Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

1. "Therefore since Vi failed to 'correct' this observation my premise of the US being the actor for the resolution is still accurate..." I didn't fail to mention this. My opponent just failed to observe my response. Here is response I made: "I would consider this a world effort. Every country needs to help preserve its own language. Actors, being those in the US, have to communicate with globally located actors. Therefore this entails them as well. Languages are not only a U.S. commodity, and archaeology, anthropology, and communications between countries with different languages is NOT only an American venture. This is an obvious fact and connection." 2. My opponent states: "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." On the contrary, because the U.S. doesn't have 700 native tongues, a U.S. citizen doesn't understand the role languages and language translation plays. The U.S. is diverse, yes, but English is our common communication. Unless an American has had a personal experience with someone who couldn't speak English, they don't understand the need to be able to learn and translate different thoughts. 3. I don't think my opponent understands that archaeologists need to leave their family for work. Archaeological digs are made in countries that the information they are looking for is relevant. This is a rather irrational argument from my opponent, and an almost desperate reach. A lot of occupations require a worker to travel away from home because they choose to live in a country or state where their work is not needed as heavily. 4. Opponent states: "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." Again, I don't think my opponent understood that America aiding in preserving foreign languages is relevant to its prosperity. I will leave this to my former argument instead of repeating myself. The government will not have to invest money in this, but private archaeology businesses and museums, universities etc. will. What my opponent doesn't realize is that the preservation of dying languages will help these archaeologists make new finds, and this will bring in the money that they invest. Archaeologists also sometimes resort to paying for a dig on their own because they know their outcome will give them their investment back. 5. Opponent states: "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." I grew up with two languages and two cultural identities (Grew up with Albanian, and learned English). My parents can tell you that I have lost who I am culturally because I never use my Albanian language any more. What my opponent must realize is that America is a mixed society, and doesn't have as old of a culture as some other countries (like Albania, which if has dialects that reflect your cultural traditions and defines who you are in their culture). So, yes, learning English has distanced me from my culture, and I have become American as opposed to un assimilated Albanian. 6. Opponent states: "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." What I am saying is that people already learn English, we don't need to throw away other languages for one central language. We can have multiple ones and survive like we are now. Another Universal language (especially in business) is German. My apologies for not mentioning there are more than one type. Another example is the universal language of Latin for medicine. 7. I hope I have established what are reasons for the world to start thinking up steps to preserve dying languages. I'd like to thank my opponent for the wonderful debate, and wish him good luck in his future ventures. Regards, Vi