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

Before we would like to begin our third constructive argument, we have seen major misunderstandings from our opponents and thus would like to give some rebuttals. From the previous posted arguments by side proposition, they haven"t clear stated the problem Firstly, side proposition has told us that there would not be any tests/examinations. We believe that without these tests/examinations, we cannot guarantee, nor can we provide a significant incentive for students, especially those who are unfamiliar/show distaste with the certain dialect. We also cannot effectively keep track of the student"s progress in learning how t communicate with the dialect, since they have not proposed a system or means of assessment to do so. While we do agree that it may be an optional subject or extra-curricular activity in schools, we believe that it should not be compulsory for all students in all schools and side proposition has failed to justify the reasons for this. Secondly, side proposition also brought up a point about how people learn languages quicker at a younger age and students would learn the language more efficiently if they were exposed to it during their juvenile stage. While we cannot argue against the fact that this statement is proven and true, we do not see how this is actually relevant to our moot. What our side has said previously was just to say that if people at any age, including students, feel like they have the need of learning such a dialect, then they could go to a related extra curricular activity at school or go to a tutorial class and learn about it. Thirdly, side opposition mentioned about increased employment opportunities and how large companies around the world will be more willing to give a preference to candidates who have learnt "a language". The main flaw in this argument is that companies, especially large, international ones, will be more willing to take candidates that can communicate effectively in well known languages around the world i. e. official languages of powerful, wealthy countries (e. g. Mandarin, English, Spanish etc. ). Simply knowing how to communicate using a dialect does not help much in communication between people of other countries, since they will be unlikely to know the dialect of that person"s country. Even if their principle was true, which it isn"t, they have not given statistics of people who got good jobs as a result of learning their province"s dialect. Therefore, this argument is false. Last but not least, side opposition has misunderstood our argument about students "having a bad grasp of the dialect", as they put it. We are simply saying that people with prior knowledge, or have grown up speaking the dialect, will have an unfair advantage to those that have recently moved to that province and lacks knowledge of the dialect. Unless we have different streams to group and teach students of the same ability, which side proposition has not proposed or mentioned, teaching these students with different language backgrounds using the same expectations are still unfair to them and they cannot learn neither effectively nor efficiently. If students cannot do the above, then how can side proposition even consider about the long-term benefits when they haven"t considered carefully what should be done presently? Now I would move on to my third constructive argument. Apart from the 2 previously mentioned arguments that our opponents have been unable to refute successfully on, we believe that this education policy should be implemented because this is simply unnecessary for the dialect province"s citizens. Firstly, as we have defined what language lessons are (targeted on communicating in the dialect e. g. listening and speaking), native speakers of that dialect simply do not need to further learn how to speak the dialect in school. Take Hong Kong as an example; in all schools in Hong Kong, there was never a separate lesson that targets on Cantonese (Hong Kong"s dialect) communication. Yet, 97% of its citizens and residents are fluent in speaking Cantonese (according to Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department). This proves that in a dialect province, most of its inhabitants are fluent in the dialect, meaning that the lesson will be almost of no use in local schools (where almost all students there are from the local citizens). Since most schools in a dialect province are bound to be local schools, implementing this education policy in ALL schools (including international schools) will be a waste of manpower, resources, and most importantly time, which could be spent on more constructive uses. The only use of learning this dialect at this stage is to avoid miscommunications between the dialect province"s citizens and foreigners from the country, which, again, is clearly not worth spending so much resources, manpower and time for a certain dialect to be compulsorily taught to all students in dialect provinces. According to the above-mentioned rebuttals and arguments, today"s debate falls to our side. I now pass the debate to side proposition to summarize today"s debate. (No new constructive arguments should be mentioned in the fourth round)