World Governments and People Should Abandon their Native Languages and Adopt English

CON: "[Homolingualism would cause? ] Turmoil with the vast amount of countries that had to drop there native Languages. " Con doesn't give evidence or reasons why this would be the case. CON: "English is the not a language with the broadest set of term and definitions, nor is any other languages. " I never asserted that English has the most words. I said it likely has the most words [1]. It is indisputable that English has a very large number of words. It is also safe to say that English is highly competent and expressive. CON: "It would never work, for the fact is that there is 6909 (give or take) languages in the world. " The resolution was "World Governments and People Should Abandon their Native Languages and Adopt English". The resolution states what ought to be done; not what could be done. Therefore, even if Con's declarative were true, it would not be evidence against the resolution. Also, Con seems to be implying that because it would be difficult then it would be impossible. This is plainly fallacious. Anyway, Sweden has proven that a nation can switch to English [2]. CON: "Religion would also be impacted. " Con does not specify how or why religion would be impacted so there is nothing against which to argue. CON: "The World should not adopt English due to technology it, should be the complete opposite where technology should adopt all the known languages. " Con does not provide a justification for why "technology should adopt all known languages" or explain what is meant by this. CON: "(See Argument 9 of the pro) What is call an unnecessary expanses is someone's job and what will can unknown amount is apart of are world economy, which is employing people. " I will assume Con means: CON: "(See Argument 9 of the pro) What is called an unnecessary expense is someone's job and what is called an unknown amount is a part of the world economy, which is employing people. " This gets into the larger argument about the merits of the free market which obviously is beyond the scope of this debate. I will just say that: Over the past century, many jobs have been lost due to mechanization, computer automation and more efficient business processes. Simultaneously, the past century has seen a greater increase in living standards than perhaps every other century combined. This suggests that the more efficient economies are the better they are at producing wealth. The way economies produce wealth is by employing people. As a rule, economies that are more efficient employ more people in the long run. CON: "Finally you would have to learn the thousand of other languages anyways. " I think what Con is saying here is that in order to convert all people to a single language then a massive education effort will be required. Assuming that the governments of the world were suddenly persuaded in favor of the resolution then, yes, this effort would be massive (though, education itself is a massive undertaking). This would create a tremendous amount of work which would offset the loss of jobs that Con mentioned above. In the end, there would be a return on this investment as the world economy would become more efficient (as I claimed above). 1 . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2 . http://www3.lu.se... 2 (Translation) . http://translate.google.com... Note on citation #2. This is the same citation that Wikipedia uses. It is in Swedish unfortunately. I was not able to find a suitable English citation. There is a Google translation provided as well. Obviously it isn't very good nor can it be expected to be reliable because computers have a tremendously difficult time translating between natural languages. I apologize for the bad translation but it serves to point out that Con is in error when he says "technology should be adopted to all known languages". It seems unlikely that computer science will ever produce an adequate Bable fish which could make the distinctions between languages disappear when used.