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

Pro states that linguistic disparity should not be corrected and points out that all languages evolve over time; an astute observation to be certain, everything does change with time. 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. 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). There are over twenty-five languages that are descended from Vulgar Latin, and these languages did not develop because Roman law allowed its citizens (or even its subjugated peoples) to speak in their mother-tongues, every citizen was educated and conducted business in the Latin that Rome made dominant. [2] Instead of allowing its people to create divisions amongst themselves, Rome demanded solidarity in the market place and schools, it wasn't until the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and centuries of geographic and political isolation that created these dialects and languages. The concept of a dominant language is clearly shown by the Roman Empire and its Vulgar Latin, there is no justification that one language cannot be dominate as pro suggests, even if it is only by force and political means. 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. Pro states that the argument based on the validity of Ebonics being "not a language of progress, or being capable of offering us rich history or fresh viewpoints" as subjective and without proof; I will again argue that AAVE is an "inadequate and limiting dialect, is invalid, ungrammatical, and the speaking of it while somewhat lucrative in a limited market revolving around keeping uneducated people (of any race) from paying attention to the "real" world". As pro does not offer any contribution that Ebonics has given society I will list a few: 1) Kanye West in the song "Otis" among other lyrics states "Or the big-face rollie, I got two of those" referring to Rolex watches. [3] 2) Tupac Shakur in the song "Straight Ballin" states "and getting ghost on the 5-0" speaking about police officers. [3] 3) Nina Simone in the song "It Be's that way sometime. [3] These are some significant contributions to be certain, and it is my opinion as subjective and solitaire that it may be, that they are not adequate at all; instead being focused on making money off of ignorant people. Pro makes a valid claim that Ebonics gives us rich new understanding of human interaction… if we find it in such lyrics as these. He then states in response to my original argument (which he fails to rebuke) that "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" if written in French would be imperfect, a valid point, but does not resolve the point that Ebonics has nothing to give us. He argues that differences in semantic representation cannot lead one to infer that one language is superior to another, however this is false, a language should be judged on its ability to convey meaning. I stand by the statement that "Ebonics does not contain the necessary components to convey essential messages" for several reasons; 1)How would Ebonics convey the paradox of the stone? 2)Would it be able to convey Plato's parable of the cave? (Any philosophy?) 3)Could it convey different principles of thermodynamics or molecular science? 4)Assorted diseases and the threats of pandemic? 5)Mental health and development among youth throughout demographics? 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. While Pro validly states that there would be something lost in most if not all translations, the level of loss in any translation into AAVE, creates no notion in my mind for the support of Ebonics (nor supports the quality of the language) within our school houses. Pro also states that the Inuit study is relevant because languages evolve an example of which is the development of the Romance languages from Latin. This point does not speak of the original problems that cause the study to be irrelevant. 1) Simply put, there is nothing to gain from the AAVE, and as such it should not be supported. 2) The evolution of languages over many years does not support a country to allow and support divisions within its education system While the Inuit study is interesting and supports programs like TEFL and the like, it does not support my opponent's case that our society should support divisions and every minority group in our country. The opponent states that there is not a language of progress; is it not apparent that most of the world speaks Mandarin, English, Spanish, Arabic and Russian when conducting business? [1] Outside of the previously mentioned music and advertising industries that are focused on bleeding ignorant people, no industry is looking for experts in AAVE. Pro states repetitively that "In conclusion, 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" , however this is simply wrong, in the future English will maintain a dominate position, only second to Chinese. [1] He also incorrectly quotes con's argument with the statement "it is unfair to train our teachers…jobs" what was said originally is that it is "irrational and unnecessary" and as my original statement stands without rebuke I will further it. Pro states that "they speak in the AAVE language/dialect and their children acquire the same native language. This is nothing to do with how adequately the parents "do their jobs" or the families' socioeconomic status" Ill point out that English is the dominant language in our country and has been since its creation, and as such education in English has been available for quite a while, aside from a very minute percentage of immigrants from Creole majority islands, there is no excuse. [3] Pro also brings up my argument that we must get away from the "No Child Left Behind Act" mentality, stating that it is not germane to the resolution of this debate, however I will disagree and clarify. The mentality I speak of is the constant need to make our education system fit all people, it lowers standards and has been proven to create problems, only if a large enough percentage as in the Spanish speaking population should our system make changes. In conclusion Ebonics still seems to be a long list of incoherent lazy rap lyrics and regardless of its "morphological, syntactical, and phonological rules" it is incapable of meaningful communication, if we allow the speaking of it, why should we not allow Pig-Latin too, it has a set of rules does it not? Perhaps we should train our teachers to speak that so that they can make more sense to little kids that want to goof off. The unity our nation has in its language has been one of the things that makes us great, unlike Europe or Asia where a few miles can mean great divisions in comprehension, we all speak and think the same. If we gain nothing from allowing children to speak Ebonics, and it seems still readily apparent that we don't, instilling in them a false sense of pride or allowance of the habit will only further the problem. Instead we must be ready to deal with the problem with proper education in our dominant language, and prepare them to be productive in our society, anything less is failure.