Instigator / Con
0
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1116
Border Wall
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
4
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Wylted
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
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.
The burden of proof is shared.
Round 1
Con
#1
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 realised 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 both Trump and the instigator 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 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 contender 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/
I can also think of better reasons but let’s just leave it at that. I want to see if Wylted does have good arguments. I have yet to see them and hope that he does.
Pragmatism
What was first being proposed was an entire wall across the US-Mexico border but as many people realised 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
Since both Trump and the instigator 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 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/
I can also think of better reasons but let’s just leave it at that. I want to see if Wylted does have good arguments. I have yet to see them and hope that he does.
Pro
#2
Trump’s Plan
Trump’s plan for a border wall seems to just be a “whatever works” approach. The amount of plans that would work under that type of attitude is monumental, but for the purposes of this debate, I will discuss one plan in particular I think would work. Almost any plan I could think of would fall under a type of plan Trump would accept. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/13/upshot/detailed-timeline-trumps-words-border-wall.html
Framework
The judges should judge this debate by weighing the impacts of what me and my opponent both say and then determining a winner. If my arguments have a bigger positive impact than my opponent’s I should win the debate. I want the judges to refer to the following 2 guides when judging this debate, most importantly what I am highlighting from those guides as a tool for how to judge the debate. They should explain their impact analysis in their voting decision.
- https://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/
- https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/59367/3
These guides I use when I judge a debate and in fact everyone should adopt the mindset of these guides, but let me highlight the most important tidbit from these guides;
“== Impact Calculus ==Let's say the topic is "Resolved: North Korea is a greater threat to the US than Iran."Pro runs that North Korea could attack South Korea at any time, and such a war would draw the US into it. Stratfor estimates show that such a war would cost 400,000 lives (that's the impact).Con runs that Iran can cut off the Straight of Hormuz, a major oil route. Iran is building the military capabilities to do so and has threatened to do so in the past (the link). If Iran did so, it would cost the US approximately $250 million in lost trade and higher oil prices (the impact).At the end of the debate, the judge is supposed to weigh: (a) the probability and (b) the magnitude of all the impacts.Probably ties into (1) how persuasively it was argued and (2) how good the rebuttals are. The opponent can show that the impact is highly improbable by using good rebuttal responses.The judges are also supposed to weigh the magnitude. Assuming the probabilities were about even as to North Korea provoking a war with South Korea and Iran cutting off the Straight of Hormuz using their navy, then the judge weighs which is more important: 400,000 lost lives in a war on the Korean Peninsula or $250 million.In this case, Pro would probably win because 400,000 lives outweighs $250 million.That's impacts and impact calculus in a nutshell.”
I’d appreciate if all the judges took a serious look at these guides, particularly if my opponent can’t explain a good reason to use these voting methods.
While impacts are important, I have noticed that my opponent has a tendency to only use defensive arguments (See guide for more information on defensive arguments). The problem with making your arguments 100% defensive and 0% offensive is that you only minimize the impacts I show in my arguments. This means I will be the only one with positive impacts for my side of this debate. No matter how tiny of an impact my arguments have, if my opponent has no competing impact, than I will win. I could literally prove the United States would save $1 a year over all, and if my opponent has no competing impact, the judges will be morally obligated to vote in my favor
Conduct.
My opponent if you go to the page where the debates are listed has stated the following thing;
“ Wylted needs to be put in place”
In the comment section of this debate my opponent has written so far;
“2 Rounds wanted 3. Oh well guess I would have to debunk your arguments in 1 Round. Easy enough”
Which implies that my arguments will be terrible. A rude statement. His conduct while it will most likely be meaningless to the outcome of this debate should be used to decide a winner by any voters who see our impacts as equal in this debate.
Contentions
With the above out of the way, I am also going to copy and paste some previous arguments I have made to prove I can be just as lazy and complacent as my opponent. I hope you guys enjoy this.
The wall I propose is one like we have seen elsewhere around the world. One that has been proven to be effective and affordable. The wall you see below is a rendering of what is on the Iraq-Saudi Arabia border.
I don’t know how to paste images on this site so please follow the link https://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1640/7099-1640-w7ps9-a.jpg
The wall will have the following attributes as written by Roy Latham:
" Double fencing has two steel walls 15 feet high and 100 yards apart. Sensors placed between the walls, including cameras, detect intruders. In the most secure design a barbed wire obstacle is included between the walls. An access road allows the Border Patrol to rush to an intrusion site before the intruders can traverse the second fence. Ground sensors detect tunneling. Guard stations are 10 miles apart, allowing any point to be reached in about 5 minutes." http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-build-and-maintain-a-border-fence/2/
Why We Need a Border Wall
1. 80% of women and girls crossing the border are raped according to Amnesty international. With 700,000 people illegally crossing the border each year, this is a huge epidemic that a border fence could end. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-build-and-maintain-a-border-fence/2/
One young girl trying to cross into the United States illegally tells her story to “The Atlantic”
“Here comes the lady of the house, and she’s just barely wearing clothes. She opens the door and says, “Good morning, my beautifuls, my princesses!”We just looked at her.Right behind her come three men, and this guy is looking at me, and he goes, “I’ll pick her.” The other guy is like, “Yeah, I’ll pick her too.” And the other guy—I didn’t know what was going on, but my friend, she was hugging me, and she said, “No, not her, pick me. Let her go. She’s 15.They took me downstairs, where there was this little room.They raped me.That went on for days, nights. And all I got to eat was a glass of milk with an egg in it, raw, mixed in. They say it will give me energy. For days I was locked in that room.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/border-crossings-one-immigrants-journey/588064/
I just wish that Donald Trump’s plan to allow more legal immigrants like her while securing the border to prevent this sort of thing had been implemented. Trump’s plan in his own words.
“Our proposal is …….. pro-immigrant…….... It’s just common sense. It will help all of our people, including millions of devoted immigrants, to achieve the American Dream.”“Our plan achieves two critical goals. First, it stops illegal immigration and fully secures the border. And, second, it establishes a new legal immigration system ““Our proposal fulfills our sacred duty to those living here today, while ensuring America remains a welcoming country to immigrants joining us tomorrow. And we want immigrants coming in. We cherish the open door that we want to create for our country”
There are a ton of immigrant deaths happening from illegal crossings each year. There have been over 1800 known deaths across the border. http://tinyurl.com/mewk8xs
We need to put a wall up for some very good humanitarian reasons.
2. Having no border wall makes it easier for terrorists to sneak into the country. In a one month period of time 18 people from Afghanistan, 79 people from Pakistan and 619 people from China were caught at the border. It is a myth that only Mexicans are crossing illegaly into the United Stateson the Southern border. In September of 2015 two men with definite ties to terrorism crossed into the Southern border. That is just one of many exaples, and doesn't count all the ones not caught. http://dcgazette.com/2016/border-secure-cartels-manage-cut-hole-fence/%20http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/pakistanis-terrorist-connections-nabbed-us-border/?page=all
3. Illegal immigration poses a massive public health risk. Illegal immigrants do not get the necessary health screenings before crossing the border.
"disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border and that dysentery is several times the U.S. rate".
Nearly 60% of all new cases of TB have been diagnosed in foreign born persons. Most of the other 40% probably came from exposure of it from foreign born persons. The Pork tapeworm which thrives in Mexico and Latin America is being seen a lot in border towns and
"its eggs can cause[.] Cysts that form around the larvae usually lodge in the brain and destroy tissue, causing hallucinations, speech and vision problems, severe headaches, strokes, epileptic seizures, and in rare cases death."
4.It's not just the diseases coming across the border that is a problem that is hurting our entire medical system. According to the Las Angelas county supervisor Michael Antonovich.
"We're running an H.M.O. for illegal immigrants and if we keep it up, we're going to bankrupt the county.".
He is not the only person saying this sort of thing Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D writing for The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons says
“What is unseen is their [illegal aliens’] free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America’s finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors.”
It's no mystery that illegal immigrants are mostly uninsured. They don't have the ability to partake in preventative care measures so they tend to go to the emergency room at double the rate of non illegal immigrants. " As a result, the costs of medical care for immigrants are staggering. The estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $.85 billion, and in Arizona the comparable estimate was $.4 billion per year." In 1994 about 75,000 "anchor babies" were born in California costing taxpayers more than 200 million dollars. Now there are close to 500,000 anchor babies born nationally, given inflation from 1994 and the large number we are looking at well over a billion dollars in tax payer money going towards these maternity ward expenses. http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-and-public-health
5. There is a lot of crime coming across the border straining our resources even further while also endangering our security. Human trafficking across the border is making the criminal underworld rich, worldwide human trafficking is a 32 billion dollar a year industry. http://tinyurl.com/ma6gr38
California spends close to a billion dollars housing illegal immigrants most of them from Mexico and Central America. http://tinyurl.com/amhdpz2%20Nation
wide the totals are close to 8 billion dollars. http://tinyurl.com/k57fa9q
We need a fence to stop the illegal smuggling of drugs as well as other illegal contraband. Products made from endangered species, bootleg CDs and DVDs, fake luxury products, and fake prescription drugs among other things. The Mexican drug cartels like to engage in kidnapping Americans, we should probably try to put a wall between us and them to make it harder.
There are a ton of illegal guns crossing the border. Until we secure the border any gun laws we make a very likely to be completely ineffective. http://tinyurl.com/kkc8gzu
6. It's almost universally agreed on that the Mexican government is extremely corrupt. According to a 2014 study ranking the corruption level of countries, Mexico was in 100th place out of 135 countries. As an example of the corruption the government had 43 students kidnapped and killed to stop a protest from occurring to insure an elected official stayed in office. By allowing a high number of illegal immigrants, the United States is making it easier for political dissidents to leave their country as opposed to staying there and voting out corrupt politicians and fixing their system. Having half a million people who are upset with Mexico to leave it every year as opposed to working to change it, insures that the system will stay corrupt indefinitely. The best thing we can do for the long term good of the Mexican people is to shut down illegal immigration to the best of our ability. http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/12/11/mexico-among-the-worlds-most-corrupt-nations-in-2014-new-report-says/#3c68ea6f3258
Costs of the Wall
Israel built it's border fence for 2.83 million per mile. http://www.alipac.us/f12/we-can-pay-israels-border-fence-but-not-our-own-269987/%20We I'll assume the U.S. government sucks at doing anything efficiently and estimate the costs at 16 million per mile. (despite all the illegal aliens we could hire at slave wages). According to Mr. Latham again:
"At that rate, 700 miles of the fence would cost $16 B. Ineffective single fencing was built for $7 billion and that should be replaced with the secure double fencing. However, the costs of building the road and overcoming legal obstacles has already been borne. Governor Perry, a firm opponent of the fence about 20 years and would cost $6.7 billion to staff and maintain. He's an opponent so he's probably exaggerating the costs. Amortizing costs, that's a total of $1.1 billion per year. The 2013 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $60.8 billion, so $1.1 billion would be is a small part of the budget. Costs would be repaid if it it reduced illegal immigration costs by even a half percent." http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-build-and-maintain-a-border-fence/2/
Effectiveness of Wall
An article by the blaze tells us:
"According to the most recent quarterly figures published by the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority, 36 people have been caught trying to enter the southern border since January.It’s an incredible drop after 10,440 were caught in 2012" http://tinyurl.com/kadk4yx
A border fence in the Yuma Arizona not even as close to being as secure to the one I propose has dropped immigration by a whopping 94%. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2008/0401/p01s05-usgn.html
The Law
The United States government has an ethical duty to enforce the law. If we are going to have borders and border laws we need to enforce them. Building a border wall is an effective and humane way to do that. If the country does not make laws it should pass them in a Democratic way, not subvert the law by having intentionally weak border security.Unjust laws do not belong on the books, but border laws are just for the reasons mentioned. If we don't want borders than we should vote to merge with Mexico, but I don't think many people would support that.
"our government, according to the Border Patrol, did not have operational control of 43 percent — or approximately 826 miles — of our southern border."
It is just unacceptable for that to occur. It makes no sense to have all this security at airports, when terrorists can pick any portion of the 43% of the unguarded border to just stroll right through. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/border-walls-would-humanely-enforce-just-law
Rebuttals
CON says;
“What was first being proposed was an entire wall across the US-Mexico border but as many people realised 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.”
Trump has said that he would definitely be willing to use some natural barriers as my opponent’s own citations shows. There is nothing wrong with using the natural topography of an area to your advantage in securing the border. The Santa Elena Canyon has a 1000 foot drop off into the Rio Grande River. This is a God made natural barrier that is impossible to climb over. It would be pretty pointless to build a wall there.
What was first proposed was not a wall with no breaks in it across the southern border. Donald Trump has always been vague about what building the wall would mean and he has always had the mantra of “Whatever Works” to allow a lot of flexibility in his policy decisions. He was always criticized and was notorious for being vague about his policies, which in retrospect was probably a political strategy so a wide variety of supporters could attach their own ideals to what he was saying. This is a pretty typical strategy of populists and I used it myself when I was running for president of debate.org. Journalists throughout the 2016 election bitched about Trump’s vagueness and confusing rhetoric. Will Rahn a CBS news journalist has this to say on Trump’s rhetoric;
“the vague non-answer answer is a rhetorical trick he keeps reverting to. And while he's considerably less eloquent than Eisenhower in his responses, the effect is the same: the press is left unsure of what he meant, or even whether he meant anything at all."Did he just announce a new policy?" we ask ourselves. "Did he misspeak? Reverse himself? Has he ever considered this question before?" The result is that objective reporters, wary of editorializing, produce stories that are really just transcripts of what Trump just said. Trump's message, whatever it may be, is then transmitted to the larger public, and they can make of it what they will.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-trump-confusing-everyone-on-purpose/
Donald Trump has said this about his early plans for the wall ;
“The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it. Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water.....”
