The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
18 Points

english should be our official 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,654 times Debate No: 15865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)




there a reason what we don't have one- america is considered "the melting pot" where all races join to make one. having english as our only official language would ruin that reputation, and is viewed as racism.

the proposition might say that other countries have one official language (germanys is german) but america was colonized by many ethnic groups EI: french english Spanish.

some of the people arguing for English as an official language say, it's already the most spoken So, it's a no-brainer English should be the official language. Right? But, by that logic, the official language should've originally been a mishmash of native american tongues. Early colonists and immigrants from Europe should've cast away English and learned the language of North America, not of Britain!

the proposition might say: We speak it in Congress, courthouses, national parks, and Presidential speeches. It is spoken in almost every store business, etc. You get my point. So why isn't it our national language?"
Yes, English is far and away the most widely spoken language in the United States. But this does not address WHY we "NEED" to make English our official language.

1 our of 5 people speak a different language in the home, so if we have english as an official language, that will not change.and even if they did start to speak english, it wouldn't be because thats our official language it would be because they would want to speak the language of everyone else to do better in the job industry.



Premise 1: Resolution needed to establish an "us" and "them" mentality. The first step to reverse the evil of inclusivity is to establish the language by which we exclude people. Voting Pro on this topic allows the government to start excluding people from society.

Premise 2: Immigrants will not want to come to the U.S. if they feel they are almost exclusively excluded from society. The us and them mentality is achieved from language and thus the US will start losing its "immigration magnet" status. The US needs to foster European nativism and xenophobia.

Impact: This will solve US overpopulation

US population & consumption levels are at the brink


[Jim Motavalli, E: The Environmental Magazine, “Balancing ACT - population growth” <]

. The report noted that U.S. population was growing at a rate double that of Europe, putting in peril both economic objectives and the quality of the environment.

275 million is an unsupportable population for the U.S., a violation of the continent's carrying capacity. Imagine, then, those problems magnified by a doubling of the population. According to Jay Keller, national field director for Zero Population Growth, "Such a huge increase could be tremendously damaging. Even with the current population we have a lot of environmental challenges."

. "The United States, by contrast, is still one of the great breadbaskets of the world." But that isn't likely to continue, as the U.S. loses 400,000 acres of farmland a year. Arable land is expected to be reduced from 400 million acres today to 290 million by 2050, when the population doubles. Among the threatened American assets are the $40 billion the U.S. makes through food exports.

Illegal immigration bad- overpopulates the U.S.

Jerry Kammer. 8-30-2007. Copley News Service Writer.

Immigration fueling huge population jump, study warns, Copley News Service

If flows of legal and illegal immigration continue at current rates, they will boost the population of the United States by 105 million by 2060, according to a study released here Thursday.

That growth, coupled with births among current residents, would boost the nation's population to 468 million from its current level of 301 million, reported the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates lower levels of immigration.

"The central question these projections raise is - what costs and benefits come with having a much larger population and a more densely settled country," study author Steven Camarota said in a panel discussion that included both a leader in the effort to restrict immigration and a prominent advocate of expansive immigration policies.

Net annual immigration is running at about 1.25 million persons, comprising some 800,000 legal immigrants and 450,000 illegal immigrants. Camarota's projections include growth only from future immigrants, not from the 38 million immigrants now in the United States.

US overpopulation will spark massive deforestation, C02 emission, & environmental castarophes

[Jim Motavalli, E: The Environmental Magazine, “Balancing ACT - population growth” <]

"The new population projections ... conjure images of twice as many cars jostling for position on the highways and twice as many shoppers crowding the aisles at Wal-Mart," the Associated Press reported. And that's one way of looking at it.

The prospect of a billion Americans, however remote, is certainly alarming enough to take seriously. The environmental impact of a quadruple population increase is difficult to imagine, but imagine it we must. Bob Engelman, vice president for research at Population Action International, gives this discouraging scenario: "It's very hard to even think about the flow of natural resources necessary to sustain a billion Americans living the way they live today. There would be severe and almost unimaginable strains. For example, each American generates five tons of the global warming gas carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) each year, so that would mean five billion tons from the U.S. alone, with dire consequences for the climate. There would definitely not be enough water, particularly in places like southern California, Nevada and south Florida. Food security would be a major issue, because urban sprawl would take away much of our remaining prime farmland. Forests could not possibly be stable with that level of population. Major biodiversity would also be lost: 95 percent of the country's endangered plants are in just three states, California, Florida and Hawaii, which have the highest population growth rates."

Debate Round No. 1


ok.. first of all: were not debating on illegal immigrants, were debating on whether or not the us should have English be our official language.
so, i'm my argument i'm perfectly correct.
in your first argument you said : "The first step to reverse the evil of inclusivity is to establish the language by which we exclude people. Voting Pro on this topic allows the government to start excluding people from society."
well your actually hurting your argument because why would we want to stop people from coming into the USA? i get the over-populazation bit, but really? "evil"?
your second argument says that immigrants will not want to come to the us because they would feel excluded... thats exactly what i'm saying! if we have our official language people would feel excluded and not want to support the united states, therefor our allies like spain, germany, france, would all feel excluded and we don't want that kind of tension with in the united nations.
Also, if illegal immigrants want to become legal they a required to learn english anyway so theres not point.

so, in your response please try and stick to the subject.


