There should be an international auxiliary language.

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" [1]. A. TradeWhen 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. B. DiplomacyWhen 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 UnityThe 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 UnityLet 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...) ConclusionI 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. Thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2] . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...;[3] . http://www.xamuel.com...;