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195841649.html
My opponent claims that Trump has never made any arguments that show what benefits a border wall has, but here is a 1 hour clip that has him going over several benefits, such as lowering the amount of illegal drugs entering the country and stopping the rape epidemic that happens to immigrants crossing illegally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaq2yq7rMic
However if Trump stated zero benefits to a wall, it still would not be evidence no benefits exist. It is just one of those silly rhetorical arguments on his part that falls down when the light of logic is shined upon it.
Con says;
“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 contender to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.”
I have actually met my burden above, but I will forgive my opponent because he has not had a chance to read my contentions yet. I can tell you, even on the surface this is a silly argument. 5.4 million illegal immigrants a year still leaves a lot of room for improvement. It is still damaging to the country and to the immigrants themselves as you can see from my above arguments. 5.4 million is a staggering number and though the number is not exclusively from people crossing the border illegally, it still shows we need to take border security very seriously.
CON says;
“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.”
Another argument that is terrible when you shine the light of logic on it. The problem with his arguments, is that it claims since drugs can get into the country illegally through other means that we should just give up on having secure borders. That because the solution is not perfect, we should just open up the floodgates. You don't see anyone arguing that since patrolling the streets and setting up DUI checkpoints is not 100% effective we should just give up on preventing drunk driving, but my opponent uses the same type of argument for immigration. I am starting to get fat so I occasionally eat a salad. I still drink a lot of beer and eat pizza which is making me fat, but that doesn't mean I should stop eating salad, maybe I should just double down on salads. Does my opponent also suggest that police stop trying to prevent murders because murders will happen anyway? It’s silly to think that because there are multiple ways something bad can happen that we should not try to prevent any of the myriad of causes. Come on Omar, this is silly, nobody ever claimed a wall would be 100% effective at ending all the things it has a big impact on reducing.
ECONOMICS
I gave my opponent’s economic arguments their own section because it is his only arguments that come close to being what is referred to in the voting guides I showed earlier in the round, as “Offensive Arguments”. These guides are what I am asking the judges to use in hopes this debate is judged fairly. Here is how the guide written by Blade of Truth as handed down by Bluesteel has to say about offensive and defensive arguments.
“Offense is an affirmative reason to vote for a particular side. If the topic were: Resolved: All schools should adopt merit pay, an "offensive" argument would be that merit pay would improve educational quality in our nation's schools.
“Defense is an argument that merely mitigates the reasons that you would vote for a particular side; it is not an independent reason to vote for your own side. On the same topic as above, an argument that "the test score gains in schools that implemented merit pay are due to other factors" would be defensive. Even if the argument is 100% true, at most is proves that Pro was not entirely correct in Pro's assertion that merit pay improves test scores. But it's not a reason that merit pay is *bad.* For Con, "offensive" arguments are reasons merit pay is bad, e.g. that it would discourage people from becoming teachers.”
So far in this debate my opponent has only used defensive/mitigating arguments. The economic one is the only one that appears to have any offense, and honestly the final round of the debate is too late to introduce new arguments, despite in this short format being perfectly acceptable for him to have rebuttals.
I think Con’s offensive argument here can be summed up as follows in his own word;
“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.”
I’m just going to completely mitigate this point right now by pointing out that we can just allow more legal immigrants into the United States. There is no reason my opponent should prefer that we have some of these same people come in illegally as opposed to legally. If they came in legally they would be able to force employers to at least pay a more fair wage and get government benefits such as medicaid and workers compensation. There is absolutely no reason we can’t have an appropriate amount of immigrants for the economy in a legal way and at least vetted by common sense security measures.
The main problem with the economic argument though, besides the fact we can still have the same amount of immigrants but in a legal fashion, is that being able to fill all available jobs is a bad thing. When employees compete for jobs, it drives wages down. When companies compete for employees, it drives wages up. http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/wages.htm https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
My opponent suggests that we should allow illegal immigrants in because it improves the economy by making employers more money. I say we should employ the economy by workers instead of employers by driving wages up.
It’s also unfair to illegal immigrants that they can’t work legally so employers take advantage of them by paying them below minimum wage and making them work in harsh working conditions. If their pool of workers were legal immigrants who had the ability to go to OSHA or their state labor board without fear of legal repercussions, than we can stop the mistreatment of working immigrants.
The New Yorker tells the story of how companies can and do exploit illegal aliens.
“Case Farms has built its business by recruiting some of the world’s most vulnerable immigrants, who endure harsh and at times illegal conditions that few Americans would put up with. When these workers have fought for higher pay and better conditions, the company has used their immigration status to get rid of vocal workers, avoid paying for injuries, and quash dissent. Thirty years ago, Congress passed an immigration law mandating fines and even jail time for employers who hire unauthorized workers, but trivial penalties and weak enforcement have allowed employers to evade responsibility.”
I don’t know about the voters but I don’t give a shit if the economy is worse for those employers, I want the economy to be better for their employees by taking away their pool of vulnerable employees.
Round 2
Con
#3
Trump’s
Plan
Trump’s plan for a border wall seems to just be a “whatever works” approach. The amount of plans that would work under that type of attitude is monumental, but for the purposes of this debate, I will discuss one plan in particular I think would work. Almost any plan I could think of would fall under a type of plan Trump would accept. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/13/upshot/detailed-timeline-trumps-words-border-wall.html
Trump hasn’t even decided on the wall yet you are deciding for him. This is clearly against what I stated this debate was about. Trump’s proposal of the border wall. Him having different answers when you could only have one doesn’t lead to you simply choosing whatever you want. I didn’t I simply said the border wall is not in a state where it would be finished. My arguments stem from the likely positives of the border wall. You on the other hand have already devised a plan from what you want to happen not what will. If you actually thought the proposal you brought about was going to occur, you would have mentioned it.
The debate wasn’t about what plan you choose would work it is about Trump’s plan as in lack thereof. Due to this we are both confined to talking about said benefits. Your attempt to change what this debate is about hopefully is recognized by voters and I wish they vote accordingly to that information.
Framework
While impacts are important, I have noticed that my opponent has a tendency to only use defensive arguments (See guide for more information on defensive arguments). The problem with making your arguments 100% defensive and 0% offensive is that you only minimize the impacts I show in my arguments. This means I will be the only one with positive impacts for my side of this debate. No matter how tiny of an impact my arguments have, if my opponent has no competing impact, than I will win. I could literally prove the United States would save $1 a year over all, and if my opponent has no competing impact, the judges will be morally obligated to vote in my favour
When was this agreed upon? Please do check discord
and the comment section and wherever else I have spoken to him. This is my
debate and I had rules put in place. Lack thereof rules doesn’t mean we abide
by yours. It means you give arguments under those rules not make your own
rules.
