The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should Latinos be allowed to speak their language recreationally within the USA?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
asta has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,522 times Debate No: 113991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (83)
Votes (0)




-No backing out. If your convinced on either side, say "I'm convinced" in your round. It also is bad for your reputation if you do back out, which would cause you to lose points.
-Round 1 is an acceptence round. Rounds 2+ is where we put our arguments.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


What do the separatist movements of:

1:Austria Hungary
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession
5:Belgium vs Flanders
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds
7:United Kingdom vs Wales
8:Canada vs Quebec
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

All have in common? They are all on the basis of cultural differences between the parent country and the smaller power.

Why am I telling you this? Because I am afraid of the same thing happening to the United States (US).

Unassimilated Latinos are coming into this country and they are in the process of making super majorities in certain areas in the country. Once they accomplish this, they then will want to secede from the rest of the country.

If you think this is just nonsense, unfortunately, it's not. The president of Mexico has said that he is the president of 123 Mexicans; 100 million in Mexico and 23 million in the US. La Raza and MEChA, which aren't extremist groups, but they are mainstream activist groups, advocate for Mexico to take back the southwest US, even though the US bought this land for a very good price; about $750 million in cash and debt payoffs for land with less combined taxpayers than Tempe, Arizona, a place most people in this country can't locate on a map without guessing.

So, the US is probably going to break up on this basis and the only way to stop it is to force everyone in the US to Americanize.

There are people that are worried about how they would lose their culture. However, how is culture even important? It does not make you who you are, what makes the individual who they are are the things that they accomplish in life, not their ethnicity.

If the US broke up on the other hand, it would be significantly less able to defend freedom worldwide. Since the US would have to deal with a separatist movement from Latin Americans, it would mean it would be less able to focus on defending the world from North Korea(NK) and ISIS.

People say NK made peace with South Korea(SK), but whether or not this happens in the long term is up for speculation.

If the US is unable to deal with NK and ISIS due to the Latin American separatist movements, then SK and Japan both become communist from an invasion directed by NK and China because there is no USA to stop them. Russia would probably invade all of Europe because there is no USA to stop them and spread communism there. ISIS would take the middle east and all of Africa because there is no USA to stop them.

This will happen form the US being unable to fight them due to the US having a local Latin American conflict to deal with. Since the UN would preach, (Self determination, you should have assimilated them while you had the chance), the US would resist this and as a form of protest, eliminate the UN within it's borders, which is headquartered in the US. At best, the UN is headquartered somewhere else, at worst, it ceases to exist. The nations become more divided, even if they are already divided.

In summary, if Latinos are allowed to keep their culture, it would make them want to secede. This claim is backed up by some of the many times in world history that different cultures break away to preserve their culture. If the US breaks up, then freedom worldwide would be lost. Over 6 billion people would be under a communist system, with some Islamic law in there. I estimate that 600 million people would get killed under the fascist governments, because that's how they work; by killing all your political opponents.

Either immigrants endure the necessary assilimination pain or the US dies as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


-- Alec Stanton


My opponents argument consists mainly of the point that if Latinos don't assimilate then the U.S. will face a series of secession wars that will lead to the dissolution of the Union. Never mind that seceding from the Union has already been tried in a time when the U.S. military was far weaker (even adjusting for available technology.) The U.S. military would likely have no trouble putting down some scattered insurrections. On a more important note, my opponents argument lies in the assumptions that insurrections are inevitable and that enforcing a universal language is the only way to ensure assimilation. Firstly, I would adamantly agree that all people in this country should learn to speak English, but forcing the complete abandonment of the Mother Tongue is one surefire way to breed animosity between Latinos and the U.S. Moreover, the proposed policy stands in complete contradiction of the values and moral standards of the United States. Restricting any form of speech in any language is, in my opinion, and in the opinions of the founders, contrary to the duty that a government has to ensure freedom of speech and constitutes a violation of the Social Contract. This is made especially true by the fact that violent insurrection, or even secessionist movements are not inevitable. My opponent brings up several historical examples of previous secession movements. But many of the examples have fundamental problems when applied to his argument. Let's start at the top and work our way down on the ones with issues.

