>>119275The debate proper started with this sentence:
>Wiping out dialects and lesser languages would make the world a better, more efficient place.Some of the answers that came up as the debate progressed are:
1) If achieved, variation would kick in once more anyways because it's inherent to language. You can't set a permanent standard for millions to follow and expect that to function, much less for billions.
2) Exposure doesn't kill languages. It creates areal features, loans, and other phenomena, but the weaker ones only stop being totally spoken if there's power behind the shift.
3) Actively achieving global language standardization would require committing several crimes against humanity and create a dystopian world in the process.
I've listed plenty of examples to support this. Where are yours? You've reached the ridiculous, untenable conclusion that replacement is somehow natural and equal to inheritance. No one else would support this. And finally, let's go back to this other quote:
>There's a reason so many languages have gone the way of the dodo.Dodos were killed until none remained.