Conduct
Conduct
Which implies that my arguments will be terrible. A rude statement. His conduct while it will most likely be meaningless to the outcome of this debate should be used to decide a winner by any voters who see our impacts as equal in this debate.
If this is based on conduct. Do check discord and
find out who started this. Wylted did while also carrying on with it. If your
vote was based on conduct Wylted has more to blame on that front than I do.
The wall I propose is one like we have seen elsewhere around the world. One that has been proven to be effective and affordable. The wall you see below is a rendering of what is on the Iraq-Saudi Arabia border.
This is not about what you want. It is about what is the effectiveness of the border wall. I have laid out Trump’s border wall. You are simply disregarding the very little rules I had in place of this debate. This rule is “We will be arguing the effectiveness of the border wall”
Why We Need a Border Wall
1. 80% of women and girls crossing the border are raped according to Amnesty international. With 700,000 people illegally crossing the border each year, this is a huge epidemic that a border fence could end. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-build-and-maintain-a-border-fence/2/
I just
checked the link and either I take this as plagiarism or I take this as an
unsubstantial point. Due to Roy Latham not even mentioning rape or how the
border wall would prevent that Wylted does not have evidence that a border wall
would stop rapes occurring.
One young girl trying to cross into the United States illegally tells her story to “The Atlantic”
Anecdote. Wylted didn’t show how this was a representation of illegal
immigrants which is why my anecdote criticism is valid.
I just wish that Donald Trump’s plan to allow more legal immigrants like her while securing the border to prevent this sort of thing had been implemented. Trump’s plan in his own words.
Even if I concede this it isn’t an argument for you so saying this was
not useful. I am guessing this is going to continue.
2. Having no border wall makes it easier for terrorists to sneak into the country.
Supported by:
Page not found. This can be dismissed because without
evidence these are only claims which if were contested we wouldn’t have some
sort of standard to decide who is more right than another. I can simply say the
opposite of Wylted and what are the voters supposed to vote for? Claims?
Evidence is required for a point to be supported. A supported point is better
than a non-supported point which is a good reason to judge a debate on.
3. Illegal immigration poses a massive public health risk.
Supported
by:
This
provided source is not reliable.
4.It's not just the diseases coming across the border that is a problem that is hurting our entire medical system. According to the Las Angelas county supervisor Michael Antonovich.
"We're running an H.M.O. for illegal immigrants and if we keep it up, we're going to bankrupt the county.".
My claim above explained here. The time I found this given the link you have provided was in 1991. That
is 28 years from our current data. This is considered not reliable because of
the advancements made during the time. I would consider papers about
immigration as in something that still occurs to this day for it to be relevant
either in line with present day immigration standards of the US or I think 3
years from our current date. This meets none of the criteria and it is fair to
critique the findings based on that standard. It is as simply as things change
and in that time a lot has changed.
He is not the only person saying this sort of thing Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D writing for The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons says
“What is unseen is their [illegal aliens’] free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America’s finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors.”
Now I am
going to say what I said before but with a different context. This data is
supported using 2005 data. There is 14 years of difference between the current
year. This includes an Obama presidency which enacted Dreamers while also
having Trump in office. There has been 3 terms of presidencies while including
3 years of Bush’s presidency. For it to be relevant it would have to be in line
with current immigration standards or be recent to our current date. 14 years
away is not recent.
" As a result, the costs of medical care for immigrants are staggering. The estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $.85 billion, and in Arizona the comparable estimate was $.4 billion per year."
Supported by:
Just by reading I see the number 2004. I am repeating myself
but there is a reason. These sources are outdated. You can easily find data
like this that is more recent and fitting in line with current immigration yet
you choose to use a source that speaks about what a state was like 15 years ago.
As of yet I have yet to see a single recent source. Maybe you shouldn’t have
copied what you said instead realize how old these sources are. A complaint I
might have is that you are not critiquing the specific source more so external
things about the source. The problem is that the very date of a source is
important. If the source is not recent to the current, it ceases to helpful in
representing what is occurring in current past. With this in mind an external
detail like the timeframe is important.
5. There is a lot of crime coming across the border straining our resources even further while also endangering our security. Human trafficking across the border is making the criminal underworld rich, worldwide human trafficking is a 32 billion dollar a year industry. http://tinyurl.com/ma6gr38
From the source: “November
2, 2006”
It might seem like my counter-argument are weak but I would require an actual relevant argument for my counter-argument to go past the surface level when someone is using sources like this one which is not even in the same decade.
It might seem like my counter-argument are weak but I would require an actual relevant argument for my counter-argument to go past the surface level when someone is using sources like this one which is not even in the same decade.
California spends close to a billion dollars housing illegal immigrants most of them from Mexico and Central America. http://tinyurl.com/amhdpz2%20Nation
Link does not work so from my point of view this a point not
supported with evidence.
wide the totals are close to 8 billion dollars. http://tinyurl.com/k57fa9q
While this data is not a decade away it is 9 years away.
Here is the quote regarding what he was talking about “Our fiscal cost study in 2010, estimated administration of justice costs
at the federal level related to criminal aliens at $7.8 billion annually. The
comparable cost to state and local governments was $8.7 billion.4”
We need a fence to stop the illegal smuggling of drugs as well as other illegal contraband. Products made from endangered species, bootleg CDs and DVDs, fake luxury products, and fake prescription drugs among other things. The Mexican drug cartels like to engage in kidnapping Americans, we should probably try to put a wall between us and them to make it harder.
My point about drugs clearly shows
while using relevant data (2018) that drugs are smuggled using legal ports of
entries. Wylted failed to mention what Trump would do to the legal ports of
entry instead it is as I seemed. I think he is using a previous argument like
what he stated earlier but didn’t realize I addressed those points.
There are a ton of illegal guns crossing the border. Until we secure the border any gun laws we make a very likely to be completely ineffective. http://tinyurl.com/kkc8gzu
The link
doesn’t go something that supports his side instead goes to aol.com/news.
Wylted yet again can’t give sufficient evidence to support his claim.
6. It's almost universally agreed on that the Mexican government is extremely corrupt.
Supported by:
Just to make he can’t have the excuse there isn’t more
recent data. Here is more recent data than the link Wylted provided:
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
Costs
of the Wall
The 2013 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $60.8 billion, so $1.1 billion would be is a small part of the budget. Costs would be repaid if it it reduced illegal immigration costs by even a half percent."
So basically this entire argument is based on a possibility that
illegal immigration will reduced extra costs by half so that the money gained
would be higher than the money received. No evidence has been given to make the
possibility a probability so all I getting is what if half of immigration was
stopped and made the cost of the border wall less than the money gained? Well
then that would happen but you have said how likely it is to occur.
Effectiveness of Wall
"According to the most recent quarterly figures published by the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority, 36 people have been caught trying to enter the southern border since January.
It’s an incredible drop after 10,440 were caught in 2012" http://tinyurl.com/kadk4yx
404 not found. Your supporting evidence have shown to be either
outdated or not found. I can’t engage with a critique when you don’t even have
a substantial point.
