be used. And both debaters should respect one another.
Thank you, KingEnder101, for accepting the debate.
The premise I desire to prove is the following: "There should be an international auxiliary language." I have four arguments in favor of the premise: a) it would enhance trade, b) it would simplify diplomacy, c) it would create national unity, and d) it would create cultural unity.
Let us first define the key term this debate relies on. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an auxiliary language as "a language used for communication between persons that do not understand each other's native language" .
When one nation exports goods to another, and when goods are imported into a nation, labeling these products with an international auxiliary language will ensure that the words are understood by everyone. And when companies or personell are physically transporting such goods, the use of an auxiliary language will help them in their work.
When Hillary Clinton visited Geneva as Secretary of State in 2009, she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red button, which meant to say the Russian word for "reset" on it. The word for "reset" is "perezagruzka." It turned out the word on the button was "peregruzka", which means "overcharged."
With an international auxiliary language that is not English, blemishing such a good intention can be avoided entirely. If the leaders of the world could communicate in a shared language, they could easily avoid the mistranslation or the exaggeration of well-intended idioms, as well as the most basic of words. What should have been an historic moment in U.S.-Russian relations turned out to be an embarrassment. Why? The language barrier.
C. National Unity
The United States uses English as a de facto official language, though there are populations in the country which do not speak it. There are Native American reservations, Spanish-speaking communities, and immigrant groups which are far from fluent in English, provided they know any. By adopting a language different from both the majority population and the minority populations, both will make a sacrifice - a necessary sacrifice - so they can more easily communicate.
As a de jure language, a nation can of course use the language its culture naturally has come to use. De jure, however, applies to within a nation. It is the de facto use of a language which will create unity. Whichever language a government official speaks in a speech is irrelevant, while the condition of a nation's citizens is relevant.
D. Cultural Unity
Let us assume Culture A and Culture B share a piece of land and often come in contact, but they often misunderstand one another, leading to warfare. If there were a language to combine elements from Culture A's language and Culture B's language, they would both find themselves in a win-win situation: one, they can communicate more effectively; two, this language will satisfy their knowledge of their own; and three, the knowledge of a new language will enhance their cognitive skill. (http://www.theatlantic.com...)
I am sure my opponent agrees with many of the points I have made. I have made the claim English should not be this international language. It already is on its way to becoming so. Why stop forward progress right in its tracks?
I say English is not suited well to become an international auxiliary language. You see, it is a fairly difficult language for foreigners. For one, it has an outrageous spelling system. Why do "through”, “trough”, and “though” sound so different? And the conjugation system is quite out of the box. The verb "walk" turns to "I walk", "you walk", "they walk", and et cetera. This is an outlandish concept to most of the world's population. Verbs do change naturally. The Spanish "comer" turns to "yo como", "tú comes", et cetera. This appears in virtually all European and Asian languages.
And English is a language of conquerers, of brutal monarchs, and a nation that once backed slavery. I realize all nations have a history of injustice and prejudice, but if we want an auxiliary language to achieve enhanced trade, easier diplomacy, national unity, and cultural unity, we need an innocent, brave new language.
Candidates for such a language could be Esperanto (though it was failed), Interlingua, and Defiant (my project.) So KingEnder101, why do you think English should be this language? I look forward to your argument.
To date, English is the most popular and widely spoken languages in the world. According to http://www.proto-english.org..., English originates from Germany in the 5th century A.D. Since the Saxons took over England, English has spread throughout the world by conquest through the countries that use English. It is also one of the oldest languages still spoken in the modern world.
English is already a widely spoken language. According to http://www.nationsonline.org..., 849,000,000 people speak English. English is also a widely taught language. Hundreds of countries across the world teach English to thier children. So, there is no reason English shouldn't be the auxiliary language, as it is already taught and known worldwide.
I am glad we have found common ground. I am glad we concur that there should be a lingua franca of some sort. But I still have reasons to object to English being this language. Let me refute your points.
To date, English is the most popular and widely spoken languages in the world.
The word "popular" is not a snyonym for "best." If one movie were highly popular in the Western Hemisphere, what would mean it is also popular in the Eastern Hemisphere? Or does the spread of a language from one nation or culture ensure the inclusiveness of other nations and cultures in the world community?
It is also one of the oldest languages still spoken in the modern world.
According to http://www.britannica.com..., German has a history starting in the 1st century B.C. And http://www.ruf.rice.edu... confirms that Latin, which many languages today are based upon, goes back all the way to 753 B.C. What does age have to do with which language is best? If age were relevant, then why not adopt a new language?
849,000,000 people speak English.
Chinese is spoken by 1,052,000,000 people (http://www.nationsonline.org...). That is clearly more than English. If the criteria for an international auxiliary language include age and range, then English has already been defeated by Latin (and its daughter languages) and the Chinese languages, particularly Mandarin.
I am strongly convinced that a) we need an auxiliary language, but also that b) it should not be English, for 1) it is not the easiest language to learn, 2) it is not the oldest language to date, 3) it is not the most spoken language, and 4) it is not fit to become an international auxiliary language due to its history. If we are going to unite the world with one language, then why not choose a new, fresh language different from the ones already existing? It would intrigue the world and possess them to learn it, which will in time, but effectively, unite the world like we all dream of.
As this is the third round, KingEnder101, please refute the argument I made in the previous round and disregard what I have written here, which we will address in our concluding paragraphs. Thank you.
KingEnder101 forfeited this round.
I see my opponent has forfeited the debate, which I am displeased about.
Let me conclude by saying that if the criteria for an international auxiliary language are a) age and b) range, English has been defeated by several other languages, including Latin and Mandarin Chinese, and there is plenty of incentive for a constructed language, whether it now be my project or Esperanto.
KingEnder101 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 1 year ago
|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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited in the end, so conduct points go to Pro. They are tied for spelling and grammar. Pro's arguments were longer and more complex, and his arguments were just more convincing. Pro used better sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.