More Foreign Languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

My opponent has made some interesting arguments. I humbly suggest he offer some sources as well.Rebuttals:Pro writes "My point was many students aspire to work in a high paying career, as in Law or Health. Imagine if someone that has only ever been taught Spanish comes into a hospital. If no one in the hospital knows Spanish, what happens to the person?"Well, imagine if someone who only spoke ancient Hebrew came into a hospital. What happens to him if no one in the hospital knows ancient Hebrew?Everyone should just learn English.Pro writes "At my high school, we have 2 language classes. Students (like me) that want to have a career that involves languages should be able to have a larger variety of languages to choose from."That's nice, but I'm sure other people want things that they're not getting either. In my old high school, I wanted to take AP Computer Science B. The school cut it, however they still had the funding for my Latin class, which consisted of... six students (for the record, there were a dozen people I knew who wanted to take ComSci B, and those were only the people from my ComSci A class).That's what you go to college for. The school can't offer everyone specialized courses relating to what they want to study, that's not what high schools are for.Thus, I conclude that a few basic languages offerings should be enough. You can learn languages outside of school if you're that passionate about them.Pro writes "I believe languages like German, Chinese, Portuguese, and Latin should be offered at all schools.Well, that's a steep deal. As far as I know, most schools don't set their own funding, so if a school is only offering French and Spanish, there's probably a reason they aren't also offering another four languages, one of which is deader than my Great-Aunt Birte, and that reason is probably cost. Does the school have sufficient facilities for four new classes (at minimum; there are usually several levels of each language)? Does the school have the money to hire (at least) four new teachers? If the school does decide to implement this, from where comes the funding? Probably from things that other people enjoy and are using.And of course, that example is just one high school. I'm sure not every high school has the capabilities to offer four language programs. The only way school boards can raise money (as far as I know) is from taxes. I really don't want to be paying more taxes so a few kids I don't know can take Portuguese instead of Spanish.Additionally, there's no reason to believe most people are dissatisfied with their language selection in a meaningful way. As I hypothesized unsourcedly under my point "Kids are stupid", kids probably would prefer to take languages that aren't offered, but for most of them it wouldn't be tremendously critical. If I could add a random class to the curriculum, it would probably be Nigerian Soap Operas, but that's probably not going to be a hit with anyone else, and I'm content to not be taking it. Likely, this is the situation for many kids.Pro writes "And I conclude, more practical foreign languages should be offered in ALL high schools."I see nothing wrong in a school ditching its Esperanto program in favor of Chinese, but I think schools should keep the current number of language classes that they offer. If they're going to swap out unpopular languages for popular ones, it should be at a one-to-one exchange ratio to keep costs as close to equal as possible.Therefore, there is no need for a high school to offer more languages. I rest my case.