Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

Congrats Vi_Veri on your tournament success thus far. Hopefully this debate will offer intellectual insight on the preservation of dying languages in today's society. Thanks and Good Luck! First, I'd like to point something out to the judges. My opponent didn't leave me with a resolution analysis nor any observations. Meaning she now forfeits the right to bring up an new observations, because if she does that would be an abusive argumentation, I'll elaborate on this point later, when it comes to the actual impact this makes. Anyways, I'd like to offer 2 observations. 1st: The Resolution doesn't specify whom "carries out" this preservation. Since my opponent doesn't offer an actor I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity. The actor, for overall simplicity of today's debate, will be the U.S. for many reasons First, because we seem to like poking our noses around where it doesn't need to be. (*cough*IRAQ*cough*). Second, because we both live in the United States. Third, because the United States is a place known for having the most experience with languages, considering the U.S is the MOST diverse country in the world.. Fourth, because we NEED an actor for the resolution so we don't spend three rounds arguing theoretical "Well what if's". 2nd: Since the resolution is set up to weigh the possible benefits of the outcome of preservation, CON, must prove that the negatives outweigh the benefits.. Definitions: Preserve-to keep alive or in existence; make lasting Dying- ceasing to live; approaching death; expiring So that leaves me to my actual contentions. My opponent advocates the preservation of dying languages for the following reasons: 1. Archaeological aid. 2. Anthropological aid. 3.Communication with cultures already in existence in an easier fashion. TURN: I couldn't agree more. But I'll show you how the CON actually aids these three causes far more significantly than PRO. To the first point.. 1.By preserving dying languages this would lead to an increase in work and traveling for U.S. Archaeologist. Meaning more archaeologists would leave there homes and families to work on a language that's dying. Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No. 2. Not only does this mean archaeologist leaving home, but now the U.S. would have to use tax dollars to preserve a language that more than likely has no direct impact upon the success of the United States. These two points can be said for Anthropologists as well. Now the last point is easily refuted with proper logic.(TURN) 1. Reread the last point in my opponents case it. It is saying that preserving dying languages would offer the U.S. easier communication with cultures already in existence. NO. Rather the opposite is true. Instead of the U.S. preserving an older language they should teach the people English. So then communication with this foreign cultures would truly become a lot more easier, considering the national language of the U.S. is English. CON case: I negate this topic because it lacks proper assertion to the problem of segregation. The more languages in a specific community, or this case world, the more segregation between people. We all know that segregation leads to nothing but tension between different social groups. Therefore my advocacy is the opposite of the PRO. I say instead of us preserving dying languages, steps should be taken to create a global language. A global language would be a step closer to world peace and unity, because everyone in the world would be able to communicate with each other. O joy the peace on Earth. Why create more unnecessary segregation? I really intended for this to be a little shorter.. Looking forward to your responses Vi. Esteemed, DrAlexander