We Should Have An Official Language For Earth

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for his time and courtesy. I have enjoyed this debate thoroughly. The resolution is "Earth should have a official language to be taught alongside national languages in order to foster a greater sense of unity for the humans of Earth. " For the most part, Pro has restricted himself to merely answering my attacks on the resolution. In the absence of any major constructive arguments, then (at least, as far as I can find), the whole debate hinges on the two points I posed: 1. Is there a need? and 2. Are the benefits worth the cost? 1. Argument against need To briefly sum up my arguments under this section from the previous two rounds: a. Most of the world's population has no need to communicate with people outside their language group, and thus do not need a universal language; b. Those that do need to communicate across language boundaries learn business languages (such as English), use translators, or find some other way to communicate; they have already solved the problem, and do not need an official universal language. In response to (a) he suggests a universal language would be useful if there were an environmental disaster that required international assistance. He also claims it would help world peace, help people trust each other, reduce mistranslations (of what, I'm not sure), and help people compete in the global economy. Of these 5 claims, only the first and last have any merit outside of an ideal world, and he only gives an argument for the first and second. Lest I be accused of dismissing his arguments without cause, let me point out that having the same language does not necessarily help people understand each other, or prevent them from waging war on each other. History is filled with examples of warfare, racism, hatred, and gross misunderstanding between people groups who shared the same language. Just a few examples of wars between groups that spoke the same language: American Revolution English Civil War Mohammad's Hegira Bolshevik Revolution French revolution the Roman Gladiator rebellions Having a common language does not necessarily cause understanding and trust; nor does he explain why it would work on a global scale. Of his valid points here, I would have liked to see more of his reasoning behind them; some justification of the cost involved. What he gave me, though, are generalities and blanket statements, not reasons. His point about disaster relief ignores the fact that such aid is already given, without a universal language. Is it worth the cost of teaching everybody a new language just to make disaster relief go slightly smoother? In response to (b), he concedes my point, but says a universal language would allow more people to compete in the global economy. Yet, as instruction in the languages used for business is widely available already (which I stated and he did not bother to deny), those who want to compete can learn the language they judge will give them the most advantage. As I said, for the global economy to work, those that need to communicate _already_do_so. Official world languages are not needed for that. ====VVV===If you don't read anything else, read this===VVV==== In my R2 conclusion, I wrote: "A) The majority of mankind has no need for an international language, and those that need to communicate internationally are already doing so without any intervention" And he responded, "In response to my adversaries A) although true things could run a lot smoother with an universal language. " So, he says it's true that mankind has no need for a universal language. Whether things would indeed run smoother has not been demonstrated in this debate, nor is it important. If we do not need a official global language, why should we make one? Why spend the time and money? I hold the resolution negated by his concession. ====== 2. Argument against cost My argument here, stated briefly, pointed to the enormous cost of getting the world's governments to agree to this plan and teaching the whole world an official language; I compared that cost to the expected benefits (a "greater sense of unity") and concluded it was time and effort better spent solving some of mankind's real problems. In his response he brought up the comparison with the Civil Rights Movement. ". .. understanding of one another is a great gain for that's also what the Civil Rights Movement was about" and again "And this "vague understanding" is worth it, was the Civil Rights Movement worth the "vague understanding" of our fellow man? I believe it was so why not try to foster this "vague understanding" with the rest of the world" With all respect, there is no valid comparison between a global language and the Civil Rights Movement. One might foster a mildly better understanding of our fellow humans, the other righted a heinous injustice. The first we admittedly have no real need for, the other helped rid us of some of America's most shameful deeds; ones that, I remind the readers, were committed by people who shared the same language as their victims. I could go on, but I don't need to. Without any need for a global language, the enormous cost of implementation would be virtually wasted. The resolution is negated; we should not have an official language for Earth.