A border fence in the Yuma Arizona not even as close to being as secure to the one I propose has dropped immigration by a whopping 94%. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2008/0401/p01s05-usgn.html
When looking the source. It doesn’t support the claim about
immigration dropping by 94%. A simply Ctrl+F typing in 9 can find only 1 result
and that is about 1994’s Operation Gatekeeper. I can now add you have presented
no evidence on the list if I haven’t done so already.
The Law
The United States government has an ethical duty to enforce the law. If we are going to have borders and border laws we need to enforce them. Building a border wall is an effective and humane way to do that. If the country does not make laws it should pass them in a Democratic way, not subvert the law by having intentionally weak border security.Unjust laws do not belong on the books, but border laws are just for the reasons mentioned. If we don't want borders than we should vote to merge with Mexico, but I don't think many people would support that.
You didn’t explain anything. You said the US government had an
ethical duty but didn’t say why. You didn’t say why border wall is humane while
also being an effective way of enforcing them. Have not defined what you call
unjust laws then you speak about a position that is not important to the debate
as in no borders. So basically these are a bunch of claims not supported with
evidence or at the very least explained.
It is just unacceptable for that to occur. It makes no sense to have all this security at airports, when terrorists can pick any portion of the 43% of the unguarded border to just stroll right through. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/border-walls-would-humanely-enforce-just-law
You have a link to an opinion piece which is not evidence. This also
fails to mention a single occurrence of a terrorist passing through 43% of
unguarded border walls. If Wylted does decide to talk about it in the later
Round it is unfair because I only had 1 Round to work with and I gave Wylted
plenty of characters to clarify and clearly state his position yet I failed to
see why I even had a 30k character limit when he doesn’t use it to thoroughly state
his position.
My Rebuttals of Wylted’s rebuttals
Trump has said that he would definitely be willing to use some natural barriers as my opponent’s own citations shows.
This is political talk.
Trump has yet to state when he will do it and how. Which can clearly be seen by
Wylted not even providing relevant information that Trump neglects to mention
like when will the wall be completed? How will it be done? If I am not quoting
what Wylted chances are it is not even attempting to fufil the burden of proof
he has.
My opponent claims that Trump has never made any arguments that show what benefits a border wall has
I said:
“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.”
See the difference between what I said from what you paraphrased. I consider that a unintentional straw-man if not a straw-man. Due to the foundation of this part being wrong everything else can be dismissed because of it.
“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.”
See the difference between what I said from what you paraphrased. I consider that a unintentional straw-man if not a straw-man. Due to the foundation of this part being wrong everything else can be dismissed because of it.
It is still damaging to the country and to the immigrants themselves as you can see from my above arguments. 5.4 million is a staggering number and though the number is not exclusively from people crossing the border illegally, it still shows we need to take border security very seriously.
If you wanted a debate without evidence so basically about it
theoretically you should have asked but you didn’t. You have shown you use
evidence but here you didn’t. He didn’t even contest my evidence he simply
conceded that. That is more than I can say for Wylted’s sources.
since drugs can get into the country illegally through other means that we should just give up on having secure borders
My argument:
“Secondly drugs are smuggled in using legal ports of entry. This is sourced by the National Drug Threat Assessment”
So basically he misrepresented what I said in order to have a point. I never mentioned once about drugs entering through illegal ports. I mentioned the more important reason yet instead of attacking the most important reason you decide to concede and move on to try to state how the less important are more important. Yet again not providing evidence but this time for drugs entering the US through illegal ports. It sure would have helped supporting your idea that illegal ports matter more than you think I think it does.
“Secondly drugs are smuggled in using legal ports of entry. This is sourced by the National Drug Threat Assessment”
So basically he misrepresented what I said in order to have a point. I never mentioned once about drugs entering through illegal ports. I mentioned the more important reason yet instead of attacking the most important reason you decide to concede and move on to try to state how the less important are more important. Yet again not providing evidence but this time for drugs entering the US through illegal ports. It sure would have helped supporting your idea that illegal ports matter more than you think I think it does.
ECONOMICS
I gave my opponent’s economic arguments their own section because it is his only arguments that come close to being what is referred to in the voting guides I showed earlier in the round
This is under the assumption that I am abiding by your rules even
though I created this debate? No I am not abiding by your rules because you
didn’t ask and I created this debate so I am the one in charge of you know instigating
what this debate would entail.
I’m just going to completely mitigate this point right now by pointing out that we can just allow more legal immigrants into the United States
I can simply mitigate your point by saying we should give illegal
immigrants a better path to citizenship. That if I accept this as a critique of
my argument. My argument states:
“This would of course mean immigrants are required so that argument falls flat as well.”
Which means both illegal and legal immigrants can fill those roles and I also dislike how he completely misses the point of the economical part of my arguments. It was supposed to be addressing the supposed drawbacks of taking away jobs from Americans yet you think my point is stating I am for illegal immigration due to the amount of jobs available. No I am for immigration due to the amounts of jobs needing to be filled.
Everything else is based on that foundation that I have clearly shown to be false so it can be dismissed.
All in all this wasn’t fruitful whatsoever and I hope the voters see that.
“This would of course mean immigrants are required so that argument falls flat as well.”
Which means both illegal and legal immigrants can fill those roles and I also dislike how he completely misses the point of the economical part of my arguments. It was supposed to be addressing the supposed drawbacks of taking away jobs from Americans yet you think my point is stating I am for illegal immigration due to the amount of jobs available. No I am for immigration due to the amounts of jobs needing to be filled.
Everything else is based on that foundation that I have clearly shown to be false so it can be dismissed.
Conclusion
If it wasn’t clear already I have yet to find a substantial argument
for the border wall. The problem was with either that his sources were
out-of-date, didn’t represent what he was saying, couldn’t be found (which
means he didn’t even check the sources he used) and was an opinion not evidence
for his claims be substantial. That is not even mentioning his way of simply
denying my rules of the debate. Do I need to make it clear that the contender
cannot simply change the rules on a whim? Sure he could have criticized the way
I had this debate set out but have yet to see anything worth rebutting instead
I am simply given someone trying to oppose the instigator even though he accepted
the debate on my terms not on the terms he listed after accepting. He also
tried to change the way this debate was. Instead of making this about the effectiveness
of the border wall it was about his theoretical border wall.All in all this wasn’t fruitful whatsoever and I hope the voters see that.
Pro
#4
Trumps Plan
“Trump hasn’t even decided on the wall yet you are deciding for him”
“Trump’s plan for a border wall seems to just be a “whatever works” approach. The amount of plans that would work under that type of attitude is monumental, but for the purposes of this debate, I will discuss one plan in particular I think would work. Almost any plan I could think of would fall under a type of plan Trump would accept”
“ Instead of making this about the effectiveness of the border wall it was about his theoretical border wall.”
“Border Wall: Proposed plan by Trump for a wall between the US and Mexico.”
