Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

As a road map, I will briefly address each of my opponent's responses. Then I will move on to tell you why you should vote CON. 1. In response to my opponent's first point.. My initial reasoning for as to why the U.S. is the actor is still upheld. This is b/c my opponent dropped the following argument. "My second observation is that we should look to the US because we both live here. The impact being, since we both live in the US we [should] know more about the United States and how it's works politically, economically as well as socially, in comparison to other countries. " No where during this round has she responded to this observation. Meaning we MUST accept this as true, and that my opponent agrees with me and the impact behind my reasoning as well. Now we see that I have sufficiently won the whole "actor" debate. 2. In response to my opponent's second point.. Look to Vi's second response. All she is doing here is elaborating on how the American citizens do not understand the role languages play. BUT all of this is based on her own opinion. Who is to say Americans cannot understand the significance of languages when ALL Americans are immigrants themselves, or at least decedents of immigrants. (With the exception of Native Americans, whom have their own unique cultural identity). Whatismore my opponent continues, "Unless an American has had a personal experience with someone who couldn't speak English, they don't understand the need to be able to learn and translate different thoughts." What my opponent fails to recognize is that in the CON world the need to translate in order to communicate wouldn't exist because we'd have a universal language. The rebuilding of more languages creates an even GREATER need of translation. So if anything this argument is one the CON should make. (TURN) 3. In response to my opponent's third point.. I'd like to respond by saying that I totally understand that multiple occupations call for their employees to undergo traveling. BUT like I said earlier, "Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No." Meaning this traveling does not achieve anything beneficial to either the U.S. nor the rest of the world as I will elaborate on in response to my opponent's 4th point. Moreover this is most definitely NOT a desperate attempt, rather I am simply pointing out an informal fallacy given by my opponent. 4 In response to my opponent's fourth point.. My opponent argues the point that, "the government will not have to invest money in this", though she completely dismisses the fact that government expenditures are a necessity in a movement in as large as a preservation of an entire language. Not only does she dismiss this fact, but she does so without upholding her burden of proof. Meaning she provide little to no evidence to the contrary of my initial contention. The "alternatives" that my opponent offers consists of "investors". Though this is inconsistent with the point that preserving dying languages does not led to an obvious profit. Therefore it would be an illogical assumption for her to say people would invest in a non-profitable movement. She attempts to show how profits may be made but she justifies this by stating, "archaeologists [will] make a new find". Please do not let her get away with this Judges. Saying archaeologist will make new finds is extra-topical, meaning it's stretching the meaning and intent of the resolution to meet some non-inherent benefit.. The archaeologists are going to preserve languages, not anything extra, like "mak[ing] new finds". 5 In response to my opponent's fifth point.. I am just going to expand on a point I made earlier to refute my opponent's Albanian example, through the eyes of logic this time considering we both used two opposing personal examples. Learning a new language is just that, it is not depriving you of your traditional clothing, religious and cultural holidays, cultural foods nor traditions. Meaning seeing through the eyes of logical, it would be a stretch to say that learning a new language changes your cultural identity. 6 In response to my opponent's sixth point.. My opponent clearly misinterprets my entire contention. I am not saying throw away you other language and learn English. I am saying, and out of fairness I'll quote my previous argument from my case, "I say instead of us preserving dying languages, steps should be taken to create a global language." Latin and German do not qualify as what I call, "universal languages" what I mean by universal languages is a language that makes communication easier, as I stated earlier in my case. Latin is used strictly for naming diseases and other scientific ventures, not for day-to-day communication. Same can be said with German, a language used only by certain business professionals, and Germans of course. Judges I urge you to vote in opposition to the resolution (CON) because of the arguments I have won during today's debate. Those arguments are the following... I win on the bases of determining the actor for the resolution. I win because I offer an alternative that provides easier communication worldwide. I win b/c I showed how my opponent actually is not aiding archaeologist, anthropologist nor is she providing an easier avenue for communication with cultures already in existence. I win because I properly showed how affirming the topic would lead to unnecessary spending. Last and most importantly, I win b/c my opponent failed to argue the point that this would lead to further segregation in our world. And segregation has led to horrifying events such as slavery, as well as Holocausts such as that which existed in Nazi Germany. I'll end off by quoting my initial case, "A global language would be a step closer to world peace and unity, because everyone in the world would be able to communicate with each other. O joy the peace on Earth. " Vote CON. Esteemed, DrAlexander