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

Before we move into our next stage of substantive argument, there are several pieces of rebuttal side Proposition would like to issue against our Opposition, who have in many cases either misunderstood or ignored elements of our argument in order to generate needless rebuttal. We did not feel it necessary to issue a definition for the style of teaching used in a dialect language class, however we would like it to be noted that we are happy to accept those terms issued by the Opposition. Moving into the rebuttal, the opposition said that we had implied that one does not currently have the right to learn the dialect of their homeland. This is utter hogwash. We used the clear comparative between the two hypothetical families in Cornwall and the American living in New York as an example as how what we seek to do will shore up the existing right to learn one's language and make it easier for anyone to learn the language with which their heritage identifies. Moreover, we wish to introduce the teaching of these dialects in schools specifically because this is the most effective way of facilitating language learning. The Opposition argued that anyone can learn a language at any point during their lives, and thus it is not necessary to do so at school level, but this ignores the basic (proven) scientific fact that children and teenagers are much more effective than adults at learning a new language. THAT is why we teach French to hordes of schoolchildren every year - not because there is some great diplomatic crisis requiring the entire nation to immediately speak French, but because childhood is the best opportunity to learn - hence our wish to introduce dialect teaching in schools. The Opposition also felt it necessary to challenge us to justify the long-term benefits of learning a language, despite the fact that we have already spoken of the increased employment opportunities for anyone with even semi-fluency in a given language. Most financial companies and diplomatic services across the developed world will give preference to a candidate who has learned a language, although the Opposition conveniently brushed over this. Learning a language has also been proven to improve one's memory faculties and the ability to switch between different tasks (as will be expanded upon in our third argument), and learning the grammar of another language assists one's grasp of their own. The Opposition later said that many dialects have survived without being taught in schools: I would like to challenge them to name one. The strongest surviving dialects in Western Europe are currently Basque and Catalan, however unlike what the Opposition would tell you these languages are strong because schools in the Basque Country and in Catalonia are ENTIRELY BILINGUAL - a step further than what we are proposing. The Opposition then proceeded to dispel some frankly ridiculous myths about the practicalities of introducing these lessons, which simply are not an issue. He said that in an area where a language is not dying then teaching it is a waste of manpower - but think of the implications of this principle set by the Opposition. Interest in History and Geography is not subsiding, therefore we should cut History and Geography classes from the curriculum? I hope that example will demonstrate why that argument simply does not stand up. Then, the Opposition criticised us for examining students in a language they may not grasp. For one thing we do not propose to do that - we clearly stated that no pupil will be made to sit public exams in the dialect language. And for another thing, if a pupil has a bad grasp of the language then that is not a reason for them not to sit an exam. Pupils in the UK are forced to sit GCSEs in English, Maths and Science REGARDLESS of proficiency. Adding dialect languages before this stage of the educational career is not going to have a disastrous effect on pupils' schedules. The Opposition also stated that teachers teaching dialect languages in schools would be wasted as not all pupils would be interested, but the Proposition fails to see how that is different to ANY other subject on the curriculum. Some people will always be disinterested in languages and - under our proposals - come the age of 13 they never have to touch them again. We'd also like to point out that our proposal is still creating new positions for language teachers, which brings economic and employment benefits. Now that Proposition has regained its good name and pointed out why the practical objections (the only Opposition we have heard from side Opposition so far) are worthless, we would like to move onto our third key piece of substantive material, which will expand on the rebuttal we have already issued on the benefits of learning a second language. We have already spoken of how learning a language which is spoken in the home region will counter the idea that learning languages is pointless. There are numerous scientific benefits to learning a second language, and subsequent languages after this, which we would like to outline in support of our plans. Although the initiator has not required us to specify our sources in this debate, we have chosen to do so for this section in order to demonstrate that this argument has the upmost scientific merit and in order to defend it from any accusations that the science is dubious. Learning a language and becoming more bilingual has been scientifically proven to boost your brain power. This is because one has to switch between languages and it can be considered to be a form of mental work-out. [1] It is thus in people's interest to become more proficient in a language, even reaching the point of being bilingual - but it is a myth that this takes a lifetime and fluency in a language can easily be achieved by the age of 17 under the UK's school system (the speaker for the Proposition is practically fluent in Spanish and semi-fluent in French). It has also been shown to make the brain more attentive to be bilingual [2]. We have thus demonstrated that there are major cognitive benefits to being bilingual, and our previous substantives have demonstrated the argument for one's first learning language being their regional dialect. We believe that we should do everything in our power to ENCOURAGE (not FORCE, as the Opposition would have you believe) people to reach the point of being bilingual, and we have demonstrated the practical and logical reasons to learn a dialect. When you combine this with the fact that Opposition's practical objections are more problems with education itself than the actual implications of our proposal, we believe the correct path in this debate is with the Proposition. I pass you back to the capable hands of Opposition to continue the debate. [1] . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] . http://dana.org...