Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

Vi, my apologies if my responses aren't as detailed as you may want. Unfortunately im on a time crunch. On to my opponents respones. First Vi attempts to 'correct' my observations. I didn't even bother to check out whether or not her new information was accurate, simply because this makes NO difference. She may have attacked a few of my observations, quite nicely may i add, but let's look at the one she failed to mention. My second observation is that we should look to the US because we both live here. The impact being, since we both live in the US we [should] know more about the United States and how it's works politically, economically as well as socially, in comparison to other countries. Therefore since Vi failed to 'correct' this observation my premise of the US being the actor for the resolution is still accurate. And as i stated earlier during the round, my opponents dismissal of my observations is abusive one her behalf because she has already been given the opportunity to create an actor for the resolution. In her case she faled to even vaguely mention whom is carrying out the deed, leaving me, the CON, no choice other than to determine an actor so i could have something to argue. Basically my opponent cannot dismiss my observations UNLESS they are proven to be abusive, which she has failed to prove. All she has proven thus far is that the US is not the most linguistically diverse nation, assuming that's true, it has no IMPACT on the outcome of today's debate. Okay that's my daily ramble. Now that we have once again determined the actor is the US we can move onto the contentions. First my opponent attacks my whole reasoning about us having to send out archaeologist by stating 'that has nothing to do with archaeological aid' I fail to see how we are going to do anything that involves archeology without the aid of archaeologist. But despite that, my opponents case was not specific, leaving me to interpret it how ever i want as long as it's not abusive. Abusive means an argument that is completely unfair. Unto the second point about how archaeologist have to leave home. Okay Vi accepts that yes they do leave home, but 'most bring their wives' not only do i deny this assumption BUT even if proven true it doesn't matter who they bring this doesn't dismiss the fact that the are leaving home or even leaving their kids (unless of course my opponent thinks they bring the kids along as well, or that archaeologist don't have children) and for the whole thing about me believing all the archaeologist are coming from America, of course they are, America is the actor of the resolution. So most, if not all, are going to come from the US. Also, though colleges and funds may aid in the payment of these archaeologist, my opponent never dismisses the fact that the US will still have to invest money, all she says is, yes, but not that much. Taxes are meant to aid in the prosperity of the nation, not to preserve foreign languages that are dying. In interest of time, like good Ole Yrealz puts it, learning a new language does not give up your cultural identity. I learned Spanish in High School ahora estoy bien a hablando y escribiendo en espaï¿½ol (now i am good at speaking and writing in spanish) but i have not forgotten my roots and my culture. Most of you readers may agree. And your whole this isn't policy argument is muted by the fact that it contradict your earlier statement about how costly it would bed to have a universal language, such as english, then you go back and say 'There already is an international language (this being english)' your inconsistency confuses me. Please clarify one your last arguments so i can argue them effectively. Esteemed, DrAlexander