Language classes in schools should be allowed to use dialects.

I will briefly respond to the responses, and then proceed to my conclusion. My opponent has responded to my 'world unification' question by stating that English is already the international lingua franca. In fact, the international status of English and the replacement of dialects with a standard are not analogous. English is taught in schools as a second language in most non-Anglophone places. It does not replace any existing language. However, my opponent is arguing that, for unity's sake, a standard should replace the local dialect and the local dialects should not be taught in schools. My Esperanto analogy was that Esperanto replace all the current languages in schools for global unity. My opponent also responded to my Hitler question by saying that Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust instead of forcing people to learn German, and the latter would have been preferable to the former. I would like to clarify that this is only a what-if situation and I was only using Hitler to represent a totalitarian and expansionist dictator. Therefore, my imaginary situation is not related to the actual historical events. Moreover, just because something is a lesser evil than another does not mean that it should be done, unless it is a necessary evil, which it isn't. My opponent also responded to my doubts about the necessity of forceful unification by pointing to two reasons, size and war. I would like to say that I am not against unity; I am only against the forceful unification of people against their wishes. My opponent argues that the size of a country limits its development, so unity is important, and cites East Greenland as an example. I would argue that even if the East Greenlanders, for some reason, would not identify themselves as Greenlandic for they were allowed to learn their dialect in school, the Danish government would still be able to aid Greenland financially. My opponent also argues that the lack of unity could lead to war, and cites several examples. In the US's case, the secession was caused by the American Civil War, not dialects. In Xizang's case, the riots were caused by Zang extremists. Putonghua is also spoken in Xizang as a second language; most people in major Zang cities speak Putonghua well. (1) In Chechknya's case, I would like to point out that 73.4% of the Chechens spoke fluent Russian in 1989, a few years before the war. (2) Moreover, when one ethnic group of people go to war against another, the main reason is usually oppression and not alienation; South Sudan is an example. In fact, the Qing Dynasty was kind to all Chinese ethnic groups, even though they practised segregation, and that's how they managed to achieve stability up until 1839. My opponent also argued that the learning disabled should first and foremost learn the standard variety of the language. I would argue that it is the inherent right of any person to learn the native tongue of her parents to inherit their heritage. The right to learn this dialect should be above any other dialects or languages, regardless of their importance. My opponent also argued that everyone should speak the standard anyway, so communication would not be a problem. I would like to remind my opponent that not all people could receive education in the past. If you travel around the rural parts of China, I'm sure you will find older people who do not speak Putonghua because education was not available during their childhood. My opponent cited the 'Cantonese oppression' incident as an example of the importance of a common language. I would like to remind my opponent that this incident was caused by a rumour that the common language would replace the local dialect. My opponent then mentioned that it was possible to access the special features of a language even after it has died. My opponent then cited Latin as an example. However, after the fall of the Roman Empire, Latin has only been used as a lingua franca and to study Ancient Rome. It is no longer a living language that is representative of a group of people and their culture. Furthermore, Latin is the language of an empire which has once conquered nearly all of the known world. In contrast, dialects are less influential and many lack documentation. My opponent also mentioned that the local culture can be transmitted to the standard dialect because disappearance is a long process. However, endangered dialects do not have this luxury. Plus, a lot of things cannot be transferred to the standard. For example, how is it possible to transfer the different grammatical structure of Cantonese into Putonghua? How can the checked tone be transmitted to Putonghua? Even a dialect's vocabulary and idioms can be barred from entering the standard language. For example, it would be very awkward to assimilate the Cantonese phrase '識少少，扮代表' (to know little but pretend to be a representative) into Putonghua, in particular the 'representative' part. Even if a calque is invented, the resulting phrase probably wouldn't rhyme. If such elements do manage to be transmitted to the standard dialect, then I'm afraid that is establishing a new dialect based on the standard, just as Manchu phonetically shaped the Beijing dialect into a different dialect altogether. My opponent also mentioned that Nordic countries, which are very uniform, come on top when it comes to social progression. Indeed, the Nordic countries rank among the top ten on nearly every positive attribute studied. However, I would argue that with the advent of globalisation and the Information Age, uniformity within a country can be compensated by communication with the outside world, lowering the importance of diversity. Yes, I am conceding that linguistic diversity is not necessary important for social progression. However, I would argue that social stability, not uniformity, is the main driving force behind Scandinavia's success. Nordic countries have mature political systems and the economic policies are neither too capitalist nor too communist. On the contrary, the United States are very uniform, but they are not very progressive. It is also worth noting that the death of a dialect leads to a decline of the cultural diversity on a global scale, which affect humanity's progression as a whole. Finally, my opponent reminded me that he was not suggesting banning the dialects, merely banning their teaching in schools. However, I would argue that while the legal status of banning dialects in schools may be unchallenged, leaving them to die is against the spirit of the constitution, just as it was legal, but not moral, to leave Yue Yue to die. I will now proceed to my conclusion. In the haunting dystopic novel 1984, Orwell described a world in which language was replaced by 'Newspeak'. I am sure no one wants that to happen. Unfortunately, if we eradicate dialects to push the standard, this is what we'll get: complete homogeneity, only intralingually instead of interlingually. I am not against standards. It is necessary for people within a country to be able to communicate, and a standard language is the best way to do that. However, it is enough for the standard to retain its lingua franca status. The promotion of the dialect should not conflict with the teaching and preservation of dialects, or a plethora consequences will follow. The dialects will decline in the number of speakers, the level of proficiency will drop, and eventually, the dialect will disappear. The cultural diversity maintained by linguistic diversity is important, both for scientific research and society as a whole. The standard language should continue to be taught in schools to act a channel for communication, but the dialects should remain as well, or the consequences will be. .. doubleplusungood. I thank my opponent for the interesting debate and I look forward to another if possible. (1) . http://www.laomaoniu.com...(2) Chechnya and Tatarstan by Valentin Mikhailov (P.53).