EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1151

That where English is not the national language, we should prefer debating in English to another language

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
18 points
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
I thank my opponent for accepting this secret topic with me, and let's get started. My arguments will be short, because this is not a topic that I even thought I would ever even debate this topic. I apologize for the bad arguments.

I assume that this is debating worldwide, like one person in one country to another. Because if it is two Indian people who debate, then this is a truism.

Argument 1. English is basically the universal language

English is basically the universal language in the world. "English remains the dominant language of international business and global communication through the influence of global media and the former British Empire that had established the use of English in regions around the world such as North America, India, Africa, Australia and New Zealand [1] [2] [3]."

English is also the universal language of the EU [4]. But not one person is sure that it still will be the universal language after Brexit, in the EU, but because it was and is the universal language right now, that means that people and those countries can speak English. Also, in the UN, they all speak in English. 

I have prove many evidence that English is already the universal language. It is not the most spoken, Chinese is, but that of course would, because they are first in population. Many countries use English, as I have shown.

Because English is already the universal language, as I have shown, then we should use English, because it is an universal language. As it is the universal language, that means that it is spoken in the whole world. If English is not the national language in that country, we should debate in English, as it the universal language.

Argument 2: Debates are usually in English

There are two debating sites. One is here, edeb8, and debate.org [5]. Both sites use English.

And, in some debate tournaments, most are used in English.

We are already using English, and we should keep using English. So, it will be surprising if my opponent speaks Spanish, but as normal, he would speak English.

I am a Korean which speaks English, not surprising. I am in a international school in France, and people from out the world all speak English.

English is the universal language. And because it is the Universal language, we should use it in debate.

Conclusion

I have shown that English is the universal language, and many people, and sites use English in debating. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed, and vote for Pro.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language

[2] http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/engunilang.php

[3] https://worldchoice-education-blog.com/2013/08/08/why-english-has-become-the-universal-language-of-the-world/

[4] http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/english-will-remain-the-working-language-of-the-eu-after-brexit-1.2725840

[5] http://www.debate.org/

Thanks, vote for Pro.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-27 09:16:08
| Speak Round
CrowCrow (CON)
It is my pleasure to accept this debate, fire_wings. 

Let us distinguish the word preference in the resolution. The word preference, implies that it is not mandatory. For preference to be available, one must already have the option.

I prefer to use my first round to frame my arguments, so here are the reason I believe debating in a countries native language is preferable to English.

  • It is a decent thing to do when given the option.
  • A native language is more likely to resonate with the native judges and audience.
  • If English is not a national language, it will most likely not be understood by the native judges and audience. 

We'll expand on those later. 

While english is a language that can be found in countries all across the globe,  that does not justify why it should be preferred over native languages. In all cultures and societies, their language is more than just a tool. It is a source of pride, and something that is used to define themselves. If one can speak the native language, it shows both respect and good form for their heritage. 

There are other debate sites that are not in English. My personal favorite was an Egyptian site called Naqeshny, but there are also several debate sites in other major language groups. 

On Naqeshny, I identified as American. The members there had very good manners, and were decent enough to speak in English, rather than force me to use the translation tools provided by the site. I really appreciated that gesture, and I did have an easier time understanding arguments in English as opposed to the ones in Arabic. 

There are also debate competitions held all throughout the world, in Europe, Asia, and even Africa. Saying English is the universal debating language, shows a lack of knowledge on the debating community. 

 I have some other points to address in the next round. 





Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-28 23:23:15
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
In this round I will mostly go onto my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments. I will be brief in this round.

Observations

O1: Note about the BoP here. The BoP is shared. I have to prove why we should prefer debating in English, and my opponent needs to prove why we should not prefer debating in English to another language. My opponent seems to say that the burden of proof is on me, which is not true, as it is shared.

My opponent makes three main points, and I'll address them turn by turn.

First of all, my opponent says that the native people should rather speak their language, so the native judges, and they all understand. As I said in the first round, technically is a truism for me, as not much people in Russia will do a debate with each other in English. As we need to prevent truisms in the debate, it is about one country to another country. And my opponent doesn't say anything about this, he only tries to turn his arguments into a truism debate, which is a lack of conduct. And, my opponent makes bare assertions about their native language, so voters must not buy the argument.

Next, my opponent says that there are some debate sites which do not speak English, and gives an example. First of all, my opponent doesn't give a source about the place. I can say, "디베이트" in Korean, and say it is a debating site. My opponent needs to actually give some sources. 

Next, my opponent basically gives a point to me. He says, "The members there had very good manners, and were decent enough to speak in English, rather than force me to use the translation tools provided by the site." I don't really get how that fits my opponent's side, as it fits my side better. That means that the people from other countries can speak, and debate in English. 

That's all I will give this round. My opponent only gives bare assertions, so that is all I would bring this round. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 08:49:35
| Speak Round
CrowCrow (CON)
I already kind of fleshed out these points in my original rebuttals, but lets detail them a little more.

The general decency of choosing to speak in another countries native language is obvious. There are plenty of countries that speak English, but they do have their own native language that they prefer to speak in among each other. Adapting to their native language isn't a necessity, but it is a great gesture of respect for their culture and traditions. Therefore it should be preferable. 

My judging perspective is that a debate is decided by who was the most convincing. Effective debaters know their audience, and try to fit their arguments based on what will appeal and resonate with them. There is significant cognition that goes into viewing debates, and choosing to use a countries native language reduces the level of bias. 

Almost every nation that speaks English actively, has English as an official language under their law. There are exceptions to the rule, but this is the general case. Chances are, if you debate in a country where English is not a national language, few people are going to understand it. While translation has certainly advanced, an argument that has to be translated loses a lot of its initial drive.