1. We are not debating illegal immigration, only if the US should have language or not

--> True the resolution doesnt state illegal immigration but as my premises state, illegal immigration and the official language are intrinsically connected

2. Why stop people from coming to the US

--> If you read the evidence it would show you that immigrtion leads to over population which leads to ecological disasters.

3. People wont support us

--> This links directly to my argument so Ive pretty much won all links and the impacts of the round

Our allies

--> No warrant that immgiration policy will isolate allies. Plus, most europeans hae official languages as he has specified and we still have NATO and such

--> Turn: this will icnrease our european nativist roots which will help strengthen our ies with Europe since we will feel intrincially connected to them

4. Immigrants need to learn the language

--> This is irrelevant. Remember the AC argument mostly deals with keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. And as is seen, illegal immigrants arent going out and actively looki for citizenship


He dropped all evidence in the AC dealing with overpopulation. This gives clear reasons why we need to stop the cycle of immigration by instituting a national algnauge which will help foster an "us" and "them" mentality.

Debate Round No. 2


ok so your saying that basically its ok if other countries hate us because were being racist, its ok that no one will come to the us anymore, its ok that our population will go down even when that is partly why we have as large an economy as we do, its ok if were separated by our allies because they cant speak our language.....since when is all of that good?
and my argument that said our allies will not support us if we have english be our official language is 100% because that is just how people think these days, if i was an immigrant from spain and the us is telling me that i have to be able to speak english and english id our official language when 20% of our entire population speak spanish only, i would move right back to spain because thats just common sense.


lol this was an interesting round : )

1. Countries hate us for being racist

--> My opponent is misusing the term racism. Its actually ethnocentrism. And as Ive pointed out he provides no warrants that countries ll hat us for being so. Not like they can do anything anyway.

2. No one will come

--> People still will, but they are the ones who know english. Affirming just ensures that we dont go over the brink mark (over population and over consumption) highlighted in my first speech

3. Population will go down even with large economy

--> This is basically a concession. Affimring will prevent ecological disaster by stopping over population.

--> Technological unemployment is hitting the US, number of people dont really matter anmore to such an extent

4. Seperate from our allies

--> Extend the observation that he giveno warrants or jusitifcations that immigration policy isolates our allies

--> Extend the turn that increasing european nativism within the US will actually foster closer and stronger ties with our european allies

5. Its just how people think these days

--> What? Warrant?

--> A majority of Spanish can speak english, they wont be deterred


1. He dropped and implicitly conceded in some of his sentences that affirming will help deter immigration. This links overpopulation which is linked to ecological diaster. As such affirming stops eclogical disaster. This outweighs any NC benefit. Magitude: ecological diaster directly affects everyone within the US. Probablity: the links directly state that immgration and overpopulation are inter-connected. As such its ahigh probability that it will occur

2. He gives abolsutely no reasons to vote neg. He simply amkes unasserted claims that we will lose our allies and that we are being racist as such. We are not being racist because we arent claiming superiority,we are simpy trying to avoid ecological disaster.

Interesting round since it was so out there. :D Yay for confusing policy arguments which I ran


Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
The national language is not English. San Francisco ballots are printed in 17 languages, for example. There are costs in policing and the courts, and throughout government. In many places public schools teach in Spanish as well as English. Voters who cannot understand English are not as well informed. Young people have a great ability to absorb a new language, but they need to be required to make the effort, and they are not.
Posted by possible08 7 years ago
Con, your Native American argument makes little sense to me. The Native Americans weren't members of early colonial society, so why would their languages have any influence? The United States was established by an English speaking population.
Posted by Aaronroy 7 years ago
The national language for the USA is English (de facto)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
There is irony in a debate about English in which Pro presents an incoherent fragmented outline of arguments and Con can't bring himself to use the shift key or punctuation marks. The purpose of an official language is to promote communication and that is a compelling argument. Too bad Pro didn't make it. Immigration can be controlled directly if we choose; his arguments were not compelling.
Posted by CiRrK 7 years ago
haha Roy never buys my policy arguments.... oh welll xD
Posted by maddog582 7 years ago
america has no official language but english is the most widely spoken
Posted by Williaam 7 years ago
The official language of the U.S. is already English? So, what was the point of this debate?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins hands down Con didn't even make theoretical sense
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: English should be our official language, but Pro's population control argument was for controlling immigration, way off base. Con was hard to understand due to lack of punctuation and grammar
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: While strange, pro's argument was surprisingly bad@$$.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: con dropped alot of pro's arguments. And con didn't even have sources BTW pro, nice use of policy