Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

Aight, going to go paragraph by paragraph. "I think you took apart my sections vey nicely, but I have more hard facts to offer up. I like to keep my closing statements short, so lets go for it. I also want to point out that some of your debate was opinion, which was quite interesting but still unneeded." >>Thank you for the compliment. However you say I brought up opinions. I would like to state that this whole debate has been opinions and most of them are. Opinions supported by logic are very acceptable in debate. As far as the voter goes I would like you to notice that my opponent doesn't bother stating what exactly was opinion therefor neither I, nor you, can distinguish. Plus my opponent doesn't actually attack any of it, therefor it all still stands. ""Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts of their history by granting money for museums and the restoration of buildings of historic value. There is considerable cultural capital stored in languages. Understanding a language is often the key to appreciating the full meanings and allusions of a group's heritage; for example, Aboriginal history is predominantly oral. Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." And this is not what we want to do to a society. This is what i meant when I was talking about the culture ebing made orally and by voices." >>The main point in this passage is that the history of Aboriginal's is predominantly oral. "Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." Two things on this, #1 if its dieing then obviously the people don't care so you can't infer that this is something we shouldn't do to them. In all reality trying to prevent a language from dieing that they are allowing to die is going against their will. #2 this point is flat out not true. Their history can be translated into any other language, some meanings may become a little skewed but all in all their history will be kept in tact. Any language can be translated to another. This does not result in historical death. "My final point is that the pros for keeping these languages outweighs to cons by a few. Thus proving that it is MORE beneficial to preserve these "Cultures" (haha) than not." >>My cons were language enforces the social divide that is currently happening and stops humans from seeing themselves as the greater group of humanity in general. (I would rather see them as life in general but thats beside the point of this debate) This has lead to the formation of states as we now know them which is part of the reason for interstate crime and/or war. Your pros on the other hand I fail to see. Every thing you attempted to have as a pro I refuted in my first two rounds and you conceded them all when you said, "I think you took apart my sections vey nicely" The only new pro you brought up in your last round was historical death which I refuted on two levels. Conclusion: Cons outweigh Pros War/crime/social divide/misconception > nothing. Thanks for the debate. (Don't forget my counter advocacy of creating one universal language)