1. Austria Hungary was forcibly separated after WWI by the allied powers. The internal problems never manifested in revolution and were largely the result of recent military conquest and mismanagement by the Empire.

2. The people of Ukraine and Crimea want to join Russia not because of cultural differences as is shown by polls showing heavy, near universal support for Russian annexation because of a higher quality of life in Russia regardless of ethnicity or culture.(1)

3. Catalonia wants to secede from Spain for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is over the top taxation and mismanagement by the struggling Spanish government. The Basques are agitated about the massive decrease in the regional autonomy they had enjoyed for centuries.

4. Texas wanted to secede from mexico because of the abolishment of the 1824 constitution which granted them greater freedom, and the fact that Texans at the time held slaves while slavery was illegal in Mexico. They had to call them "indentured servants" which the Mexican authorities grudgingly went along with it but the issue would flare up many times.

I could go on and on but the point is that there are always a multitude of reasons for secessionist movements besides culture.

More importantly, We need to decide if we believe that the Con side will solve for his impact. The question is: "will forcing Latinos to stop speaking Spanish force cultural assimilation?" The answer, dear voters, is a resounding no. I ask you. is language culture? is that all culture is? Of course not. Culture is music, art, holidays, religion and a myriad of other components. In order to force complete cultural assimilation in the way con suggests, forcing the abandonment of cultural components, we would also need to ban Spanish holidays, Latin Music, Authentic Mexican food, perhaps even Catholicism itself. I refer you back to my previous point when I say that all of this would lead to massive animosity and agitation that may lead to the insurrection con is scared of as this does constitute cultural oppression. The rest of my opponents argument is all "what if?" questions about what could happen if the U.S. collapses because of revolts. This could all come to pass much easier if the U.S. stoops to cultural oppression as several of the nations on his previous list had. The Roman Empire comes to mind. Since I have shown that his solution does not link to his impact none of this will come to pass in the way he thinks it will.

To conclude this round, none of what my opponent says will come to pass because of language. However, It may all come to pass because of the actions he would take to prevent it. In the words of French Poet Jean De La Fontaine: "A person often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has said that a civil war wouldn't be effective since the US fought a civil war and failed. However, during the 1st civil war, the United States barely won. While the North had significently more recources, the South had better tacticians and generals ( To put it in perspective, General E Lee, the Southern General, was a desendant of George Washington, a general who led a renegade army to get independence from at the time, the biggest army in the world (The British army). That's how good Washington was which meant that Washington's genes were inside Lee. It was because of this that according to the video 1:45 to 2:16. that the deciding reason why the Union won was because a messenger from the south failed to deliever a message from Generall E Lee and this message was intercepted by the Union, which allowed them to catch the confederates off guard. If this rare event didn't happened, the Dixies would have won the civil war. Just because the US won the civil war once does guarantee a victory a 2nd time. This mentality would be like a baseball team thinking that they will always win just because they won once before.

"my opponents argument LIES". I am saying that languages have had a repeated history of breaking countries apart and that it can happen to the United States as well. I did not say that a universal language or even a national language would be the only things that would be required for assilimination, but it is part of assilimination.

*"Forcing the complete abandonment of the Mother Tongue is one surefire way to breed animosity between Latinos and the U.S.". This isin't inheritely what I believe nor is it true. Latinos can know Spanish and Portuegese, but within the public sphere of the United States, they should not be speaking their iberian languages within the US. Just as other immigrints that have came to the US tended to not speak their native tounge (Armenian Americans tend to not publicly speak Armenia recreationally, Greek Americans tend to not publicly speak Greek recreationally, etc). Exceptions to this are when they are talking to someone of their ethnicity, and even then it is only sometimes Since Armenian and Greek immigrints relize that their language isin't going to be commonplace in where they are moving, they tend to hide their language so Assilimination happens much faster. They are rare within the United States.

However, areas that have significent populations in the US, like Hispanics, tend to lose their culture more slowly since they have the nessesary population percentage to keep it. Remember how immigrints on tend to keep their foreign language hidden unless This then would lead to them wanting to scede.

