Instigator / Con
3
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1070
Border Wall
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
TheRealNihilist
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description
We will be arguing the effectiveness of the border wall. The person who makes the best arguments without sufficient rebuttals will win. I would like it to be based on that which is why there is only one criteria in this debate.
Border Wall: Proposed plan by Trump for a wall between the US and Mexico.
I am against the border wall if you wanted clarification on my position.
Round 1
This is copied from my argument here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/742
The border wall is a proposed
expansion of the current wall that is in between the border of United States
and Mexico. Trump has yet to even pick the materials he would be using or
allocate budgets or give an estimate of when it will be done. So to say it is
in any position of getting done would be a lie.
Pragmatism
What was first being proposed was an entire wall across the US-Mexico border but as many people realized that is not feasible. There is a Rio Grande river and many mountains. Instead of delivering on a wall he has decided to make a concession. Only wanting half of the US-Mexico border filled with a wall. The thing is that a fence already exists but for some reason Trump would like to build a wall. Let’s say the wall was built what would that actually do? Trump has failed to deliver evidence to provide what the border wall can help so since he hasn't it can be said that it would be impractical. My argument revolves around if evidence was given to how effective the wall was it would only help Trump provide a better position for his proposal but Trump cannot which means it is impractical and by extension not worth doing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46824649
Effectiveness
Since Trump failed to deliver what the border wall would actually reduce. I will be assuming this and I think I am fair with these assumptions. I am guessing the border wall would help stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and are bad for the economy.
Firstly, undocumented immigrants are
reportedly travelling across the border in record lows. The source below states
as of 2016 there are only 5.4 million unauthorized immigrants which fell from
2005 which had the number at 6.9 million. From that source we can see with the
current use of the border wall there is less and less unauthorized immigration
from Mexico to the United States which means the current use is effective so
the burden is on the instigator to provide how Trump’s wall would be more
effective.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
Secondly drugs are smuggled in using
legal ports of entry. This is sourced by the National Drug Threat Assessment.
If it wasn’t clear already Trump has made no mention of improving the legal
ports and since it wouldn’t be intrinsic to a border wall therefore another problem
a Trump proposed border wall will not fix.
http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/
Click here if you don't want to find it in the article “National Drug Threat Assessment”
Thirdly the bad for economy point.
The labour market doesn't have a fixed number. This can be supported by the
second source which states that in 8th of January 2019 there was 6.8 million
job openings which increased in 12th of February which had 7.3 million. This
number then increased to 7.5 million in 15th March which then decreased to 7.08
million. This clearly shows there is no fixed rate of jobs and with the demand
for Jobs needing to be taken increasing it is only reasonable to accept
immigrants in order to fill gaps in the market. A case could be made to say
that have Americans take that job but by looking at the 3rd source below it
states as of March 2019 there is 6.2 million Americans that can fill the job
opportunities. The problem of course is that the job opportunities number is
higher than the number who are unemployed in the US which means even if every
single unemployed American filled those jobs there will still be a need for
more employees to fill gaps in the market. This would of course mean immigrants
are required so that argument falls flat as well.
https://theconversation.com/is-immigration-bad-for-the-economy-4-essential-reads-99001
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/job-offers
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/
Pragmatism
What was first being proposed was an entire wall across the US-Mexico border but as many people realized that is not feasible. There is a Rio Grande river and many mountains. Instead of delivering on a wall he has decided to make a concession. Only wanting half of the US-Mexico border filled with a wall. The thing is that a fence already exists but for some reason Trump would like to build a wall. Let’s say the wall was built what would that actually do? Trump has failed to deliver evidence to provide what the border wall can help so since he hasn't it can be said that it would be impractical. My argument revolves around if evidence was given to how effective the wall was it would only help Trump provide a better position for his proposal but Trump cannot which means it is impractical and by extension not worth doing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46824649
Effectiveness
Since Trump failed to deliver what the border wall would actually reduce. I will be assuming this and I think I am fair with these assumptions. I am guessing the border wall would help stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and are bad for the economy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/
Click here if you don't want to find it in the article “National Drug Threat Assessment”
https://theconversation.com/is-immigration-bad-for-the-economy-4-essential-reads-99001
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/job-offers
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/
Over to you
Wow. My opponent has actually changed my mind on the border wall!
This was unexpected, and I concede this debate. Vote Con please.
Round 2
Vote for me then I guess. All I wanted was a person to debate this to me. :(
At least I changed someones mind. :)
At least I changed someones mind. :)
The least I can say is. Thank you for showing me that you have the ability to change your mind. I won't disrespect you for your beliefs or insult you personally because you have shown that you are willing to debate about the very things you hold dear or concede when the facts show otherwise. Thanks and may you find more things to change your mind on in your pursuit of what is right.