“The person who makes the best arguments without sufficient rebuttals will win”
My argument about how to achieve the goal my opponent made for the judges is to weigh impacts. My opponent has merely and incorrectly stated this is an attempt to add rules. The argument about how the judges should judge the debate is dropped and any judges with good ethics will decide the winner based on the criteria I laid out.
Impact Analysis
When judging the debate it is often useful to write down all of the impacts from both sides of a debate. I urge the judges when they are analyzing the debate to write down every impact that my opponent has made for making the policy decision of not making a wall. (after my rebuttals and his counter rebuttals are analyzed obviously). Also write down all the impacts I have brought up that would occur from building a wall (after analyzing rebuttals, and counter rebuttals or lack of).
Old Data/broken data
I do apologize for any broken links I had. I did copy and paste portions of that from an old debate since much of it was applicable to this debate. The links were not broken when I originally posted them. However we have the original date I looked up those links and where I found them. My opponent saw that earlier debate and still had the information he needed to hunt down and check my citations. Granted the links are not in MLA format, but even when checking things in MLA format you will find broken links because researchers can not be expected to keep up website maintenance from when they did look up the material. If he disputed any of the data in the facts I gave, he should have come up with alternate data to shed some doubt on them. If he had a statistic I disagreed with, and a source was hard for me to personally verify, I would give him the benefit of the doubt but shed some doubt on the stats by showing some things that contradict them. Any argument which he ignored and tried to wave away by saying “broken link” as if that wins him an argument should be counted as dropped.
Similarly my opponent mocks some of the data as old. They come from “old” sources. My opponent never mentioned what makes a citation old. Should we disregard research 5 years old? 10 years old? What is the point it becomes irrelevant?
It is not enough to merely dismiss some statistics because of when they were gathered. My opponent needs to show more up to date stats that contradict the ones given, or explain why those stats are no longer valid. If a stat refers to a specific phenomenon and he thinks the stat is no longer relevant he should explain why merely stating it is old is not good enough.
If my opponent dismissed stats merely because they were old without giving any valid reason why those statistics are now unreliable should be counted as dropped.
Merely saying things have changed, is not good enough. Things change daily but he would still accept statistics gathered yesterday I assume, so he needs to explain what changes now make those statistics unreliable.
Answering some rebuttals
Rapeapalooza
On the 80% rape statistic I brought up my opponent says the following;
“I just checked the link and either I take this as plagiarism or I take this as an unsubstantial point. Due to Roy Latham not even mentioning rape or how the border wall would prevent that Wylted does not have evidence that a border wall would stop rapes occurring.”
“Page not found. This can be dismissed because without evidence these are only claims which if were contested we wouldn’t have some sort of standard to decide who is more right than another. I can simply say the opposite of Wylted and what are the voters supposed to vote for? Claims? Evidence is required for a point to be supported. A supported point is better than a non-supported point which is a good reason to judge a debate on.”
My opponent puts 2 links together and claims they do not work. All he had to do was press the sppace bar between each link, and they work fine. Here is the first link http://dcgazette.com/2016/border-secure-cartels-manage-cut-hole-fence/
Here is the second link
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/pakistanis-terrorist-connections-nabbed-us-border/
Both articles are up and the links when you space them apart work fine. It was a minor formatting error that was easily fixed. Here is how I originally posted them;
Having no border wall makes it easier for terrorists to sneak into the country. In a one month period of time 18 people from Afghanistan, 79 people from Pakistan and 619 people from China were caught at the border. It is a myth that only Mexicans are crossing illegaly into the United Stateson the Southern border. In September of 2015 two men with definite ties to terrorism crossed into the Southern border. That is just one of many exaples, and doesn't count all the ones not caught. http://dcgazette.com/2016/border-secure-cartels-manage-cut-hole-fence/%20http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/pakistanis-terrorist-connections-nabbed-us-border/?page=all”
This was clearly 2 different links mashed together and my points stand and he dropped my argument.
Public Health Risk
I pulled some points from the article I cited on a public health risk. The article if you follow the link was from 2009. http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-and-public-health
The following is my entire argument;
Having no border wall makes it easier for terrorists to sneak into the country. In a one month period of time 18 people from Afghanistan, 79 people from Pakistan and 619 people from China were caught at the border. It is a myth that only Mexicans are crossing illegaly into the United Stateson the Southern border. In September of 2015 two men with definite ties to terrorism crossed into the Southern border. That is just one of many exaples, and doesn't count all the ones not caught. http://dcgazette.com/2016/border-secure-cartels-manage-cut-hole-fence/%20http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/pakistanis-terrorist-connections-nabbed-us-border/?page=all”
"disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border and that dysentery is several times the U.S. rate".
"its eggs can cause[.] Cysts that form around the larvae usually lodge in the brain and destroy tissue, causing hallucinations, speech and vision problems, severe headaches, strokes, epileptic seizures, and in rare cases death."”
“Just by reading I see the number 2004. I am repeating myself but there is a reason. These sources are outdated. You can easily find data like this that is more recent and fitting in line with current immigration yet you choose to use a source that speaks about what a state was like 15 years ago.”
“From the source: “November 2, 2006”
“It might seem like my counter-argument are weak”
“Just to make he can’t have the excuse there isn’t more recent data. Here is more recent data than the link Wylted provided:
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 “
“You didn’t explain anything. You said the US government had an ethical duty but didn’t say why. You didn’t say why border wall is humane while also being an effective way of enforcing them. Have not defined what you call unjust laws then you speak about a position that is not important to the debate as in no borders. So basically these are a bunch of claims not supported with evidence or at the very least explained.”
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1116?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=44
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UaO97cV2xnNCW12jUDGlMqqKN-xfzSA38EPAghd2Nh4/edit?usp=sharing
Not my best RFD, and slightly rushed. Let me know if there are any questions you have.
hah Wylted won
Have it open so if I don't accept someone else can. Don't really know too much about the electoral college to really give a go at it.
I am pro on the electoral college. Most liberals decided to be con on it because they think they gain an advantage by getting rid of it.
>>I am okay debating whether your vote on Pinkfreud's debate was a good vote
Don't want to.
What else do you want to debate if you don't want to debate the border wall again with you being the instigator?
Thank you for taking the time to judge the debate.
More like explain why the examples shown are not good representations of what a border wall would look like between the US and Mexico.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Trump to have sold this plan; and as such, I don’t have enough of a deviation from the resolution imo to warrant awarding on this ground.
I don’t think pro did a great job of selling the overall cost/benefit of the wall. There are definite benefits, as pro outlines and con doesn’t appear to challenge directly, and pro points out the cost is not prohibitive.
If this was a purely financial argument - were it not for the downplaying of cost by pro and the comparison of DHS budget, I would probably have given this as a draw, as there was enough mud on the stats, by bad links and the lack of general warrant for how much the illegal immigration problem would really be mitigated by a wall.
