THBT dialect language classes should be taught in all schools in dialect provinces.

In this final speech for the Proposition we seek to do two things: we will issue one final reel of rebuttal against the previous speeches from the Opposition before moving into a summing up of both cases which will explain why ours is stronger. Firstly, we have a significant amount of rebuttal. On the point of the examination of dialect language studies, the Opposition have blatantly contradicted themselves. At first they criticised us for examining dialect language studies, saying it was an unnecessary burden - we then pointed out that it was in the text of our proposition that these subjects would never be examined. In their second speech, however, they have now reneged and are now criticising us for NOT wishing to examine these subjects. We have two things to say in response to this. Firstly, we would like to invite the Opposition to actually form a policy on this issue, as opposed to throwing arguments in both directions at us. And secondly, we believe the point to be moot anyway because we have already explained that the aim of the proposed legislation is to ensure that all students have the OPPORTUNITY to learn the language, and we are not doing this anticipating that everyone who lives in a dialect province becomes fluent in the language. This is about ensuring that students can have a taste of the language in a structured background at the time which is neurologically best for them. It is exactly like a subject such as history or geography, which is taught not in anticipation of all pupils becoming experts but in anticipation of them having the opportunity to discover what they wish to study at a more advanced level. In this way, many of the Opposition's arguments are really arguments against the breadth of the current school curriculum which is not important to this motion. On this issue the Opposition also spoke of some pupils having an unfair advantage over others due to their background: this is a ridiculous argument because it is applicable to any other curriculum subject (a pupil from a house full of books will perform better in English, for example), and the issue of advantage is irrelevant as pupils will not be forcibly examined in these subjects anyway. The Opposition spoke of how, if students wished, they could learn languages outside of school. There is a major hole in this argument: this is the status quo and it is not working. Extra-curricular uptake of languages is horrifyingly low, simply because students cannot be bothered to put in the extra effort outside of class and do not want to be seen as 'nerdy'. This is a lovely utopian ideal, that people will go out and learn languages completely off their own bat, but it simply doesn't happen. And on the issue of companies looking for language skills we accept that there is low demand for many dialect languages but our point is that companies look for a proven ability to learn a language and we believe this can be demonstrated by having learnt a regional dialect - many of which (e. g. Cornish) are harder to learn than other major languages. When one considers the fact that diplomatic services will give skilled individuals six months to learn an entirely new language, for instance Croat, which requires a track record of language SKILL we believe this solidifies our point. The Opposition's final substantive argument was built entirely upon one, isolated example - which alone demonstrates that the point is weak. Unfortunately for the Opposition they chose the example of Hong Kong - an unfortunate example because Cantonese is so widespread that it is spoken on a par with English and therefore does not satisfy the criteria of being a minority language, therefore it does not count as a fully dialect language. This renders their 'proof' irrelevant as it is a situation which we are not covering. They again referred to this point of manpower, which we believe is a point they greatly exaggerate the effect of, and regardless of where the jobs are that we create and how effective they turn out to be we are still STIMULATING GROWTH with our proposal. We believe there are two main points of clash in this debate and we will explain why they demonstrate that our side has won. The first point of clash is the benefits of learning a dialect language. The Opposition have argued that there are few tangible benefits to learning a minority language such as Welsh or Cornish, or indeed learning a second language at all, and also argued that these skills will not be needed in later life. We, however, argued the benefits of learning a language are immeasurable (greater employment opportunities, brain development, cultural awareness) and we have also pointed out the benefits to potential employers of someone who has learnt an (often complicated) dialect such as Cornish, as it demonstrates skill with languages and with new concepts and better abilities at functions such as task-switching. Therefore, we win this point. The second point of clash is the practicalities of this proposal, which we have consistently proven are not the issue the Opposition would portray them to be. The Opposition have consistently changed their mind about their own opinions on whether or not to examine in these subjects - it is difficult to discern what their policy actually is but we have dismissed the issues raised with examining these subjects and have agreed with them on why they should not be examined. They argued that this proposal is illogical and not needed, whereas we have put forward our reasons why there are specific benefits to learning a language which is local to you and have explained that the decline of local heritage and interest in languages warrants this proposal. The Opposition argued that the teachers would go to waste in schools, but we proved that they would be no more wasted than a teacher of any other subject and that our proposal still creates jobs that do not currently exist. The Opposition has failed to present a coherent and unified practical case against these proposals, the fundamental point they sought to achieve in their first speech, and so we win this point as well. In summary, the Opposition is in disarray - they are not even entirely sure what elements of our proposal they disagree with, let alone able to present a real case against it. This matches all opposition to our proposal: there is simply not a real practical argument against it. We propose a change from the status quo, but what we propose is not impractical. Moreover, we have presented to you an impregnable case for this proposition. For all these reasons, we feel that Proposition is the obvious choice for your votes. I hand you back to Opposition to sum up his side of the debate.