I honestly do not know what the affirmative is getting at about "truisms." It is a fact, that native judges and audiences, will understand and resonate with their native language better than English. This point is legitimate, and goes towards proving the affirmation.

About English on Naqeshny, it is not actually true that all the Arab community members there could speak English. Most came from college and intellectual backgrounds, but even so I still had to occasionally translate to Arabic for many of them. 

The affirmatives resolution is weak, and fails to sufficiently push forward his position. 



Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-31 23:23:00
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
That's how it works on DDO.
Posted 2016-09-04 21:43:05
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
I'm not admin, but my guess would be that it does contribute to his elo and his record and if/when he returns it will register that.
Posted 2016-09-04 21:42:44
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@admin
Just a curious question, will Crow get credit for this debate after winning it even though he is banned?
Does it count to his ELO score? Is it counted on his account after he may come back on again?
Posted 2016-09-02 01:47:03
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-08-07 02:05:07
LucasTheLlamaJudge: LucasTheLlama
Win awarded to: Crow
Reasoning:
Crow made some excellent points in this debate. My personal favorite is "The general decency of choosing to speak in another countries native language is obvious. There are plenty of countries that speak English, but they do have their own native language that they prefer to speak in among each other." In my own opinion, languages are beautiful, and not everyone speaks English.
4 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2016-08-08 00:20:57
Bob13Judge: Bob13
Win awarded to: Crow
Reasoning:
Pro made some good points regarding English being a universal language, but Con pointed out that while English is widely spoken, it's not entirely universal. Like he said, people usually prefer to speak in their native language, so they would find it easier to debate in that language and judges would better understand the debate. Pro's statements about truisms were completely unfounded and he didn't adequately explain himself. He forfeited the last round and was unable to defend his arguments, so Con clearly wins.

Feedback:
To Pro: Explain your arguments more clearly. Your statements about truisms made no sense at all and should be described in more detail. You also need to work on phrasing and grammar. For instance, instead of saying, "I have prove many evidence" say "I have proven that (state contention)". You evidence is also very weak, and some of it is harmful to your argument. Your statement about Brexit weakens your argument and makes your evidence less credible, and saying that DDO and Edeb8 are the only debating sites can be disproven through a quick google search.
To Con: Use more sources, it'll really help your argument.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2016-08-10 19:03:23
FamousdebaterJudge: Famousdebater
Win awarded to: Crow
Reasoning:
The burdens are shared here due to the normative resolutions (so fire is correct), however that's irrelevant since both sides ultimately provide a case. Pro mentions the universality of English and the fact that there are major debate sites in which English is used as the primary language. Con renders this argument invalid by simply naming sites in which English is not used primarily and other languages are the primary languages. Whilst there was no actual citation for the existence of the site (and Pro mentions this), the point was still valid due to it being a truism that didn't need justification. This ultimately invalided both of Pro's points as well as furthering Con's case. The forfeiture from Pro at the end just helped me to confirm my decision. It was a clear win for Con.

Feedback:
Fire, you honestly sealed your fate in the first round. Your case had some very big holes and fallacies that were very clear in them. Con had an easy job by simply identifying other websites in which English isn't the native language. To be fair, you chose a very difficult position to defend, so I do give you credit for attempting to defend it but you didn't provide a convincing case for why those that don't speak English should debate in English (though I'd imagine it'd be a hard job to win a debate like that).

Crow, provide citation for your claims. You mentioned websites but failed to source them and as I said in the explanation above, Pro did mention this. Whilst I did consider it this time, due to nature of the claim, it could have been different if you had failed to cite a less objectively true claim and that would have lost you debate if I did consider Pro's objection to be valid. So just be more careful and remember to cite claims - even if they may seem obvious and not in need of citation.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2016-08-16 03:59:01
BumiamJudge: Bumiam
Win awarded to: Crow
2016-08-23 07:40:25
cooldudebroJudge: cooldudebro
Win awarded to: Crow
2016-09-03 00:57:24
Michael KanterJudge: Michael Kanter
Win awarded to: Crow
Reasoning:
I found that fire_wings' arguments were based in a more suitable setting of this round. I thought that the debate should have been about whether debate should be a method of forcing english upon other countries, or if it should be case by case. I really like Crow's refutation, ill be fully honest. My main issue with the case on Side Con, was the lack of depth in the arguments. I will repeat this in my recommendations, but you always want to structure an argument as: Title, Mechanism, and then Impacts, and justification of impacts. What this means is you should label your point, for example, the general courtesy of speaking in a native language, then you need mechanism. This often is just a logic based point, for example, it makes people more comfortable, and it shows a certain level of respect. Then you need to prove what this does on a greater level. If I was doing this debate, I would say that english speakers are characterized as the American A-holes. By showing respect for other languages, it diminishes that perception, and then finally, explain why that is good.

Feedback:
I found that fire_wings' arguments were based in a more suitable setting of this round. I thought that the debate should have been about whether debate should be a method of forcing english upon other countries, or if it should be case by case. I really like Crow's refutation, ill be fully honest. My main issue with the case on Side Con, was the lack of depth in the arguments. I will repeat this in my recommendations, but you always want to structure an argument as: Title, Mechanism, and then Impacts, and justification of impacts. What this means is you should label your point, for example, the general courtesy of speaking in a native language, then you need mechanism. This often is just a logic based point, for example, it makes people more comfortable, and it shows a certain level of respect. Then you need to prove what this does on a greater level. If I was doing this debate, I would say that english speakers are characterized as the American A-holes. By showing respect for other languages, it diminishes that perception, and then finally, explain why that is good.
0 comments on this judgement
2016-09-02 01:42:19
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Crow

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
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