*Here, my opponent is refering to the 1st amendment, which allows for freedom of speech. However, Freedom of speech is a reference to freedom of political expression. Even George Washington believed in the assimilation of Native Americans west of the Application.(Para 6, line 6)( Even though it does directly talk about language, it shows that George Washington didn't care about the Native American cultures. He wanted the Natives to get assiliminated within American culture, this also could have extended to language, which the natives tended to assiliminate on theiir own. He also believed the Native American cultures would die out eventually and he thought them assiliminating to American culture was inevitible and good (

My opponent tries to explain why only some of my example sepratist movements are not legitimate. This is part of the rebuttle on his rebuttle.

"Hungary was forcibly separated after WWI by the allied powers." The TOV was signed in 1919, Austria Hungary broke up in 1918. They did not break up due to the allies ( "The internal problems never manifested in revolution and were largely the result of recent military conquest and mismanagement by the Empire." The mismanagement that caused Austria Hungary (AH) to break up was allowing multiple regional languages to exist in numbers as promonent as they were. If AH unified their culture, then the country would still exist today.

My opponenent claims that many Ukranans, especially those in crimea, want to join Russia because it can offer a better quality of life. However, if cultural has no correlation on whether or not East Ukriaine wants to join Russia, then how come the reigions within Ukraine that want to join Russia have more ethnic russians? It's not like Western Ukraine wants to join Russia nearly as badly as the east. I wonder why.

Catalonia does get taxed a lot. However, this alone does not explain why they want to scede. Otherwise, rich states within the US like Alaska would want to scede just like Catalonia. Alaskans according to your logic, Alaskans would have had even higher desire for sepertion then the Catalonians since the average Alaskan pays more money to the US government then the typical Catalonan does to the Spainish government. However, most Alaskans don't want to secede and out of their elections, the highest independence rate was less then 40%. However, Catalonians, despite less money being paid to their government, have a sepratist rate over 80% of the amount who voted, and this is on the low end of estimates.

The Basques already have lots of autonomy and Spain respects the minority languages within their country. A quote from the Spanish constitution, "all Spaniards and the peoples of Spain in the exercise of human rights, their cultures and traditions, languages and institutions."( Despite the language freedom and the autonomy, the Basque want independence.

My opponent also claims that there were ideological differences between Texas and Mexico. This is true, however, is it any different now? The states where Latinos tend to settle tend to be liberal. Just as the Anglo Texans wanted to suceed on the basis of language and ideology, so would the Latinos in Liberal states.

If the question is, "will forcing Latinos to stop speaking Spanish force cultural assimilation?" The answer, dear voters, is a resounding yes. Language is not all of culture and I don't want to eliminate all parts of culture, however trivial they may be(some are trivial, some are not). However, the question is not, "Should Latinos be allowed to keep their culture?" I had that debate before and my question is now rephrased. Latinos can be catholac, they can eat tacos. That's not the debate. The debate is "Should Latinos be allowed to speak their language recreationally within the USA?". There are times when they can speak their language. If they are in their houses, its okay since sepratist moveent rates are minimized. If it's for educational pourposes, then they are learning the language, that's also fine. However, in all other regards, their culture would cause a sepratist movement unless something is done about it now.

My opponent is saying that forcing Latinos to give up their culture will actually make them more likely to seceed. However, history confirms the opposite thesies.

Actually, the former nations that were on that list had let other cultures within their countries to exist, and they broke apart because of it. The Roman Empire put many foreigners in concentration camps. However, According to Alternate History Hub's, "What if the Roman empire never fell part 1", it states (1:45-2:00) that one problem with the Roman empire was that it was very diverse. He is refering to the lingwistic and cultural diversity within the empire. If they were lingwistically homogenous, then the empire would have a higher chance of surviving. Religious minorities can be solved a different way then making them illegal. That's for next round though.

"A person often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." This quote can apply to people who want to allow others to keep their culture to prevent them from suceeding. This quote can apply to both our ideologies, since both of us want to keep the US together. The quote does not apply in all situations. An example, an epitome even of when this quote wouldn't apply is if people study for tests in order to avoid getting a bad graade on them. The more you study, generally the better grade you will get. THere are some situations where this quote applies and some where it does not. It does not apply here. More assilimination tends to lead to less likely for a group to scede.

