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

Before I would like to continue onto my rebuttals and conclusions, I would like to point out the clashes in today’s debate. The clashes in today’s debate was whether dialect language lessons are really necessary for students living in dialect provinces and whether it is actually practical to implement such an education system in all schools. I will elaborate why we have won both of these clashes and show why today’s debate falls towards our side of the house. Firstly, we can see how side proposition fails to ignore how it is practically incorrect to implement such a class in a dialect province where the province may contain different people of different cultures and of different language backgrounds. Especially in international schools in a dialect province, there are bound to be some students who do not speak the dialect in the dialect province. The dialect language classes are going to be of no use if there cannot be an established standard or curriculum for implementing such a policy. As we all know, different countries run different curriculums, and these curriculums are spread into different international schools in different countries. In a dialect province, there will certainly have schools that run IB, GCSE or their government’s own proposed curriculum. We are not sure how such a dialect language class should be implemented in ALL schools in the dialect province while not affecting those particular school’s curriculum. Aside from the point about different curriculums, we also fail to see how it would be fair to students with different prior knowledge of such a language subject. While side proposition constantly argues and gives examples of subjects that some have prior knowledge of and some don’t, we must admit that having prior knowledge in a language, especially when a certain person has learnt it at a very early age, will be extremely beneficial in an unfair way to one that has had no knowledge of such a language in the past. As we can see, the difference between having prior knowledge of a language subject and other subjects is very large. Back to our point, the above reasoning proves that native speakers of a certain dialect will have an very unfair advantage over those who have no exposure to it at all. Even if the students do not take exams, the proposition has not developed any way to solve this problem, such as setting different streams according to the students ability etc. Secondly, we can also see how side proposition fails to acknowledge that compulsory dialect language lessons are not necessary in most, if not all, provinces. In my previous speeches, I have explained how such a lesson is basically useless to those who already know how to communicate in the dialect in the dialect province. Since a dialect province must have and enormous percentage of people speaking a certain dialect, it would be silly to educate them in how to speak the dialect if they can learn it at home gradually by time. As mentioned before, there was no ‘Cantonese language’ class implemented in Hong Kong, yet almost all of the students in Hong Kong know how to speak it. This proves that such a dialect language lesson would be useless and unnecessary if it were to only teach students how to communicate in a certain dialect. Now I will get back to my refutations. Side proposition mentioned in their first speech about how there were examples of languages dying or fading out due to the minimal amount of people who speak it, and thus, propose to have these dialect lessons to promote dialects so it will not fade out from today’s society. What proposition fails to realize is that language gradually evolves in time. They showed us about how Cornish died out when many people were speaking English in the United Kingdom. As we can see, Cornish died out because everybody who recognized it thought that it was unnecessary to learn or speak in some way, and therefore gradually spoke English. As side opposition, we simply fail to see how this is actually a problem and why it is so important that we have to sacrifice so much (arguments that I will sum up later) to preserve a certain dialect. Side proposition also mentioned how students learning new dialects will increase employment opportunities. As rebutted before, we don’t see how learning a dialect (especially a non-well-known one) will actually help communicate with people from across the world. We doubt that learning a dialect that is not known internationally will help in international companies since they will be looking for candidates who are fluent in internationally recognized languages, and very rarely a dialect. Side proposition also made a grave mistake of asking us to form a POLICY on this issue. If we were to form a policy, then it would be proposition’s job to make it, not opposition, since they are the side of the house that wants to implement such a policy. This means that they have contradicted themselves because they admitted that they did not have a real policy that will actually work, meaning that they are only arguing in principle, but have not focused on making the motion actually WORK in realism. After pointing out the major flaws on side opposition, I would like to briefly sum up our concrete arguments. Firstly, we have successfully argued that such a proposal is illogical and impractical in our first round. We also proposed an alternative to those that really need to learn the dialect to go to tutorial centers whenever they feel like they need education and fluency in the dialect. Implementing this compulsory subject in ALL schools is just unnecessary and proposition has failed to refute effectively. Secondly, we have also argued about how there were practicality issues that needed to be taken into account. As mentioned just now, side proposition just brushed away this point made a very basic mistake. So because they have been unable to rebut this, and even contradicted themselves by asking us to form a policy, this point is firm and strong and definitely stands. So according to the above-mentioned reasons, it is clear why side proposition’s arguments collapse and the debate falls toward our side of the house.