EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2227

That the United States should recognize Spanish as an official language

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
5 points
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)

http://spanish.about.com/od/historyofspanish/a/10_facts_about_spanish.htm

The above site can justify that Spanish is not only the second most used language in the world, but also in the US.

It is very prevalently used, and, more Hispanic/Latino people would be able to communicate more easily, especially in government positions or perhaps in their common work place. The government has to make the people happy, as people have rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" as declared in the Constitution. Therefore it would seem most efficient for the US to recognize Spanish as an official language to make the people happy, and make communicating for Spanish-speaking people--a large percentage of the population--easier.

Onto you, drafterman.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-28 19:11:38
| Speak Round
draftermandrafterman (CON)
Currently, the United States has no official language. It has avoided this issue since its inception and the national rhetoric is often on that prides the United States in its multiculturalism and inclusion of other nationalities ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..") This position of language agnosticism is a superior one. Unlike other countries defined by a single ethno-cultural heritage, the United States is one of a fluid mixing pot of cultures and languages. By not designating any official language, the United States is then more free to respond to the changes in its populace. English and Spanish are the two most popular languages now, but what about in 50 years? What if it is some other language? By designating an official language, this is something that must be evaluated and reevaluated over time and - like all things rooted in the government - will lag behind the times.

Also, while 43 of the states identify Spanish as its second most popular language, 7 do not, identifying French (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Louisiana), German (North Dakota), Yupik (Alaska), and Tagalong (Hawaii). What of these states? Not only will an official language policy not be adaptable over time, it is clearly not adaptable geographically. An official language policy, while obligating the government to provide services in that language, implicitly excludes non-official languages, which is clearly sub-optimal in those 7 states.

The solution is clear: the status quo. The United States has no official language policy, and provides services in various languages as needed. By not defining an official language, it does not restrict access to services by language. However, individual states are free to set official languages as benefits their specific populations. States with a significant Spanish population can designate an official state language, as can other languages. Indeed, California, New Mexico, and Texas, through convention and law, provide services and information in English and in Spanish. So what is to be gained by doing so at a Federal level?

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-29 11:17:44
| Speak Round
draftermandrafterman (CON)
I will extend and expand upon my arguments, but concisely.

1. We're fine with having no official language. It's worked for us this far and leaves us flexible to changes, both geographically and across time;
2. Languages are better handled at lower levels (i.e. at the State level) anyway, and States are already taking measures to do that (for better or for worse);

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-31 11:33:38
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
What....I clearly remember posting my round. 
Well, that's the second time I ever forfeited in a debate. Wow.
I guess my imaginary round got deleted. I'll just sum it up; Even California recognizes Spanish so much that it has all its documents printed in both English and Spanish. As mentioned before this would be helpful and have more appeal to more people. We can have both English and Spanish as official languages and not contradict the other. There is no rule that says a country can't have two official languages.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-31 16:57:42
| Speak Round
draftermandrafterman (CON)
While it is commendable that a given state has taken action to ensure that government services are available to people who speak a different language, this does not support the resolution or refute arguments against it.

1. The policies of individual states are out of scope. The resolution addresses the stance of the United States. Indeed, one could argue that the Constitution reserves this power to the states alone, an the United States government can't set an official language (except, perhaps, to make it a requirement for citizenship).

2. It is not required that the government establish an official language in order to provide support for it. On the contrary, by establishing an official language, it can create the implication that non-official languages are not supported. By identifying one or two languages as "official" you give them precedence over others and make create the belief (however false) that speakers of those other languages are less important.

Clearly, the ideal situation is what we have: no official language, no disenfranchisement of speakers of other languages, and preservation of 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-01 11:53:21
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
I don't know what to say. There is too less information available online to support my side. This debate is much too obscure. I concede, vote my opponent.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-01 14:20:11
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
9spaceking9spaceking
hmmmm...... uh-huh....
Posted 2014-10-27 18:39:19
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-11-03 18:08:22
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: drafterman
Reasoning:
Concession. Con easily managed to swipe and supercharge all of Pro's impacts for himself by sticking with the status quo. It just didn't seem like there was a lot of meat to Pro's case, as his benefits came from supporting two languages over all others, yet his case was that all peoples should be able to communicate easily within the country. I don't know how a national language accomplishes that, and Con showed me that the status quo does a better job.
2 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-11-03 20:09:04
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: drafterman
Reasoning:
Concession

Feedback:
9space, you have a habit of forfeiting debates you feel like you're losing. This isn't a good way to improve. There's little harm in finishing the debate, even if you feel like you can't win. I actually recommend it, because it refines you as a debater. I realized in the one debate that we did, that you seem to do a stronger job debating with cross examination. You saw the debate through to its end too.

Maybe you should think about using cross examination more in the future. It will certainly help your case, as it allows you to ask questions and find where the opposition is weak. Don't feel afraid to experiment in cross examination. You'll be surprised where a conversation in cx can lead you.
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-11-07 10:01:08
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: drafterman

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 12 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29