Here's a quote that may aply to your argument, but not to mine. "If you give them an inch, they take a mile". If you allow people some rights, they tend to want more.



Here are the real reasons the South lost the Civil War and how those would affect any new civil war in pockets of Latino aggression.
1. resources. Confederacy was at an early disadvantage because of their lack of war time resources. Any pockets of Latino revolutionaries would also be hopelessly outmatched in resources against the U.S. military.

2. Administrative capacity. The North developed a much stronger group of governmental leaders. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox, and others brought great skill and efficiency to their roles.

The American Civil War was one of the first industrially-driven wars. The flow of supplies and transportation was vital to success. The North managed these systems better and ran a more balanced economy to support them. The Confederacy suffered 9,000% inflation, and troops struggled for supplies. Any Latino revolutionaries would also struggle administratively because of the nature of pockets of resistance. They would also require an influx of money from an outside source which would lead to regional inflation.

3. Contrary to my opponents claims, Generalism. The focus of the Civil war is often focused on the East where Robert E. Lee makes it appear that the Confederacy had better leadership. However, Generals Grant and Sherman in the West can easily compete with, and many scholars claim outshone Lee. Furthermore, Lee's focus on the East led to over committal in the East by the Confederacy so when Lee's army was annihilated at Gettysburg the South lost any hope of victory. All the while the Union was tearing the Confederacy apart in the West. The U.S. military would almost certainly have much better generals than any revolutionaries.

My opponent makes the claim that language has broken apart countries before and so my argument is false. However, it isn't language, but culture that leads to animosity which I have already shown and shall no doubt go on to reaffirm later this round. If you only ban language which is what this debate is, then you would not actually force assimilation you would only breed animosity and make things worse.

None of what my opponent says in his next point contradicts my point. Nothing. He only states that when people don't need to speak their language they tend to stop. This has nothing to do with animosity and is not comparable because the Greeks and Armenians choose not to speak their language. Using force to compel Latinos to stop speaking their language would make them hate you.

My opponents next point states that George Washington wanted natives to assimilate and that he believed it was good. He did offer them the tools to assimilate according to my opponents source, but he did not force them to take it. Big difference. His source never says that any American policy of the time compelled natives to give up any of their culture against their will. Which means he has not shown my claim to be false and in fact, has reaffirmed it as Washington only attempted to persuade them to assimilate. He did not force them to.

"Austria and Hungary were treated as two completely new countries after these treaties were signed. Both lost land to neighbouring countries; the new state of Czechoslovakia was effectively created out of this carve-up of land; large blocks of land went to Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. Part of Austria went to Italy." later there would be pressure from the allies for Austria-Hungary to break up completely. Wikipedia was wrong. Imagine that. The treaties mentioned were the two treaties of Versailles that Austria-Hungary was forced to sign which was indicative of the beginning of Allied pressure for dissolving the Austrian Empire. He also dropped the point on recent military conquest.

My opponents point on Ukraine and Crimea fails to address the pivotal point that annexation has near universal support across ethnic lines as was evidenced in the source I cited last round. While ethnic Russians MAY have a stronger desire to be annexed, it as less to do with culture and more to do with other variables.

My opponents point on Catalonia doesn't hold water. He claims that since Alaska pays high taxes and doesn't want to secede, and Catalonia pays high taxes and does want to secede that taxation must be irrelevant or at least less important than culture. While culture does play a part, the biggest reasons the Catalans themselves give is over taxation.

His point on the Basques is also false. The Basques have been seeing a decrease in autonomy since the 1800's and there are more recent attacks on the autonomy statute recently. Also, only 17 percent of Basques want independence from Spain at all.

Just because your demographic leans left doesn't mean you want to secede. Especially when half of the Nation supports your viewpoint anyway. They already live in parts of the country where they are in a general political consensus with their neighbors regardless of ethnicity. That isn't a reason to secede. In Texas, the majority of the country disagreed with them and there were laws on the books that banned what they believed in, which as I already said, was slavery. These two things are nothing alike.

First off, if you actually want to achieve your stated goal of cultural assimilation in the way you want to go about it then you need to attack all areas of culture not just one aspect. Also, Simply forcing them not to speak Spanish in public doesn't seem like it would do much. You claim it would reduce separatist sentiments but you don't make any attempt to prove your claim. That's an important step you skipped. If they are allowed to carry on in private no cultural assimilation would happen.

