Round 1. MemoryShock vs Hotbakedtater: Language of Love, page

The topic for this debate is "The world needs a single common language to achieve peace and stability.”

MemoryShock will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Hotbakedtater will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

I would like to thank The Vagabond for hosting this debate and tournament and as well my opponent for what looks to be a very interesting topic on globalization, culture and the nature of communication.

Up until this point in the Bible, the whole world had one language - one common speech for all people. The people of the earth became skilled in construction and decided to build a city with a tower that would reach to heaven. By building the tower they wanted to make a name for themselves and also prevent their city from being scattered.

[1]

The nature of humanity is such that we all want the same things...while that is not possible, it is possible for our respective basic desires to be satiated.

We, as a society, actually have the capacity to insure that basic needs are met...but most people, as evidenced indirectly through societal propagation, do not have a comprehension of their environment and as such have no capacity to insure that their needs are met.

Communication is key...it is the key to healthy living and productive interaction.

But what happens when languages prevent successful communication?

I will not be focusing directly upon the literal definition of language as connoted by the difference of, "English vs Swahili."

I will focus on the connotation of ideology that has rooted within different languages. To give a basic example, partisanship.

One language...for peace and stability. Language that is met with required consideration and based upon comradarie...

As evidenced by the above excerpt, the forcing of many languages upon a community working towards a common goal served as a means to cause conflict amongst the community...who were only working together towards a common goal. Apparently, 'God' did not want peace and stability.

Rest assured, I do not foresee this debate hinging upon religious connotation, indeed, there are many examples to be called upon regarding our current socio-cultural state with an eye towards legalese and how such authoritative terminology effects the 'uneducated'...but the example struck out to me quite immediately.

My opening will be short in deference to my opponent who I believe has a long road ahead...

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The world needs to maintain it's diversity, it is one of the greatest joys our planet has to offer. Diversity of species, and all of them speak their own unique language!

To be clear, I am certain that the diversity of plant and animal species is not pertinent to our debate as there is no direct interaction with which effects the capacity of the human animal to interact and communicate.

Further, it is not necessary for diversity to be lost with the implementation of a common language. Being versed in multi languages and cultures actually would tend to increase one's capacity to understand traditions and customs that are uncommon to one's own personal experience.

Socratic Question #1 - Why do you assume that diversity would suffer from the implementation of a common language?

In the animal kingdom, a cat does not bark, and a dog does not moo.

Again, I fail to see how animals would effect the human capacity for peace and stability.

Each human has the right to retain their native tongue and not be forced into speaking a "common language".

Above all, each human has the right to Life, Liberty And The Pursuit of Happiness. The application of a common language would actually enhance such, making communication easier, more precise and with less possibility of miscomprehended interaction.

In today's world, we see that even English can be misconstrued if the communication is not properly defined and or expressed, resulting in unexpected financial obligation and a major dissidence of wealth.

That question begs for the next question, who is “most” people; and what is their level of understanding? So, then when we speak of plain language in legal writing, does that mean at a reading level that all or most adults can comprehend? Does plain language in legal writing mean only college educated adults?

According to the most recent National Adult Literacy Study:“The National Literacy Survey shows that the average adult in the U.S. reads at the 7th grade level, with nearly 50% below the 6th grade level and over 80% below the 10th grade level.” (DuBay, 2004).
[1]

The problem we see here in the application of multi languages and multi tiered language is the assumed proficiency we have in communicating with other people when in fact there are many variations of comprehension. A common language could actually solve this discrepancy by increasing the liklihood of "meaning what you say and saying what you mean".

As well...culture would not necessarily be destroyed, rather it would integrate into the popular culture and become a facet of it. If we believed soley in the maintenance of culture by segregating them, would we have the option to have sushi one night and enchilada's the next?

The main point is that the advancement of technology is more or less imposing a cultural integration upon our world as countries strive to use the available means to increase the quality of life of their respective populations. Travel has opened up and is more or less free flowing within the Western World and even other regions. In order to ensure peace and stability, we have to be able to communicate on an even level with the many people we are likely to encounter.

Question 1, Who would be in charge of creating the common language?

While I am fairly certain this question is not a required point for me to demonstrate that a common language is would increase peace and stability, I will say that the heart of the motivation for such would likely require a collaborative effort. There should be no one body of people given such a responsibility, rather it should be people from all walks of life.

A more direct answer to this question would be, "I don't know."

question 2, How would such a program be implemented?

