Learning a Second Language

While it is true that History was only used as an example, it also contradicts the point that Pro was making, and therefore was conjured in poor taste and bad aims. He did not help his agenda by using the example, and admittedly hurt it when he said that it has importance "even in the modern day". What can be found in the second part of this argument is that Pro is saying that while History and such other subjects are significant and serve one purpose, the ability to learn other languages might also fulfill the purpose of those particular academic subjects. What I am proprosing is that this is false; history provides people an incentive to not repeat it [to some extents], for any mistakes made that lead to horrible disasters or catastrophes because morals of stories from humanity's past. But History [as I mentioned in the previous round and as Pro conceded henceforth] plays a larger role than the past, it in fact helps to guide people along in the future and make political decisions that affect what we live in now that are 'countries'. Meanwhile, languages would be useful for communication with those of foreign cultures and to be able to reach out to the rest of the world in unity of human civilization. But is this conformity that Pro is proposing should be mandated in academic environments really be mandated? I don't think so, and for reasons explicitly stated before; whether it normally fails to play out in everyday life, whether it cannot be held on to by the students who took the classes, or whether it's just a big waste of school funding and student-teacher time, language classes should not be mandatory unless it is under the circumstance that a foreign student is immigrating to a nation and needs to be able to communicate in that nation's language.2. I would not necessarily say that knowing a second language would make learning other academic subjects easier. Though, if I might, I would like to cite a short anecdotal piece from my own memory. Once in a History class we had been covering the origins of World War Two, and of course with this particular subject Germany is bound to be brought up, the History teacher was attempting to read small German words that were placed in the text we had been reading simply for effect and realism [i. e Kristallnacht, Reich, Wehrmacht]. They had difficulty reading the words because, well, German was not a language they fluidly spoke. While it would have made reading such text less of an obstacle, it does not mean that language-learning should be mandated because it is convenient. Anything forced on students in schools should be of absolute importance and priority. 3. I was not denying the same would apply for foreign nations, the truth of the matter is that if you are going to a country where a different language is spoken you should try your best to adapt to that language. But if Germany has an immigrant from America, that immigrant should have mandated German courses, not German students having mandated English, Spanish or Quebecois courses. That's not quite how it works.4. Thank you for complimenting the points I made, while typing them I was rather proud. Now, to get on to this argument you are making. The overall topic question for this debate is whether or not language learning should be mandatory in schools [that is the prompt you offered in the opening round], if you are not sticking to that belief, then you have changed your opinion and conceded to my side of the argument. Which would therefore declare my implicit victory. However, you went on to say that encouraging language learning in schools provides more benefits, let me explain why that is also false. Tutoring is expensive. Budget-savvy parents spend big bucks on language lessons because they're investing in bigger paychecks for their kids down the road—but the return on your investment may be smaller than you think. Contrary to popular belief, second-language fluency isn't a golden ticket to the next tax bracket. According to a 2007 study by University of Pennsylvania economists, the pay bump for learning a second language is small. The most common languages, Spanish and French, only earn speakers a 1 to 2 percent bump above grade. School years yield a higher return. If you're looking for a way to make sure your kid rakes in the big bucks, skip the language lessons and invest that money in graduate school. For each year of extra schooling you give them, their pay check will increase 8 to 12 percent. By the time you're ready to retire, they'll have more spare bedrooms than their bilingual counterparts. Even those who speak German, Mandarin or Arabic—the most in demand languages—only earn about 4 percent above average. The older you are, the harder it is. Let's face it—all most of us remember from 4 years of high school Spanish class are basic phrases like baño and gracias. However, that failure to retain foreign words may not be our fault; we may have missed our window of opportunity to learn languages easily. "Young children can acquire native-like fluency as easily as they learned to walk" says Leslie Lancry, CEO of Language Stars. Schools like Language Stars capitalize on this window and are able to teach children a new language simply through immersion. But according to Lancry and other experts, this window closes around age 10. After that, even years of tutoring may not make a language stick. Your kid's schedule is full enough. The closer he gets to college, the busier his schedule gets. It's best to focus his energies on the subjects admissions officers care about. Jeff Fuller, Director of Student Recruitment at the University of Houston says "Most universities will look at the full depth and breadth of the students' course selection—especially comparing it to what the high school offers. " Admissions officers won't ding a student for not taking classes their school doesn't offer, but they do expect you to take a healthy helping of AP and honors courses, and join sports and clubs. Adding language tutoring a few times a week can swamp your child and bring his overall performance down. The source for the above text: . http://www.education.com...Ladies and gentlemen [and those inbetween] who have read and followed this debate, you have heard the arguments. You have heard Pro has now twice abandoned his original claim tied to the prompt which he was meant to defend. He has subtly given up the debate. I respect his arguments, I respect his debating and patience, and I thank him for this opportunity. But I would like for everyone who will be voting to consider voting Con.