I gave a listen to the video you mentioned and it makes the claim that the if the Romans had continued to expand they would have taken on more Germanic characteristics. Which would lead to Germans wanting more power. The video does not make the claim that this is why Rome would have fallen only that the Empire would decentralize and the German people would eventually attack Rome looking for autonomy. Again, this has less to do with culture and more to do with a desire for self governance. This same pattern holds in revolutions such as the American Revolution which also was because of a desire to govern themselves even though they shared a common culture.

I agree that more assimilation leads to less liberty desire. But FORCED assimilation leads to a greater liberty desire because of the policies needed to enforce it. the idea I presented does work here. Forced Assimilation rarely works in any case. After the Moors were driven out of Iberia during the Reconquista many Muslims remained in Castile (which is now spain.) There was suddenly and completely unexpectedly... BOOM! the Spanish Inquisition! Among their chief weaponry were such diverse elements as surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and cool red uniforms! After the Inquisition many of the Moriscos continued to practice Islam in secret rather than give in to Catholicism. The forced assimilation failed here as it had many times in the past. Meanwhile as the Inquisition occurred in 1478 the Morisco Revolt happened in 1568. Had the Muslims been allowed to live in peace, there may have been no revolt.

I happen to believe that giving people the right to express their culture is a just action that should not be dissuaded because they might want more rights. Maybe those rights are just as well.
Debate Round No. 3


0)Bullets have changed

1)The South did have a material disadvantage to the Union. This is non disputed. However, my opponent claims that the North Generals were better then the South ones. He doesn't give a link for this., "Lee is usually accounted the superior commander. He scored outrageous victories against the Army of the Potomac up until Gettysburg 1863, fighting against superior numbers and better supplied troops." This means despite him having a troop disadvantage, he won fights. that Lee was able to do a lot with a little, although Grant was willing to kill men to win. Grant might not have had this plan if he had the smaller army.

2) "My opponent makes the claim that language has broken apart countries before and so my argument is false." You agree with me on this.

3) "it isn't language, but culture that leads to animosity". This is true.

4) If linguistic assimilation is forced, then it happens. Among the 1st generation (1G) Latinos, they tend to respect the US for it's values and tend to be more patriotic then the typical American since they know what America is and what it is not. If the government tells them, "You should assiliminate so your children don't want to secede", then the 1G immigrants will respect and apply this so their future children don't leave the country 1G immigrints love. If you think this is BS, I told this to 5 1G Latinos who didn't know much English and they said it is smart. They weren't offended or angered, they were aware of the danger and they wanted to cooperate. This also happens to 1G immigrants who knew English. The reason why 2G+ Latinos respond angrily is because they were told by the left school system and media which is pro multiculturalism. If they learn that multiculturalism is bad, then they end up emulating the 1G Latinos which takes American values to heart.

5) This was a different paragraph. The reason why the Greeks and Armenians(G&A) tend to not speak their language in the US is because they don't have the numbers within the US to want to do that. A law preventing them from speaking their language would not be as vital because they won't get enough numbers to want to secede. Immigrants like this tend to become completely assimilated by the 2G. They may know some of their native languages, but they are less likely to speak it in public since they are indistingishable from mainstream Americans and they feel more American then G/A. However, unlike the G&A, the Latinos have the numbers to be able to speak their language recreationally. As a result, natural assimilation becomes slower per generation. 2G Latinos are less assimilated then the 1G of G&A. Using a law to force Latinos to Americanize would make them hate the idea at first. As they Americanize, they tend to lose this hatred. Just like when a parent imposes a no electronics rule on their kids. The kids hate their parents at first but they get used to it. It's not like they leave the house, which would be the equivilant of a sucessionist movement.

6) that the problem for the Austria Hungarian empire was that it, "introduced reforms to improve minority language or cultural rights". This is one of the many historical examples where minority language and cultural rights are allowed in the country and as a result, they try to seceede.

7) "While ethnic Russians MAY have a stronger desire to be annexed, it as less to do with culture and more to do with other variables." What other variables? It seems that the ethnic Russians in Ukraine would want to join Russia because people who have the same cultures tend to want to be in the same country. Your claim has no water.

