args

All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

You stated, “Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen.” Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You’re very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it’s basic debating. Also you said, “Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one.” I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you’re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak. Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you’re medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking. First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word “require” which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending. Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.