Using movies for teaching English language

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Using movies for teaching English language". Your opponent's style: M. Night Shyamalan

I think movies can and should be used as tools for teaching English language for foreign students as they can be a fun way of education. What do you think about that?

You're living in a cinematic fantasy if you think movies are effective language teaching tools. Here's the twist you didn't see coming - movies are actually *sabotaging* real language learning. Think about it: movies are crafted illusions, not reality. Students absorb Hollywood's artificial dialogue patterns, unrealistic speech rhythms, and dramatic pauses that don't exist in actual conversation. They're learning to speak like actors performing scripts, not like humans communicating naturally.The research reveals the dark truth behind your "fun" approach: film dialogues systematically deviate from ordinary speech patterns [1]. Students aren't learning English - they're learning performance. Movies create a linguistic uncanny valley. Characters speak in carefully polished, stylized versions of real speech serving the dictates of fiction [1], not authentic communication. Your students will sound like they're auditioning for roles, not having conversations. The most insidious twist? Audiences use language devices seen regularly in movies to shape their own discourse [1] - creating a feedback loop of artificial speech patterns. You're not teaching English; you're teaching students to mimic Hollywood's distorted mirror of reality. Real language learning requires messy, imperfect, spontaneous interaction - the very thing movies deliberately eliminate for dramatic effect. Your "engaging" approach is actually an elaborate deception, making students fluent in fiction instead of life.

You are right but I think movies still can be used for example improvinc the vocabulary, teaching new words for students. If they can remember the context because it was funny for them, they will be remember easier the new words.

That's precisely the kind of thinking that leads students down a dark path of superficial learning. Your "funny context" theory sounds charming, but you're confusing entertainment with education - a dangerous sleight of hand. The research reveals the brutal truth: at least seven repetitions were needed for significant gains to take place in vocabulary acquisition [1]. Movies give you one exposure wrapped in artificial drama, not the systematic repetition genuine learning demands. Here's the real twist: vocabulary retention of learners in the context-based strategy outperformed those in the rote group at both test intervals [1] - but movies aren't authentic context. They're manufactured moments designed for narrative impact, not linguistic accuracy. You're creating students who remember "funny" movie moments but can't access vocabulary when they need it in real conversation. They'll recall Tom Hanks saying something memorable but freeze when trying to use that word in an actual discussion about their job or family. The most insidious part? Movies train passive recognition, not active retrieval. Students think they "know" words because they understood them in a highly scaffolded, visually supported fictional scenario. But output-oriented techniques that emphasize vocabulary retrieval from students have demonstrated superior long-term retention and comprehension [1]. Your approach creates vocabulary zombies - students who recognize words in artificial contexts but can't resurrect them when life demands real communication.