It would necessarily be a generational implementation as it would be ridiculous, in the heart of peace and stability, to impose a new language or an integration of languages upon people whom have already learned. This wouldn't be an overnight creation, rather a gradual application that would invariably increase as higher percentages of subsequent generations have learned the 'new language'.

Question 3, who is going to pay for the implementation of a common language?

I am unsure how to answer this question. There are easy ways to use the communicative outlets we have to introduce the new language and idea behind it. The creation of it would be minimal cost and the implementation into the educational system could be taken up by corporate influence (new textbooks). The changing of packaging may or may not be necessary (as for this to be a viable and cheap application, one would naturally look to the language already most used, Plain English) and could as well be eaten by corporation.

All costs that would not be covered by private enterprise would likely be taken up by public taxes.

Socratic Question #2 - Is it possible for miscommunication and resulting conflict to occur through a mistranslation?

I now turn this debate back over to the hands of hotbakedtater.

Socratic Question #1 - Why do you assume that diversity would suffer from the implementation of a common language?

It is not an assumption.

It is a scientific fact that multilingualism keeps the aging brain more active.

According to this article,

online.wsj.com...

Specifically, the advantages of bilingualism are thought to be related to a brain function known as inhibitory or cognitive control: the ability to stop paying attention to one thing and focus on something else, says Dr. Bialystok.

With one common language, you also no longer have diversity, being driven out of existence is the result of suffering extinction. Instead of the beauty and melody of a variety of languages, once a common language is instituted, say good bye to diversity, and hello to homogeneity.

We have all observed little children, who for some reason, decide they want to speak their own language. This is common among twins, and the proper term for the concept is idioglossia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Idioglossia refers to an idiosyncratic language, one invented and spoken by only one or very few people. Most often, idioglossia refers to the "private languages" of young children, especially twins, the latter which is more specifically known as cryptophasia, and commonly referred to as twin talk or twin speech.

This tells me that regardless of the forced implementation of one common language, it is human nature to want to create our own secret language, even children do it!

Implementing a common language would homogenize the world, through language. But bring peace and security? I say it would do nothing at all to encourage peace and security, and have little effect on our world as it is today. Though the concept of one common language may indeed pass, one common border did not, nor do we have one common country or one common skin color, or one common religion. Uniting through language seems like a nice fantasy, but the reality is humans will still be divided on the aforementioned points. All a common language would accomplish is that the enemy knows what we are saying. And to counter this? I am certain the military would utilize idioglossia,

Socratic Question #2 - Is it possible for miscommunication and resulting conflict to occur through a mistranslation?

Of course it is, however, does miscommunication not already occur between those speaking the same language? Ask my ex husband, he can tell you all about the miscommunications we had, and it definitely led to conflict!

I wanted to state that I cannot see many people getting behind paying higher taxes to teach future generations a common language, when the ones we have now are working just fine. There is no logic to a global common language. MemoryShock's claim of a minimal cost implementation is unrealistic, a global endeavor of this magnitude would be classed as far more than minimal in the cost department!

Now, my Socratic question #1: What good does it do to implement a common language, in the name of peace and security as per the theme, when we still have borders and different leaders and religions and races, the true causes of war and suffering in the world?

Thank you, I turn the debate back over to MemoryShock.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
It is a scientific fact that multilingualism keeps the aging brain more active.

It is also scientific fact that there are a variety of other exercises, activities and mental attentions that could provide a similar benefit, that of continued and varied brain activity.

My opponent's assertion that a common language will inflect society with homogeneity neither accepts various other aspects of human social interaction nor suggests anything beyond her opinion that peace and stability will result from such.

Indeed, homogeneity suggests that there is a greater likelihood that peace and stability would result as any social deviance from accepted protocol would be met with social alienation and suspicion.

With one common language, you also no longer have diversity, being driven out of existence is the result of suffering extinction. Instead of the beauty and melody of a variety of languages, once a common language is instituted, say good bye to diversity, and hello to homogeneity.

Again, there is nothing here more than opinion.

We can see the benefits of a common language on a smaller scale...what if all of the members of a tribe spoke different languages? Certainly they would not be able to communicate effectively and the needs of each individual would suffer as they would not be procured in an efficient manner, if at all.

Common language is a necessity for communication and is required for effective social interaction. Applied on a greater scale, surely the benefits would also bear out to the greater population.

We have all observed little children, who for some reason, decide they want to speak their own language. This is common among twins, and the proper term for the concept is idioglossia.