However given the potential human cost, and the potential reductions in harms pro raises, together with the apparently low costs that would likely not effect the overall budget - overall pro shows more impacts solved due to the wall.
Cons goal here should have been to quantify the problem being solved, to show the wall may not realistically solve much of that problem, or be too expensive for the benefit. There were many avenues here for con to attack, but imo, the argument was comprehensively weak by not forming a core thesis of why a wall is not worth it. Instead, the focus was mostly on how the case for the wall has potential been exaggerated, while con establishes this fairly reasonably - that’s not what the resolution is.
As a result of this: arguments have to go to pro.
The issue con has, it appears is that he’s arguing from the position that the problems aren’t severe enough to warrant such an extreme policy. Pro is pointing out (as he did with the volume of immigrants, drugs, etc), that the problems just need to be bad to warrant a wall. This is kind of how Con shoots himself in the foot; by arguing as if he just has to show Trump and others are exaggerating rather than to do the work to show the wall is unnecessary.
Pro completely undermines cons economic argument too - by arguing that competition for employees drives wages up (good), and that if filling jobs was necessary legal immigrants could be chosen.
Pros case feels pretty weak; all told. But cons rebuttal is just completely lacking here.
Cons approach appears to be primarily to claim wylted’s links all don’t work, or are invalid because they’re old. This was the majority of cases.
Con has to do more here, I’m sorry; but I found this woefully inadequate.
Many of pros examples are generally intuitive; meaning they seem pretty reasonable on their face; while you could haggle over whether exact amounts warrant a wall; just citing a bad source
And saying “nope”, imo isn’t enough for me; I need some clarification.
Don’t get me wrong, if this was a four point debate - I’d have possible awarded sources to con for pros terrible use of sources, but when they are used to support fairly reasonable sounding points, I need more from con.
On balance though, I can render a decision on this at this point:
Firstly, for the resolution; while pro defended trumps actual plan terribly; with an obtuse method of shoehorning his own plan into the debate - I don’t think this is so far outside the spirit of the resolution to count: the resolution is not whether Trump is a liar or a shitty president; but a wall on the southern border is worthwhile.
To start off with, the resolution is s bit of a mess: the title is pro/con border wall: the content claims its about the effectiveness; but pro does better in an overall framing of what the debate is - and I’m going to go with that as it appears the most sensible.
Both sides are pretty shirt and petulant throughout - as I can’t award Conduct for this debate, I’m just going tell you both to act more like grown ups.
It’s pros job in this debate to show me why the positive impacts of the wall outweigh the negative; and cons job to the opposite, saying that; con has a case to make too: and both sides need to convince me of what criteria is important to weigh when I’m assessing their argument.
To start off with, cons opening was a reasonably good case at showing that the wall may not have great effectiveness; and will not solve all problems - while I could buy everything con said - con doesn’t tie these into a weightable argument. How effective would it be? How much will it cost? And why is going ahead with the wall on balance harmful?
Pros main arguments start off with the claim that illegal immigrants are victims of rape, the wall will stop terrorists coming over the border.
While pro doesn’t provide a justification of how much a wall will reduce the incidence of this; this seems like an impact.
Pro argues the wall would be effective, citing the example of Yuma; and a dead link. Pro doesn’t make it clear how this would be extended and applicable; to the rest of the border as by definition it doesn’t cover the whole border.
Pro attempts to quantify the yearly financial impact of healthcare for illegal immigrants too; then rounds the argument out with an appeal to enforcing the law (which isn’t clear how it fits into pros value or impacts), and estimates the cost.
It was a red-herring because economic factors tie more precisely with feasibility. You restricted the resolution to only efficiency; this is why I was more inclined in my vote. Although you had a good argument against building the wall in general you didn't provide much of an argument for its inefficiency. For example, a dark matter drive is unfathomably expensive, so even if we could build one it wouldn't be feasible, but despite the cost it would be wholly efficient. That's why I suggest you both have another debate because many of both of your arguments were not in the context of efficiency.
"Firstly, undocumented immigrants are reportedly travelling across the border in record lows."
"More than 19,000 immigrants are currently in CBP custody. Nearly 1,000 border patrol officers have been moved from northern ports of entry, airports, sea ports and elsewhere along the southwest border to assist border agents in areas experiencing the highest influx of migrants.
"We are in a full-blown emergency, and I cannot say this stronger: The system is broken," said acting CBP Commissioner John Sanders."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/record-number-undocumented-immigrants-flooded-southern-border-may-n1014186
So, nope record number of people crossing
"I didn't get scared. I created the debate before you decided what you wanted to do then you asked me to change it."
Not true, we were debating a generic border wall in discord and we were supposed to settle that here, but you attempted to make an abusive resolution to give yourself an unfair advantage. Why would we debate a generic border-wall on discord and you interpret it as Trump's border wall, and change it from the benefits of to The effectiveness of.
I am okay debating whether your vote on Pinkfreud's debate was a good vote
You can start by clearly laying out definitions so I know what we are arguing.
>>I tried to create that debate, but you got scared to do it,
I didn't get scared. I created the debate before you decided what you wanted to do then you asked me to change it.
>>10k limit if the topic is good
Okay. Give me 1 week for arguments. So basically increase time of arguments to 1 week.
I tried to create that debate, but you got scared to do it, and instead wanted this one because you thought it gave you some unfair advantage. We can debate another topic if you want, but 30k rounds are retarded so no on that. 5k if the topic bores me, 10k limit if the topic is good
>>The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution
How was it a red-herring? Lack of detail in the information or are you saying the very core of that argument is a red herring?
>>I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
Okay. I am sure Wylted has seen this so he can decide. If he does decide to create it have it be a 1 week for each argument and 30k characters that I won't fill but I might need.
>>I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
Okay. Compare other border walls tell the opponent why the southern border wall wouldn't work.
The economy contention was ultimately a red-herring to the resolution; I'd suggest you guys have a rematch and change it to a general debate on whether or not the wall should be built or not, rather than focusing the resolution on wholly effectiveness.
You said that there were jobs that needed to be filled, but you never explained why illegal immigrants had to fill those jobs. Most importantly though, you never explained the harm in letting the jobs go unfilled. Where is your stats about businesses failing? While Wylted's case was flawed, he offered a lot of quantifiable points. He offered lots of examples showing that the wall would work. I would recommend for the future that the first thing you point out is that using the success of border walls in other countries and at one solitary point on the southern border to suggest that a national wall would be beneficial is erroneous.
>>Just because something isn't bad for the economy doesn't make it a good thing.
Didn't I state how immigrants would be helpful to the economy as in be people for the jobs that are open currently?
>>Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
Me asking makes me mad? I can't imagine you not wanting to tear yourself apart if your salt is worse than my questioning. I don't want to talk to you but you can keep message me if you want. I'll respond when you actually have something worth responding too.
