All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

"1. You failed to define what “require” means." Why would I have to redefine a word that has already been defined?Definition of the term "require" Require (verb) - to demand; impose obligation: to do as the law requires. In my previous argument I clarified the specifications in regards to the overall possibility of my proposal which I must say was pretty much self-explanatory. If you would like me to repeat it, I will do so. By "require" I meant that school systems should be obliged to make bilingual education apart of the necessary curriculum of each student. "2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages." I already have. Again you chose to overlook it. The overall purpose of my debate was to argue whether or not students should be required to learn new languages in early childhood development. My argument was not specifically based on the benefits associated with my proposal, but they were a key part in supporting my side of the debate. Your job as the the Con in this debate, was to argue against my proposal and to list the disadvantages associated with my proposal. You started this by saying "It was not possible" and I responded by using the various real world examples supporting the possibility of implementing bilingual education in early childhood education. "3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country." You don't think? Well if you consider the fact that almost every educational institution in the U.S. has some sort of mathematics, reading and science course in pretty much every school, I have to disagree. To say that it's not possible at all is very closed minded. You have failed to consider the circumstances. Every year, there are about 40% fewer jobs for qualified educators nationally, especially in the areas of language (more specifically those with a major pertaining to French and Spanish). With the implementation of more language courses in schools, the government will have significantly decreased the unemployment rate while also introducing bilingual education in schools. http://www.theguardian.com... "4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language..."Despite the fact that the Philippines was colonized by Spain, the official language of the country is no longer Spanish. Spanish was the original official language of the country for more than three centuries, and became the "LLingua Franca" (also called a working language, bridge language, vehicular language or unifying language) of the Philippines in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in the Spanish language. However, it was only spoken by a total of 60% of the population in the early 20th century as a first, second or third language. Under occupation by the United States, by the year 1901, public education used English as the medium of instruction. Around 600 educators (called Thomasites) replaced U.S. soldiers who also took the place bilingual educators. The 1935 Constitution added English as an official language alongside Spanish but eventually the Spanish language was removed by the first half of the 20th century. As of now, Spanish is mainly taught in public schools, private schools and Universities due to it's importance in Filipino history, but it is not used as a national language. Most people in the Philippines who speak Spanish fluently are either Hispanic immigrants, people from very few islands of the country where Spanish is the dominant language or learned the language in schools. Most Spanish speaking Filipinos who speak it as a second, third or fourth language. The main official languages of the country are English and Filipino (also known as Tagalog) which is the national language. According to the most recent statistics, only about 65% of the entire population of the Philippines can speak fluent English as a second language. http://www.ncca.gov.ph...http://en.wikipedia.org... "5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages." Actually I did... I stated in the introduction of my debate, "From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical. Again, you chose to overlook it. You see, the problem I have with your argument is that you failed to even argue against mine from a logical standpoint. You repeated claim "It's not possible" despite the fact that I provided multiple examples that prove that it is in fact possible. You overlook the evidence I provided and then proceed to attack my argument without any evidence to support your side. For example... You claim, "You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible." after I did MULTIPLE times. "When a child starts school, there should be language courses on campus to introduce a new language aside from the one the child already speaks (which would most likely be English) in order to introduce bilingualism early on in childhood development. Throughout their educational career, children would be introduced to a new level of difficulty in the area of language they study as they move forward in grade level, much like schools currently do with mathematics and reading courses..."Remember this? You then claim... "I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible." If it is impossible, why has it already happened in many countries INCLUDING many educational systems in the United States with success. Why would it be more logical to simply allow young children to learn new languages on their own? THAT is impossible. Children cannot just go out and teach themselves how to speak a new language. Learning a new language requires the proper resources, consistent study and more importantly, the involvement of an adult. Saying you would rather encourage student to learn new languages on their own is like saying "I would rather encourage student to learn how to read on their own" and that will get you nowhere. If we did that, children would be illiterate.I am not the one who failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate. I patiently await your response.