Certainly an interesting phenomena and something I had not known (I'll thank my opponent for helping me with my "learning something new for the day"). But Individual variations within individual relationships is idiosyncratic to the relationship and has no bearing on the capacity of an individual to communicate within the larger social stratum using a preset and determined language.

A simple proof for the irrelevancy, though interesting, of the above example is multi linguists. Having the capacity to speak French and English does not necessarily prevent successful communication in either language.

Again, I would like to state that a common language does not denote "only language". The necessity to communicate directly using a pre determined language would increase the capacity for peace and stability.

Likewise, peace and stability necessarily require a common language as communication is necessary for efficient interaction.

In fact, let us take a look at the etymology of "communication".

late 14c., from O.Fr. comunicacion (14c., Mod.Fr. communication), from L. communicationem (nom. communicatio), noun of action from communicare "to share, divide out; communicate, impart, inform; join, unite, participate in," lit. "to make common," from communis (see common).
[1]

The bolded says a lot right there, in my opinion. Commonality begets communication...

This tells me that regardless of the forced implementation of one common language, it is human nature to want to create our own secret language, even children do it!

Socratic Question #1 - Is the learning of a language by a child, the common language of a household, "forced implementation of one common language"?


Though the concept of one common language may indeed pass, one common border did not, nor do we have one common country or one common skin color, or one common religion.


Socratic Question #3 - Do we have a common world?

All a common language would accomplish is that the enemy knows what we are saying.

I don't think that anyone here is saying that world conflicts are going to be resolved over night or even soon. But I am sure that peace and stability would preclude an 'enemy'...certainly though, I agree that there is a long way to go prior to peace and stability being even possible. However, I am certain that in order for peace to be possible, a common language, the capacity to directly communicate with anyone at any given time, would be a necessity.

I wanted to state that I cannot see many people getting behind paying higher taxes to teach future generations a common language,

And no one wants to pay taxes for war they don't want either. I think given the option, any progress to peace would be much better accepted than sending our young men and women to fight for a corporate motivated war for resource.

a global endeavor of this magnitude would be classed as far more than minimal in the cost department!

Socratic Question #4 - Per the above quoted directly preceding this question, why would the cost be 'far more than minimal'?

Now, my Socratic question #1: What good does it do to implement a common language, in the name of peace and security as per the theme, when we still have borders and different leaders and religions and races, the true causes of war and suffering in the world?

I would think very much good would result from a common language. How better to communicate the diversity of culture and experience than by a pre-set standard for communication?

As well, I think that a common language does not mean that differences in nationality, social hierarchy, religion, race et cetera would be wasted, looked down upon or even suffer homogenization.

All that we are looking for is a means to communicate more efficiently so that conflict can be minimized and prevented.

I now turn the debate back over to hotbakedtater...

First, I shall respond to the direct questions, give a short discourse, then conclude my third entry in this debate.

Socratic Question #1 - Is the learning of a language by a child, the common language of a household, "forced implementation of one common language"?

Of course not, it is learning the common language of one's household, and it is cultural. There is nothing stopping the child from learning another language or six more if he chooses.

Socratic Question #3 - Do we have a common world?

I find it quite uncommon, but if by common you mean global, no not yet. As long as borders exist, we will never have a common or united world. And implementing a common language for a common world so to speak will have no effect on the causes of disturbing world peace and security.

The next question is based upon my own quote, follows:

"a global endeavor of this magnitude would be classed as far more than minimal in the cost department! "

Socratic Question #4 - Per the above quoted directly preceding this question, why would the cost be 'far more than minimal'?

First, there would be the cost of forming a global committee to study how the best ways to implement the common language would be. We would have to spend money traveling, and meeting, and many trees will give their lives for the paper work that this will involve. Let's assume the committee agree on the correct and best way to implement the common language, say, only after five years of convening. Right there we are well past minimal. Next, the books, the training of the teachers of the new language, the coordination involved in a global endeavor of this sort will not come cheap, and for years we will be over taxed for it, globally, and we can barely survive as it stands. Who foots the bill for this?

My Socratic question number 1: Why should we be burdened with footing the bill for an idea that is unequivocally a loss and a fail from the word go?

In your post, you stated:

And no one wants to pay taxes for war they don't want either. I think given the option, any progress to peace would be much better accepted than sending our young men and women to fight for a corporate motivated war for resource.

In my opinion, and this debate is much opinion based, common language will do nothing to progress peace and stability or security into our world. I posit that human nature will be prone to inventing their own secret languages or codes to bypass the common language, leading us in the long run right back to square one.