8) "While culture does play a part, the biggest reasons the Catalans themselves give is over taxation." This argument is like an empty glass, it doesn't hold water. If the Catalonians want to seceed from high taxes, then why wouldn't Alaskans, or any other wealthy reigion of any country also want to suceed? Every country has one reigon that is richer then the other reigon. Why don't the rich reigons seeede on this basis?

9) A minority of Basques want to secede, yes. However, why do 1/6 of Basques that do want independence want it? Basque people have managed to preserve their own identifying characteristics such as their own culture and language throughout the centuries and today a large part of the population shares a collective consciousness and a desire to be self-governed

10) The half of the nation that would support their viewpoint is (with exceptions) the type that would have spoken more Spanish since there would be more Latinos living in many present day Democrat states than non Latinos at the rate that immigrints are breeding and coming into this country (this is in the near future). As a result, Spanish would become more prevelant within many Democrat States (it wouldn't be all Democrat states with a lot of Spanish influence, but with the exception of Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Florida, the remaning states would be democrat majority). This then makes them feel different from the anglophone states, which are mostly Replublican. Due to cultural and ideological differences, most Latinos would want to break away. They would say. "The Latino states have their own language, culture and history. Because of this, they should scede from the US."

11) "In Texas, the majority of the state disagreed with them and there were laws on the books that banned what they believed in" I don't think that Texas censored the anti-slavery ideology, although I may be wrong. Whether the difference is pro-choice on slavery vs anti-slavery, or Replublican vs Democrat, they are similar parellels becuase both groups wanted to suceed on language and ideology. Language is mentioned in other bullet points.

12) The reason why people should be forced to give up their language but not many other components of their culture (like religion) is because with the exception of a few states, no state has any religious majority. If the "Catholac majority" states wanted to seceed because they were "catholac majority", then they would have a hard time getting support because no state is mostly Catholac in the US. that Protestants make up only a plurality of the population, and Protestants have many different dinominations, and any Protestant denomination making up a majority of the population in any state probably applies only to 1 state. There has yet to be a sepratist movement on the basis of different protestant factions. Catholacs according to the survey make up less then 1/4 Americans (23%). There is not a single US state with a majority Catholac population. If there was a state with a majority Catholac population, I would not want them to force to give up their religion. That would violate freedom of religion. Instead, I would want to encourage Catholacs to move out of the state so protestants can replace them. Given that many young adults move out of their home state anyway because of jobs, this wouldn't be so bad. I have proven my language based claim multiple times with historical evidence.

13) The video said that if the Romans continued to expand, they would have more racially German Characteristics. This just meant that the average Roman would look more Germanic. If they had assiliminated the people they conquored, the Germanic people that they conquored would be as Roman as you are an American. You aren't ethnically American (the only ones who are are Native Americans) but your culturally American. Your Anglophone, Your Christain, your even upper middle class. Your an American in all but race, just as the ethnic Germans are Romans. You claim that the Germanic people would want autonomy, but why would they want autonomy? No one wants autonomy from a foreign power for no reason. There is always some sort difference between the sepratist movement and the parent country when sepratist movements happen. The American Revolution happened based on ideological differences between the colonies and the British monarch (the colonies didn't want taxation without representation as an example).

14) Forced assimilation leads to less long term seperation desire because at first Latinos would complain about it but in the long term, they adjust, especially if they are billingual and can make the switch easily. Some examples of when it did work are in Iberia and the UK. These countries assiliminated the Aragonese and the Scots respectively, and the Aragonese don't want to seceede. Although many Scotts want to seceede, it's not on the basis of cultural differences. It's because the Scots want their oil and they don't like England drilling 90% of the nation's north sea oil from Scotland.

15) The Reconquista is different from what I'm proposing. The Reconquista had the Moors being much more oppressed then what I'm preaching for. Every house with Moors needed about a dozen Old Christains in it. That was like Soliders being Quartered in people's homes. Also, although the Moors rebeled, the site't say anything about a succesionist movement. And if you think about it now, it's not like that reigion now wants to secede from Spain compared to Catalonia.