Omar is now mad that you voted in my favor and vote bombed my socialism debate, by voting for the obvious loser. This site is ridiculous and needs fixing
Just because something isn't bad for the economy doesn't make it a good thing. If you proved significant economic harms that have quantification (i.e. the wall will de-incentivize trading with Mexico because it leads to populist anti-US leaders gaining power who aren't going to cooperate on trade deals,) then your argument would of had an impact.
Perhaps, but I thought that if it was a Nationwide problem, that the TB would affect everyone in Mexico regardless of social class. I would recommend making the distinction you just made if you plan to run this point and suggest an increase in legal immigration.
>>It's defensive and offers no real impact.
What do you mean by this?
I checked. I said that the same problems associated with your 1st 2 points also applies to your economic point. It's defensive and offers no real impact.
Did you address this paragraph that starts with this:
"Thirdly the bad for economy point."
I can't seem to find a mention of it in your docs.
Yeah, I have issues with every RFD ever written, but that was the only thing that stuck in my craw. I never mentioned it I don't think. I just assumed my stats on illegal immigrants would not be applied to legal immigrants who are usually coming from better circumstances
That's fair. Perhaps I missed where you said that. The RFD is ok besides that, yes?
One point of contention. Illegal Latin American immigrants are spreading TB, the latin Americans who come in legally have lower levels of disease and our generally healthier than the native population
Thanks for taking your time to read the debate
Some of Pro’s points were negated by broken links and rebuttals. Considering this alongside the split BOP, I give Pro 2.25 points.
Spelling/Grammar: .25 points to Wylted. Omar said “Just to make he can’t have the excuse there isn’t more recent data.”. “Since both Trump and the instigator 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 bad for the economy.” Incomplete sentences and lack of commas. I’m a huge grammar freak and these irked me.
Sources: I give an edge to Omar, since some of Wylted’s didn’t work. Again, I don’t take off points for older sources unless newer data is provided to rebut it. Pro used an opinion piece. Omar had really good sources in round one, but only provided one in R2. He criticized Pro’s sources rather than debunk them. Wylted apparently had just put two links together. Points returned for those two links. Omar: 1.5 points
Conduct: I will only judge conduct based on what occurred in the debate, not the comment section or discord or anything other than the arguments. I give a slight edge to Omar on conduct because Wylted called him “Lazy” and had a disagreeable tone in round one. Omar was also condescending, as he expressed doubt that Wylted would have good points at the end of R1. Wylted also swore in final round coupled with condescending “buddy”..5 points for Omar.
. I agree with Con’s statements against Wylted establishing rules, however, the judge this debate we must weigh pros and cons, making this rule de facto in place.
Points out that Wylted used anecdotal claims. The DCGazette link didn’t work for me, either, so points gone. FAIRUS was stated to be unreliable, but without any reasoning on why that is the case. The points still stand. Con states that a source was outdated. However, no new data was provided to combat this point, nor did he elaborate on what “things change” in that time to invalidate the point. A bunch more “outdated” rebuttals…. 100/135(Wylted) vs 138/180(Omar) on corruption. Omar’s newer data actually put Mexico in a worse percentile for corruption than’s Pro’s sources. Omar says he uses Cntrl + F to find the stat, which is very deceptive. The stat was derived by the article that said eight hundred people were apprehended daily before, now only fifty are every day. Ends with points about path to citizenship for illegals, which was not the point of the debate.
Wylted: Disputes Con saying Trump doesn’t have a plan by describing an emergent plan. Also asserts that “old” is subjective about data and that Con gave no criteria for determining what makes old data “old” and bad. Also, states that dismissing data only has potential to hurt Pro’s case, not bolster Con’s. Explained why his anecdotal claim has merit and gives insight into the situations of illegal immigrants. Pro explains why his “old” sources should not be dismisses, as, again, no newer stats debunked them. “A $32 billion dollar industry didn’t disappear overnight”. Said how Omar proved his corruption point by reading link. Debunked Con’s argument of no ethical point in enforcing laws and how he ignored rape stats.
Verdict: As Wylted stated, no points were given as to promoting public good. Con did not give any reason as to how he could solve issues that Pro brought up without using a wall.
Arguments:
R1
Omar: Points are that illegal immigration is already slowing down, a wall won’t stop drugs that go through legal points of entry, and that we don’t have enough workers. However, I would like to point out that he perhaps misspoke. He said immigrants would be needed anyway to build the wall. However, Omar stated that the goal of the wall was to stop illegal immigration with no mention of legal immigration.
Wylted: Points out that this debate should be based on the positive impact of each position. This makes sense because the description says “I am against the border wall…”. If there were more positive effects from building the wall, he shouldn’t be against it. Wylted gives an example of another country using a wall. Gives statistics on the crisis at the border, including rape and still 700,000 people crossing annually. Con’s argument about needing more workers(immigrants) is negated by a direct quote from Trump about his plan being pro-immigrant. Wylted brings up the point of national security by providing statistics on terrorism and the unhealthy state of many illegal immigrants. All provides statistics on the public cost of illegal immigrants to healthcare and housing.
Pro then gives stats on projected costs and the effect of an Arizona wall being significant in stopping illegal immigration. Then, he finishes off arguments with an appeal to upholding order. Pro then rebuts con’s claims that Trump never stated benefits of the wall and that he wouldn’t use natural barriers. States that drugs come into the country outside of legal points of entry, but this wasn’t substantiated with a source. Finishes off with an appeal to emotion towards not exploiting these workers.
R2
Omar: Not really sure what Omar was getting at with his point about there being no plan for a border wall. If that were the case, this couldn’t be a debate according to the description. As far as I know, Pro was using projections, so the points still stand.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IoXExnR3SjmUrat-bC-TjtbKCne8TApUq8pTqs3zlBU/edit?usp=sharing
Didn't realize this was a win/loss debate. I was weighing the usual sections. :/
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
You're thinking of book keeping. That is where you just record the numbers and that is it, which is awful and doesn't pay much. I'm gonna try to get an auditing job at a Big Four firm and after 5ish years I can do anything finance or accounting related in most businesses. Job prospects after that are huge
I'll draw up a vote now.
Dude there are accoubtants working at wal-mart. Right next to a psychology degree this is one of the worst degrees at getting you a job. Most businesses just hire their wife to do the QuickBooks.
That was a debate idea back in high school: is college worth It? I am trying to get my CPA. Some of the best job security. Still need accountants and auditors even during recessions
Life hack don't waste your time with college. I have worked myself up to 6 figures twice, my only problem is that I am a perfectionist and usually end up quitting when I do something that exposes me as imperfect
I am both honored and disappointed haha
Fun fact, I spent more time on the vote than on my college paper.
If you read my Israel debate, you can read this lol
It’s on my list
If you are aware of any voter that doesn't suck, could you recruit them to vote on this.
Can you possibly vote on this debate please?
No problem. I'm one to talk about debate length. Some of my debates could qualify as novels 😌.
Sorry about that. It would be much appreciated. If you need a fair vote on something from me also do not hesitate to ask. I have like another 2 weeks before work starts getting ridiculous again.