Teachers should learn how to speak in Ebonics if teaching in a community where it is prevalent.

"However, the concept that counter-cultures and the divisions they create should not be brought into accordance with mainstream society, especially in situations of education and business does not make sense whatsoever." This was never stated. This debate is about whether or not teachers should be taught Ebonics so that they could incorporate it in pedagogical instructions. Indeed, AAVE-users should learn Standard English in order to do well in society. My argument is, though, that instruction of Standard English should incorporate AAVE, so that the students would be able to understand Standard English through the lens of their native language/dialect, AAVE. "These disparities do not need to be "corrected"" Pro, round 3. I understand that the debate is whether or not communities with a percentage (that has not been established) of AAVE speakers should incorporate AAVE in hopes to better reach some of their students. My point is that we gain nothing from allowing Ebonics to hold any place in our classrooms, there have been no conclusive studies supporting the advancement of this dialect in enhancing a student's mental process or understanding of the world. If we can gain nothing in the pursuit of improving these children and communities by incorporating and supporting the small percentage that speaks Ebonics, then we should not do so. "He speaks on the evolution of the romance languages from the Vulgar Latin dominate within the Roman Empire, this not only does not contribute to the case of supporting Ebonics, it also further proves the ability of one language to dominate others (a concept that pro states is blatantly false)." Straw Man Argument. It was never stated that a language cannot be dominant in a society. straw man-.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position Alright, "Contrary to the opponent's claims, there is no such thing as a "language of progress," and the opponent has yet to prove that Standard English encourages progress more than AAVE." "The concept of dominance of one language over another that the opponent is advocating is a blatantly false concept, and it fails to attack the resolution" pro round 3 Pro has indeed stated that one language cannot be dominant in society. This topic was discussed because my main premise is that if we do not gain from instilling in youth a tolerate attitude towards speaking Ebonics, then we should not do so. "However, I would argue that it is not only a political and far superior base of speakers that makes languages dominant over another, but it is also the capabilities of the language." Again, a language is not static; as a culture feels that the incorporation of new words would be advantageous, the culture develops its language to include them. This is the evolution of a language from a sociocultural perspective. As an aside, the opponent is drifting away from the resolution; this is not about whether or not AAVE is superior or not. Rather, this is about whether it should be incorporated in the education system as a means of instruction. Whether or not it is a "lesser language", which the opponent believes (and I have rejected), the fact of the matter is that people within communities do speak it. And in order to more effectively teach these students Standard English, as well as other subjects, it would be beneficial to incorporate AAVE into the curricula of institutions in such communities. This is not about hypothetical "superiority," as the opponent seems to interpret it, but rather a matter of pragmatism. Again, it was never stated that the debate was held with the purpose of proving that AAVE was less capable than standard English, that is common sense and is acknowledge by all. The capabilities of the language were brought up to again show that Ebonics gives nothing and creates ridiculous bad habits while limiting academic growth. It would NOT be beneficial to incorporate AAVE in our school systems, and we should not do so. "As pro does not offer any contribution that Ebonics has given society I will list a few: [blah blah blah]" These are silly mainstream examples that are irrelevant to AAVE in their natural cultural context. But whether or not AAVE contributed to society or not (and I would argue that no language inherently contributes anything), it is a predominant language in some communities. Hence, it would be in the best interest of students from these communities and educational facilities (who seek strong results from their student bodies) to incorporate AAVE in their didactic curricula. While my opponent seems to want to point out fallacies in my argument, he seems an inherent cherry picker incapable of countering my points against Ebonics. These "communities" represent a very small fraction of our society at best, and they are surrounded by people speaking standard English, and they have been for several hundred years now I believe. The concept that anyone other than immigrants(as previously mentioned in the case of Spanish) should be afforded special attention is a ridiculous one. This section of our populace has no excuse to not grasp our national language, if their parents are at fault then we should educate them as well, not in the school place, but in the communities. Also, there was no counter against the ridiculous influence that Ebonics has on society ( most often the uneducated section of society these programs would target ) the majority of the time. Ebonics should not be supported in our classrooms, instead we should educate our children to be productive members of our society, using Ebonics as a vessel would see our educators gain nothing. "I would argue that Ebonics could not clearly define nor teach any of these concepts, it is a restrictive limited dialect that is inadequate when compared to languages that have reached what society could label as mature, as these mature languages can communicate deeper meanings and thought processes." AAVE cannot explain certain concepts in other languages for the same reason that English cannot explain concepts in other languages (including AAVE.) And this does not attack the resolution. Teachers could use a combination of Ebonics and English to get points across (if Ebonics does not seem suitable to describe a certain concept); this would still involve the incorporation of Ebonics. Once again, my thesis is that AAVE cannot explain these concepts and many others at all, if it has to draw so heavily on Standard English to communicate higher thought, why would we commit any time to supporting it in our children's mental development? --- While it is agreed that to teach students with a firm background in a foreign language, such as Russian or Spanish, the incorporation of the students natural language is beneficial. I see no benefit to supporting divisions in our classrooms based on supporting a dialect known as AAVE, this is for several reasons that have been stated, however to summarize: 1)Ebonics is incapable of communicating many concepts, including educational ones. 2)The use of Ebonics in Mainstream culture and media has only harmed the communities that we would be attempting to help by such programs, instead of supporting this; we should draw a firm line and not allow it. 3)There is not a large enough percentage of our populace that could really warrant any such program, in comparison with immigrant groups, and as such we should not feel required to change our education system. Also this group has had ample opportunity to learn Standard English. In conclusion, AAVE should not be supported in the classroom, there is nothing to gain from it. Also, thank you for the debate, i learned quite a bit!