Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

I congratulate him as well on his last win. Good luck to him as well. Now let me start out with some corrections: 1. Papua New Guinea is the most linguistically diverse country in the world. "Linguistically, it is the world's most diverse country, with more than 700 native tongues. " (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 2. "First, because we seem to like poking our noses around where it doesn't need to be. (*cough*IRAQ*cough*). " Opinion. Some people think that Iraq is a place we need to stick our noses in for our own preservation. This is an assumption that the U. S. does things outside of its own preservation, and has no place in this debate. Language, of course, has a lot to do with America's preservation in science and communications. It is in no way connected to "sticking our noses in places like Iraq. " (I must also add that Iraq is a huge archaeological gold mine, and is rich in Babylonian language, Akkadian, which is now dead. ) 3. ** "Fourth, because we NEED an actor for the resolution so we don't spend three rounds arguing theoretical "Well what if's". " I would consider this a world effort. Every country needs to help preserve its own language. Actors, being those in the US, have to communicate with globally located actors. Therefore this entails them as well. Languages are not only a U. S. commodity, and archaeology, anthropology, and communications between countries with different languages is NOT only an American venture. This is an obvious fact and connection. And now for the argument: ***"1. By preserving dying languages this would lead to an increase in work and traveling for U. S. Archaeologist. Meaning more archaeologists would leave there homes and families to work on a language that's dying. Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No. " This has nothing to do with archaeological aid. By archeological aid, I meant that a living knowledge in languages would help them read and decipher artifacts they uncover. It will be so much harder for them to do so if they have no living translators (sometimes even almost impossible with some languages. ) As for archaeologists being away from home… Most archaeologists are (or bring their spouse along with them) as most archaeological work is outside the United States (and I hope my opponent isn't assuming all archaeologists are American. ) ***"2. Not only does this mean archaeologist leaving home, but now the U. S. would have to use tax dollars to preserve a language that more than likely has no direct impact upon the success of the United States. These two points can be said for Anthropologists as well. " Museums, councils, and Universities fund most Anthropological research and Archaeological excavations. A lot of private funding takes place as well. You can think of it as almost a scholarship sort of system where these scientists apply for funding, and receive it if their venture is worth the money of the institution. They need to receive a planning application and once they do (if they do receive it and the institution thinks they will find something worthwhile) they have a set time limit to do so. My above point on Archaeology and family can be applied to anthropology as well (mostly due to the fact that human excavation is not commonly done in North America, and primatologists do most of their work in South America and Africa. ) ***"1. Reread the last point in my opponents case it. It is saying that preserving dying languages would offer the U. S. easier communication with cultures already in existence. NO. Rather the opposite is true. Instead of the U. S. preserving an older language they should teach the people English. So then communication with this foreign cultures would truly become a lot more easier, considering the national language of the U. S. is English. " It would cost less money to preserve a language as older citizens already know it and can pass it on to their children while English needs to have a new program instated to teach them a completely new language. Also, this would hinder my two points above, because it would help vanish the language and vanish the aid the citizens in the area can do for scientists doing studies of their culture and history. There is no logic error here. ***As for con's last statement, it sounds a bit utopian. We know that hurting culture hurts nationalism and is one step closer to a "global government" which none of us are looking forward to. But that would be a policy debate, which this argument is not intended for. So rather, I will look at it through a linguistic view point. There already is an international language (this being English). Most countries learn to speak it as their second language, but their home language is rooted in culture, tradition, and rich history. Making them give up their language is like making them give up their tradition. Yes, I agree, everyone should learn as many languages as possible. But I do not agree that we should take someone's culture because we think that our culture is better or should be international. This could also dip into the issue of why America and Spanish (but different debate different time). Also, we do not have a global language (nor would it work for every culture) simply because cultures have words that do not cross culturally translate due to the inherent cultural basis of them. Specific, I can state, culturally bound words like, for example, Japanese hierarchy of submission, Thailand's adolescent "rage" where teenagers express aggression, and Inuit "snow" language. I hope I've defended my statements as to why we should preserve language well. Regards, Vi