16) Forced assilimination would cause Latinos to in the short term upset, but in the long term, accepting of the new rules if it's linguistic assilimination. You stated an example with the Reconquista. The reason why the Reconquista was bad was because people were killed for being Muslim or Jewish. I don't advocate on doing the same thing to Latino violaters.

17) "Maybe those rights are just as well." What does this mean?


The link you provided didn't work but I found the article on my own. You really should have read the whole thing. "I think that Grant slightly shades Lee as a commander because in the last year of the War he managed all of the Union armies, including Sherman in the South and Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley. Grant served in the field, supervising Meade, who was still commander of the Army of the Potomac, but he had his eye on the entirety of the Union campaign. Moreover, Grant recognized the new reality of warfare: that the firepower commanded by each side was making a battle of maneuver, like Chancellorsville, impossible. "

You also never touch on General Sherman.

My opponent agrees that it is not language but culture that leads to animosity, therefore, in order for his plan to be effective he needs to eliminate culture. I have already shown that banning language isn't enough.

There are a few problems with my opponent's point number four. Firstly, there is a big difference between asking them to assimilate and suggesting they should as you said in your paragraph and compelling assimilation by force. He says that 1G immigrants support this measure by providing not only an infinitesimally small sample pool and anecdotal evidence at that meaning we don't even know that it's true. A better solution to the problem can be found in his paragraph. He writes that the problem stems from an education system that fails to teach American values. If we reform these systems to propagate our values then the immigrants who have 1G parents who my opponent claims love this country, and are growing up learning our values would not want to secede.

My opponent makes the claim that they would lose their anger at being oppressed over time. This doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny after all, revolutions have a habit of happening years after their initial cause and having permanent laws on the books would breed long term animosity. and in the end, you still haven't solved for the culture so the rift remains.

There is a big difference between forcing people to stop speaking their language, and them choosing to. the G&A choose to and so there is little difficulty in assimilation. Forcing Latinos to would perpetuate an Us-vs-them tribalistic mentality which will only serve to stunt assimilation. There is also a big difference between the relationship between parent and child and government and citizen. The government doesn't have the right to tell adult citizens what languages they're allowed to speak and what they aren't. Only parents can do that and they should do it by choice not under threat of legal penalty. Also, speaking another language is an advantage in today's world. Multilingual people have easier times finding jobs, get paid more, have greater ease in international business, and don't contribute to the stereotype of the arrogant American. Perhaps more Americans should learn Spanish.

Austria Hungary had a lot of problems. A few of which were indeed cultural rifts, enlightenment ideals against the monarchy, resentment at the elitist national policy, their defeat in the first World War, ect. attributing their collapse to one thing would be rediculous. However, according to Adam Kazuchowski for the institute for human sciences, reforming their cultural rift would not have saved Austria-Hungary.

The other variables involved in Ukraine are the same pull factors that often play roles. Higher quality of life, better opportunities, etc. You still haven't addressed my card on universal support in any effective way.

People aren't monoliths. We are individuals. Simply because Catalonia wants to secede over taxation and others in a similar situation don't, that doesn't mean their given reasons must be fake and their real reasons are underneath them. Catalonia has said that it wants to secede because of their over taxation.

the 1/6 of Basques want to secede because of the recent decrease in regional autonomy since the 1800's which is a card you have ignored in this paragraph.

My opponent makes the claim that immigration will lead to a situation in which Democrat states are Latino and Republican states are Anglophone, This just isn't true. Many Democrat states have an Anglophone majority For example, New York State.

Hispanic and American Ideology really isn't all that different. We share common religious beliefs while maintaining secular governments, we have our roots in Judeo-Christian values, we value Western liberal democratic ideas. In short, our general ideas aren't terribly disparate.

Texas wanted to secede from Mexico because of many reasons. one of them was culture but banning language isn't enough especially not when there are a myriad of reasons apart from culture.

People don't just secede for one reason. They don't secede because they're Catholic, they don't secede just because they speak a different language. They secede for many reasons so only eliminating one aspect of culture, making them angry, then allowing the culture to live on in other ways wouldn't solve your perceived problem. They're just angry now.

