The world would better if there was one language everyone could speak

We'll say for the debate that there would be one language in everyday use, but some may still study others (like people do today with Latin).R1:Pro asserts that if there was one language, the history of other languages would be forgotten. However, there is little reason to assume that. Much is known about the history of the Latin language, despite the fact the language has less than 100 fluent speakers. (6, 7) Also, English's history is recorded, so there is little reason for its history will be forgotten. Con doesn't even really prove that the language would be forgotten. Also, sometimes language can be dangerous to cultures. Marc Shell, professor at Harvard, describes language as the "key battleground for national and cultural conflict." (8) An example of this was shown during the Bengali Language Movement. It started in what was Northern India, which has a Muslim majority (modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh) and the language of Urdu was promoted. However, many people in the area still spoke Bengali. Despite having similar cultures otherwise, this led to a conflict in the area, resulting, among other things, in protesters being shot and the Bangladesh Liberation War. (9) Even though having diverse cultures is great, language can divide people too much, which is because it is more tangible than race or religion. (8) One cannot hide the fact they speak a different language and people of different languages cannot talk to each other directly, which can divide people more than any other difference in culture could. For example, Canada, which has found a way for English and French culture to live side by side in harmony, still sees a lot of conflict arise due to the differing languages. Many English speaking Canadians feel that French is given too much preference in Quebec (the only province in Canada with a French majority), while many French speaking Canadians feel that they are oppressed by the English majority of the country. (10, 11) However, without the language barrier, the conflict between English and French Canadians would be much less severe. R2:Con asserts that people would lose jobs and opportunities if there was one world language. Although translators will need to enter new fields, there are other language related jobs that wouldn't have to be suffered. In fact, in many places teachers who teach foreign languages would be able to teach another subject. (12) Also, any benefits kids who can speak different languages doesn't compare to the amount of people around the world who don't speak English, and therefore don't even have a chance at attending some of the world's top universities (even if they're intelligent enough), considering there are about 5.5 billion people around the world who cannot speak English. (13) Finally, Con mentions the benefits that bilingual people in Canada get. However, one can turn that around and say it would be more fair without the language barrier. Especially considering that certain areas of Canada get more exposure to French and therefore can learn the language easier. (14): C1:Con doesn't actually rebut anything in this contention. I specified people who couldn't or had trouble speaking English, while Con is using examples of people who know other languages. However, Pro does argue that if there was one language, people wouldn't get benefits they do today for being able to speak multiple languages. My rebuttal to this can be seen under R2.C2:Con once again fails to rebut anything in this contention. Instead, he shows that those who are bilingual in Canada are more successful on average. My rebuttal to this can be seen under R2.C3:Con's rebuttal to my claim regarding discrimination against Chinese languages doesn't prove anything related to the topic. Just because plenty of people are learning Chinese languages doesn't mean there aren't people who do discriminate against it. Con also doesn't even address the example of discrimination against the Scots language. However, Con asserts that because Milosevic was so evil he cannot be considered the standard for discrimination. Even if the example in Albania was extreme, there are countless other examples of discrimination or abuse due to language. Today in certain places in Africa, school children who speak their mother tongue are subject to abuse or ridicule. (2) This isn't a one off example. When German teachers were trying to make school children in WrzeÅ›nia speak German instead of their native language (Polish) in school, they would subject the children to corporal punishment if they spoke Polish. (3) One final example of someone's language being discriminated against was in Syria prior to its Civil War. It was illegal for anything to be published in Kurdish. (4) C4:Like I mentioned, advancement of science requires interactions within the scientific community. Basic logic would dictate that if there isn't a language barrier there could be more interaction, and therefore science would advance faster. Also, it's often not practical to have translators. Start-up businesses who have little money to create advertisements in different languages will have a limited target demographic without language. Also, translators aren't always reliable. Moreover, this is completely useless on the Internet. If an Internet page is in a different language there is no way to get it translated properly. In fact, universal translators may never be possible. (5)1-http://en.wikipedia.org...2-http://thisisafrica.me...3-http://en.wikipedia.org...4-http://en.wikipedia.org...5-http://www.fluentin3months.com...6-http://en.wikipedia.org...7-http://www.bbc.com...8-http://harvardmagazine.com...9-http://en.wikipedia.org...10-http://en.wikipedia.org...11-http://www.britannica.com...12-http://www.dailymail.co.uk...13-http://en.wikipedia.org...14-http://www.statcan.gc.ca...