Multilingualism is obligatory.

I accept the Burden of Proof. I intend to argue my point sufficiently and effectively. DefinitionsMultilingualism - using or able to speak several or many languages with some facility. Facility - readiness or ease due to skill, aptitude, or practice; dexterity: an easy-flowing manner. Obligatory - required as a matter of obligation; mandatoryGlobalized - to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwideMonolingual - knowing or able to use only one language Arguments Benefits of Speaking Multiple Languages The world is becoming globalized. The advantages and benefits of being multilingual are enormous. The New York Times presents the benefits of bilingualism, the ability to speak two languages, which is the tip of the iceberg of multilingualism. "S[peaking] two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age. "There are uncountable benefits of bilingualism, trilingualism, and eventually multilingualism. Not only does it benefit your brain, but it also opens new doors of opportunity. You can connect with more people, cultures, and nations, whether you are on business, simply travelling, or need to communicate for other reasons. My opponent surely acknowldges this, but this debate is primarily about mulitlingualism being obligatory. I will explain that in the next section. Obligatory Multilingualism Why is it obligatory, even though it has tremendous benefits and advantages? This is the core question of this debate. Let's look at an example scenario: A monolingual individual travels to another nation. In this example, it is Germany. He goes to Berlin and takes pictures. In Germany, many people speak English, but a certain coffee shop worker does not. So, the traveler goes to the coffee shop. He knows what he wants, which is a decaf black coffee without sugar. He opens his mouth to say something, but nothing comes out. The coffee shop worker says, "Kann ich ihnen helfen? " The traveler says, "I do not speak German. I speak English. " Sadly, the person does not get his coffee. Why is that so? He cannot speak German. This is just one of millions of scenarios. It is not necessarily have to be the German language in question; it can be Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, or any other language, in fact. I am not saying which specific languages one should learn, but a knowledge of a language or two besides your native one will help you immensely. So far, I have only scratched the surface. I have not yet sufficiently argued obligatory multilingualism. Let's look at this a different way: A young man lives in the United States. In fact, he has never been outside of the U. S. He speaks only English. He did study Spanish in high school, but he did not put any effort into it. After school, he never used the language or even studied it. He lost all memories of it except for the phrase, "Buenas dias. " That is all he rememberes. He is monolingual. He dies a monolingual. This man's life was a failure. To the question Why should multilingualism be obligatory? , my response can be simply this: Multilingualism is the ability to speak multiple languages. It allows you to connect with new people, markets, and opportunities. It allows you to understand your planet more fully. I believe that all people should put effort into learning at least one additional language other than their native one. If a person lives and dies a monolingual, I fear they have failed life. Life is more than just about living; it is connecting with others and accomplishing something. Being multilingual satisfies both of those criteria; it allows you to connect and it is a great accomplishment. For now, I have made my core points. My argument is somewhat short, I must concede to that notion. I have limited time, though, and I apologize. My opponent may now post his main arguments. I look forward to them. Works Cited1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...4. . http://dictionary.reference.com...5. . http://dictionary.reference.com...6. . http://www.nytimes.com... #