Enacting a common language for the purpose of peace is not logical, it actually sounds like pork barrel spending, and in today's world, our dollars and no one can argue with this, need to be going to house our homeless, and fix our schools, our infrastructure and many other domestic ventures well before we are expected to foot the bill for a global endeavor that does not even make sense on its premise.

My Socratic question #2: What is the purpose of the new common language to be invented?

We already have an estimated 5 to 6 thousand languages on our planet, according to this following link:

anthro.palomar.edu...

Linguists click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced estimate that there are about 5,000-6,000 different languages spoken in the world today. The imprecision in this estimate is largely due to the fact that some dialects are in the process of diverging and it is not clear that they have reached the stage of being separate languages. If two people find each other's speech unintelligible, they are usually thought to be speaking different languages rather than dialects.

There are about 200 languages that have a million or more native speakers. Mandarin Chinese click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced is the most common, being spoken by around 874,000,000 people as a native language. English is a distant third with approximately 341,000,000 native speakers.

One would think we could save a lot of money by choosing one of the languages we already have to use, instead of having a new common language to be introduced multigenerationally. One cannot argue that anything implemented mulitgenerationally is going to be costly, and frustrating too when the purpose is peace and peace never comes.

My Socratic question #3: Does this not impose on a persons rights to speak the language they choose, rather than be forced to speak a common language?

That smacks of 1984 to me, or government control.

Back to MemoryShock.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Of course not, it is learning the common language of one's household, and it is cultural. There is nothing stopping the child from learning another language or six more if he chooses.

It is a form of imposition. In order to communicate effectively within the household, one necessarily learns the language of people within the household. While I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing from preventing an individual from learning more languages, I have to wonder how the use of a global common language would provide such a restriction.

Socratic Question #1 - How would the implementation of a common world language detract an individual's capacity for learning other languages (to use in personal affairs/interactions)?

I find it quite uncommon, but if by common you mean global, no not yet. As long as borders exist, we will never have a common or united world. And implementing a common language for a common world so to speak will have no effect on the causes of disturbing world peace and security.

I certainly meant the definition of 'common' as in 'shared'...we do share a common world and while historically we have had a disadvantage, technologically speaking, in our capacity to learn about other cultures and communicate with people from across the world, that is changing. The internet has allowed us an opportunity to hear ideas from across the globe and the full use of such a tool is still restricted to the average person because of language barriers.

It should also be noted that there are common expressions/connotations in some cultures/languages that are not readily translated. The implementation of a common language could easily bypass this.

First, there would be the cost of forming a global committee to study how the best ways to implement the common language would be. We would have to spend money traveling, and meeting, and many trees will give their lives for the paper work that this will involve.

I think the reality of the internet is that travel is unnecessary and as well, trees would not be a required resource for communication. While books will invariably be printed, they are right now anyways so I think the ecological argument is very much a moot point.

Let's assume the committee agree on the correct and best way to implement the common language, say, only after five years of convening. Right there we are well past minimal. Next, the books, the training of the teachers of the new language, the coordination involved in a global endeavor of this sort will not come cheap, and for years we will be over taxed for it, globally, and we can barely survive as it stands. Who foots the bill for this?

Again, I reference the necessitated implementation of such a language conversion to be generational. Training will occur over the years and at first be minimal. As well, corporate influence can take over much of this cost. There is nothing in the topic that says this conversion should occur over night as there are many aspects to our global society that need to be worked out prior to peace and stability to be feasible. As well, I would like to re-emphasize that there are many things we are taxed for, war being one of them, which many people do not want.

My Socratic question number 1: Why should we be burdened with footing the bill for an idea that is unequivocally a loss and a fail from the word go?

For the end goal of peace. While I comprehend that the ideology of war is geared towards the imposition of ideals for the cessation of conflict, war these days can also be attributed towards the acquisition of resource for financial gain. For from ideal and many people have profited heavily from these wars.

Why should we fund the basic equipment for these people when many have no idea the motivations behind such? (Rhetorical question and not Socratic.)

In my opinion, and this debate is much opinion based, common language will do nothing to progress peace and stability or security into our world.

Socratic Question #2 - How many times has America gone to war with an English Speaking Nation after the Civil War?

I posit that human nature will be prone to inventing their own secret languages or codes to bypass the common language, leading us in the long run right back to square one.

Socratic Question #3 - On what trends and/or examples is the above based upon?

