9spaceking (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 06:11:38
| Speak Round
drafterman (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:
2014-10-28 22:17:44
| Speak Round9spaceking (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-30 22:18:01
| Speak Rounddrafterman (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:
2014-10-30 22:33:38
| Speak Round9spaceking (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 03:57:42
| Speak Rounddrafterman (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:
2014-10-31 22:53:21
| Speak Round9spaceking (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 01:20:11
| Speak Rounddrafterman (CON)I accept
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-02 03:02:55
| Speak Round9spaceking (PRO)vote drafterman
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-02 12:13:29
| Speak Rounddrafterman (CON)Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-02 22:11:20
| Speak Round
Judge: whiteflame
Judge: Blackflag
Judge: admin
hmmmm...... uh-huh....Posted 2014-10-27 05:39:19