Good luck
Debate's over, I guess.
Round 3
I guess too.
Vote Con.
Pretty cowardly ogf you to need an advantage instead of a fair debate but since my position is objectively correct and I am a better debater, I guess I can accept and still be confident I will win.
You are accepting the debate I made.
I ain't accepting your terms.
How can anybody think I am awful LOL. Also I am also copy and pasting from previous debates. What is fair for you is fair for me. Resolution "The United States should build and mantain a border wall on it's southern border"
Coming from an awful debater. This is an easy win. I'll challenge you. Don't p*ssy out and I'll put you in your place. Either way you are still losing.
Your argument sucked, and I would have easily crushed you in a policy debate on whether we should vuild a border wall. I don't mind you copy and pasting what you wrote in previous debates either to save time. In fact I prefer ypu dp because the arguments are weak.
ok
I'll debate you when I want more wins to the detriment of me learning something important.
ok suite yourself
@RationalMadman
>>Type1 is evolving, Sparrow is afloat.
Is that to me?
I would debate you but since you use common sense as an argument it is very much doubtful it would be eventful. Entertaining but I don't care about having a laugh instead discussion that leads to new knowledge not different ways you can paint the same bad arguments. That can be considered new knowledge so I would like good new knowledge then.
OMG, are you kidding? The Border Wall is common sense
Do you want to debate about anything then?
>>I don't hold any ideas dear, actually. Attaching emotion to an idea is always a bad thing to do.
This is not the case. When debating about an argument we should ought to value rationality but I am talking about ideas you hold dear outside rationality as in before you do make arguments for it or through rationality you have become more emotional about the results. So basically not emotional about the arguments but before and after the arguments.
Emotion is not bad. It is just bad about when used in replace of rational thought.
I guess attaching to your arguments can be a problem if you don't understand you are being emotional. If you understand you are you will be aware enough to avoid using that in your arguments while also using that as an incentive to carry on making rational arguments if you are capable that is.
>>Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
I wouldn't know. I mainly made it to see if someone can make legitimate arguments for the border wall but guess not. A maybe reducing undocumented immigrants is not something I take seriously but if someone does make an argument I think I can find data how undocumented immigrants arrive into the country and find out either they are right or wrong. If they are right I would say it still doesn't make the border wall effective for the other reasons I laid out but if they are wrong then they would have to find another point.
I don't hold any ideas dear, actually. Attaching emotion to an idea is always a bad thing to do.
I don't hold Ben Shapiro dear. He's just a funny meme to me.
Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
Well at least you changed your mind.
Want to debate about other things that you hold dear?
Maybe Ben Shapiro?
You did a really great job and convinced me!
Thx
=> So he freed slaves and traveled, ok???
disingenuous, at best.
Do I have to? Is it not obvious
You have neither prove it or stated how it is inherent.
Globalsim will have different laws
>>Evry country by basic laws, not globalism shitty laws
So globalism would have different laws than lets say the United States? That is not inherent to globalism because my hypothetical of what if the US constitution was adopted globally?
Do answer both questions.
Evry country by basic laws, not globalism shitty laws
So he freed slaves and traveled, ok???
Globalism implies every country abides by the same laws. That verse says the same.
What do you have a problem with?
No proof
I don't really think he delved into what conservatives support as policies compared to what their Religious books states.
Corrections:
so the burden is on the instigator to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
so the burden is on the contender to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
just off the top of my head:
Freed Babylonian slaves fled to Palestine,
escaped Egyptian slaves fled to Palestine,
Jesus sought asylum in Egypt,
the Apostles traveled from India to England to proselytize the new faith.
The biblical God does not build any walls but he tears down a few.
Okay.
Okay, I’ll accept.
>>Prove how that exodus qoute supports open bordrs
So no for open borders. How about globalism?
You have 13 days so even if you wait until your opponent completes their arguments you will still have time to accept this debate.
Are you willing to debate this at that time?
Prove how that exodus qoute supports open bordrs
I’m for the wall but I don’t want to debate now. I have other debates and a lot of stuff to do. Maybe another one after this one.
Exodus 12:49
If you don't think that is then how about globalism?
Im a Christian, where does the Bible call for open borders
Are you a Christian?
If so why are you not for open borders?
no
0k
A native born person according to the law, doesn't have to do anything to be here. A foreigner has to get paperwork done. My proposed immigration policy is in the below link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit
Are you for open borders now?
they should be like immigrants, not bad illegal aliens though
It says that foreigners should be treated just like Native born people. I'm not religious, so I don't have to believe this, but the Bible is for 100 percent open borders. There are about a dozen verses stating similar content in the Bible.
What does that prove
Exodus 12:49.
How?
I will be surprised if Brother D Thomas supports the wall. The Bible is left in immigration.