There will always be idiosyncratic communications between individuals and even regions. Such use of ciphered and coded communications will likely always be used in national/international/corporate communications. Such does not impact the possibility of a common language being used for the greater peace of our global community.

My Socratic question #2: What is the purpose of the new common language to be invented?

To make more efficient and reliable communication between individuals of separate world regions for the purpose of peaceful interactions and mutual comprehension(s).

We already have an estimated 5 to 6 thousand languages on our planet, according to this following link:

anthro.palomar.edu...

From your link -

It has become the most useful language to learn for international travel and is now the de facto language of diplomacy. In 2001, the 189 member countries in the United Nations were asked what language they wish to use for communication with embassies from other countries. More than 120 chose English, 40 selected French, and 20 wanted to use Spanish.
[1]

English has been used to help bridge regional communicative barriers for the purpose of a common language. While the U.S. still finds itself in conflict these days, there is certainly a greater amount of peace in Western civilization than in decades prior...much of which can be attributed to the capacity for communication.

This is a fact and not opinion.

One would think we could save a lot of money by choosing one of the languages we already have to use, instead of having a new common language to be introduced multigenerationally.

One could argue that we are introducing English multigenerationally. While I think that language is an ever evolving entity and could likely never be static, one could also assert that many of the base 'rules' of english evolved through Latin and are certainly applicable for global application.

One cannot argue that anything implemented mulitgenerationally is going to be costly, and frustrating too when the purpose is peace and peace never comes.

Peace doesn't happen overnight, especially when we historically have had national conflict in the entirety of our species' existence.

Socratic Question #4 - Is there a coincidence that there are no wars between English speaking regions and the idea that America is embroiled in war with a region that has many different languages?

My Socratic question #3: Does this not impose on a persons rights to speak the language they choose, rather than be forced to speak a common language?

No. I do not recognize nor acknowledge that there is a 'right' to speak a chosen language when language is more or less decided for an individual upon birth. As stated prior, the inalienable rights of an individual are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness. I am certain that an efficient and universal communicative standard would greatly increase an individual's capacity for such.

That smacks of 1984 to me, or government control.

It smacks of global cooperation to me...1984 was more based in the oppression of opinion and personal autonomy...not language.

I leave this post with an interesting excerpt from a study that has shown that there are potentially even health risks involved with interactions between patients and medical practitioners who do not speak the same language.

Patients who cannot discuss their diabetes with a doctor in their own language may have poorer health outcomes, even when interpreter services are available, according to a new study by researchers at UCSF and the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research.

The study found that, among Latino diabetes patients with limited English skills, those seen by non-Spanish speaking doctors were nearly twice as likely to have poor control of their blood sugar than those whose doctors spoke Spanish.
[2]

I thank my opponent for her patience with my extension and now turn the floor back to her.

I wrote:

Of course not, it is learning the common language of one's household, and it is cultural. There is nothing stopping the child from learning another language or six more if he chooses.

To which, my opponent, MemoryShock replied:

It is a form of imposition. In order to communicate effectively within the household, one necessarily learns the language of people within the household.

Yes, they do. It is NOT a form of imposition, it is called parental duty, and parents of all cultures who speak all different languages, all teach their child the language of the household.

When the parents have a deaf child, they learn one of our already in existence Universal Languages. It is called Sign Language.

Until this moment in the debate, I have not referred to this unique set of humans, those to whom language has an entirely new meaning. Up until now, my opponent has focused upon language as coming from the tongue, and I on the homogenization of a one world tongue, and benefits of multilingualism.

Now, I will focus on language as coming ultimately, from our minds and our hearts, and address one of the negatives a one common language would entail. I have not heard my opponent address the unique issues our deaf and also, our disabled humans will be included in this common language. From the following link:

www.signlanguage.org.uk...

Amongst the earliest written records of sign language was one that occurred in the 5 th Century BC. This was in Plato's Cratylus where Socrates states “If we hadn't a voice or a tongue, and wanted to express things to one another, wouldn't we try to make signs by moving our hands, head, and the rest of our body, just as dumb people do at present?”.

This quote supports my position that multilingualism is best for humanity, and a one common language would inevitably leave out those for whom a voice must be given another way. Just as the deaf often must use their hands to "speak", other people use the written word to communicate. However, there are those among us who cannot, for various reasons, use written communications, for instance, those with missing limbs. Then we have our various groups of disabled humans, mentally and otherwise, who all must have unique (which precludes common by being unique) ways created with which they are to be communicated. These millions of people will be harmed by one common language, because at the end of the day, one common language is not the best choice for communication.