I woudn't see Romans beginning to look germanic as a problem. Just as I wouldn't see Americans beginning to look Hispanic as a problem. Race doesn't really matter when determining policy. Ideas matter and Hispanics and Americans share most of the important ideas. The Germans would want autonomy because the Roman Imperators didn't have their best interests in mind and held them as slaves.

His point 14 doesn't answer my question. I made the point that if they are allowed to speak the language in their homes then they won't actually need to give up their language. He also points out more examples of their being many reasons apart from culture for secessionist movements.

There are different means for religious persecution and linguistic persecution. the Spanish quartered people in the home because that's where Islam is practiced. You would need to move an occupying force into the streets. Because that's where language is spoken in public. There isn't a huge difference.

While the Spanish Inquisition was more extreme than what you're calling for, the basic principle still applies. Oppress a people on the basis of their culture and they will despise you. You like to use mild language like complain or upset, but it's more than that. These measures would generate a deep hatred and disgust for the United States which I believe would eventually culminate in rebellion.

I meant that maybe the rights they would ask for are good rights to give them. We would need to wait and see.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
83 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Idiot my first 2 years in Yeshiva was Chabad.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
I forfeit because my wifi broke. I'm saying this periodically so the message doesn't get laid down by other comments.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
You don't know what Chabad is!
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
noise. Chabad teaches chassidism not kabbala. Idiot.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
I don't want to reject Kabbalah on a few grounds. For one, there is amazing sceitnifc fact in there that no one could have known in that time, it could have only come from G-d. 2, Yitzchak of Acco confirmed its divinity after his investigation. Why do I not see the other side's argument? I'm not sure. But here's a good link which may help you:
Posted by asta 3 years ago
I forfeit because my WIFI broke.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
The Zohar and the Rambam share the common ground that they had supporters and opposition. The kappo only considers the supporters of both the Zohar and the Rambam, this idiot has no knowledge due to his pathetic ignorance of the opinions opposed to the Zohar and the Rambam. A man who can not argue persuasively both sides of an argument qualifies as an ignoramus.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Rabbi Vital codified the kabbala of the Ari in "Shemona Shearim"/8 gates. Unlike you kappo, i bring sources that actually exist and do not make empty declarations. Quoting grand sources as you do: "Google the 10 sefirot, you'll find that they are indeed biblical." Bunk fool. There's a kabbala of the 10 sefirot which addresses the power of the yatzir ha'ra and its connection to the major 10 internal organs and how these organs produce human emotions! But emanations: that's a Goy gnostic idea which Moses de Le"n the 13th century author of the Zohar incorporated into his Aramaic midrash commentary to the Chumash.

The Ari, born in Jerusalem as a result of the Spanish expulsion of Jews in 1492. The Zohar popped onto the scene after the Louis IX of France and the Poop in 1242, ordered the burning of all the Talmudic manuscripts as a consequence of the Jewish Civil War which broke out as a consequence of the Rambam. The French rabbis despised the Rambam and his works, the Mishna Torah and the Moreh HaNevukim. The French rabbis placed a harem ban upon the Rambam which remains to this very day. Just as the harem ban on Spinoza and his pantheism remains to this very day.

Moses de Le"n ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi"), who received it from the prophet Elijah. The traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah... yo astra, ask Judaism to tell you about the 13 middot of Sinai? LOL
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
99.9999999999999999999999 % bs. The Ari only communicated in the Hebrew language. His kabbala was baal pe, he wrote no commentary to the Zohar. Moses Cordovero authored a definitive commentary on the Zohar. The Ari died at the age of 38. Rabbi Hayim Vital, the top talmid of the Ari, published the oral kabbala he received from the Ari. The Ari opposed teaching his kabbala to the masses, hence he did not write books. The Ari's kabbala attempted to address the central question in his mind, the question of the existence of evil in the world.

By contrast this central theme of the Ari the Zohar did not address it as its primary issue. The Zohar presented itself as a dosh Midrash. The Ari made no attempt at presenting his kabbala as a midrash mussar style of learning. Judaism b/c you do not speak Hebrew you know nothing about the Ari's kabbala - - - - N O T H I N G. @asta you silly Goy return and play in your sand box.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
He's funny in a trollish way.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.