And, of course the above clearly illustrates that to accommodate so many variables in the one common language it will MOST definitely cost a lot of money to even get to the point of implementation.

Socratic Question #1 - How would the implementation of a common world language detract an individual's capacity for learning other languages (to use in personal affairs/interactions)?

See the first part of my response, above, for one reason. A common world language means ONE common language, and that precludes other languages. From the following link:

www.farsarotul.org...

The decline is evident the world over... in 1982 there were 10 surviving speakers of Achumawi out of a tribal population of 800 in northwestern California. Does it matter? When the last representatives of these people die, they take with them their oral history and culture, though their passing is rarely noticed.

When the last speaker of the language dies, they take with them that culture's very soul. Writing that breaks my heart. When we stop speaking our cultural tongue in favor of a common tongue, we also begin to associate with the new language and culture (hearkening to homogeneity and NWO) and we slowly become something else.

Socratic Question #2 - How many times has America gone to war with an English Speaking Nation after the Civil War?

I am horrible with history, but it appears none. I do not think a common language would have prevented these wars.

I posit that human nature will be prone to inventing their own secret languages or codes to bypass the common language, leading us in the long run right back to square one.

Socratic Question #3 - On what trends and/or examples is the above based upon?

Reference my second response. when I introduced the concept of idioglossia, and of course, the military.

To address Doctors interacting with patients of a different language, it is not the difference of language that harms the patient, it is the INdifference of the hospital to make certain it does not happen in the first place, with sufficient translation processes in place prior to the first patient even being permitted. With computers, applications, and programs, one can merely speak into a device in your own tongue and out comes it's translation in the tongue of your choice! If a hospital cannot even afford a couple grand for this, do you really trust they care about you?

www.universal-translator.net...

With this, I turn it back to my worthy opponent.

Natura Umana.

The world needs a common language for peace and stability is like saying the world need common governance for peace and stability. Neither idea is going to have an impact on human nature, which has a propensity towards two things, which history shows out: Language and Violence. From the earliest of days, man had language, and the language he learned as a child was the language of his clan, or tribe, or country. The child also learns from birth to protect his property,first on the playground, and that trickles upwards to a global scale when we see war.

To impose upon all peoples of the globe a global language, requires support of ALL global peoples, and as one can see from this very debate, there is NOT global support for the initiative. As this debate is but a microcosm of our global self, we must extrapolate that as many as take my opponent's stance, would take mine.

And in trying to implement common language, there will probably be words exchanged, in many languages, that will ultimately lead to....conflict, and peace a pretty flower atop an aging hippies head.

Menneskelige Natur

Let us trot past the incredible price-tag of this endeavor, and assume we are now at one common language. Look around, everyone speaks the same tongue. We are all united, now. What have we lost as a result of this false sense of security? Our cultures, our ancestor's tongues, the flavor and spice that makes life worth living. As we sit here typing in a debate, one language after the other slowly, quietly, without notice for the thriving and rich world this language described, fade into the ether, never to be known at all, some forgotten in the mists of time.

www.farsarotul.org...

If present trends continue, four of the world’s languages will die between the publication of this issue of CIVILIZATION and the next. Eighteen more will be gone by the end of 1997. A century from now, one-half of the world’s 6,000 or more languages may be extinct.

How will we preserve the thousands of languages that would have to die in order for one common language to imposed?

Or would we just let them slowly fade out of existence...

Cilvēka Daba

One of the first things a baby does that endears the child to us, is utter his first word. Oh the delight of hearing those coos and gurgles we are enraptured. Once again, it is human nature to want to speak, even babies instinctively desire to speak. And it is human nature to want to BELONG, belong to your unique tribe, where you feel comfortable, cozy and safe, united with your clan through language, lore, and love for your culture. In a common language scenario, the choice is no longer on us what language to choose Freshman year, the government already made that decision for us a hundred years ago. Thanks.

Asili ya Binadamu

Language is like the spice you use in your secret recipe chili, it makes it come Alive, gives it flair and flavor. I myself cannot see a world where one language is spoken under the pretenses of peace and stability, actually bringing about its intended result. I do not feel it would impact the real underlying causes of unrest and instability, and that is and always will remain.....

Human Nature.

Thank you to all who took the time to read our debate, I thank Vagabond for allowing us this topic upon which to opine, and of course, I thank my opponent MemoryShock, for the delightful debate.