Instigator / Pro
12
1455
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#742
Wall on Mexican Border
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 8 votes and with 44 points ahead, the winner is...
TheRealNihilist
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
56
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Forgive me if I am assuming but I don’t really have a lot to
go on. There will be two arguments I will be making in order for my point to
get across. The rest of the Rounds if the instigator does decide to show up
will be defending my case and stating how flawed his position is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46824649
Click here if you don't want to find it in the article “National Drug Threat Assessment”
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/job-offers
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/
I have shown enough to state my side and hope the instigator in a later Round does fulfil his burden of proof. No mention was made to me that I was supposed to start of since he did forfeit and typically the person who does create the debate has the initial burden of proof. In this debate it would be shared if the instigator does decide to give his arguments why it would be good. If I am the only person with the burden of proof you should have told me.
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
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-99001https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/job-offers
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/
I have shown enough to state my side and hope the instigator in a later Round does fulfil his burden of proof. No mention was made to me that I was supposed to start of since he did forfeit and typically the person who does create the debate has the initial burden of proof. In this debate it would be shared if the instigator does decide to give his arguments why it would be good. If I am the only person with the burden of proof you should have told me.
Round 2
Forfeited
I still have yet to get an argument even though he was so adamant in defending his position in the comment section. All my arguments were in Round 1 and the other Rounds were supposed to be for rebuttals but since I don't have anything rebut I don't have something to say.
Round 3
Forfeited
I will repeat what I said earlier.
I still have yet to get an argument even though he was so adamant in defending his position in the comment section. All my arguments were in Round 1 and the other Rounds were supposed to be for rebuttals but since I don't have anything rebut I don't have something to say.
Round 4
Forfeited
I will repeat what I said earlier.
I still have yet to get an argument even though he was so adamant in defending his position in the comment section. All my arguments were in Round 1 and the other Rounds were supposed to be for rebuttals but since I don't have anything rebut I don't have something to say.
>>By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
Nope, I already explained this. I am for tax cuts. Not no government and no taxes. Don't be foolish. Since you are accusing me of this, by your logic, you want 100% tax rates. By your reasoning a dictatorship is the best form of government.
>>So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
Never said that. I said I don't follow congressman, so I don't know.
>>This source is better.
Your source is all over the place, I don't know where to look.
>>Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
More taxes is an awful solution, like I said, no matter how many taxes the gov. gets, they always overspend. Your argument is complete feelings. Lowering spending is a common sense solution. Every time taxes have been increased the gov. continues to overspend. Make a reasonable budget to eventually get out of debt. Every liberal policy(almost) will make national debt even more, such as healthcare, paying off student loans, every socialist policy that is so called "free." Of course taxes are necessary, but hiking them is useless.
>>I've already said I am for taxation.
By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
>>I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
>>Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Oh. Didn't think you drop even further then you already are. Don't know the logical conclusion of your own arguments and think I have TDS.
>> Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
This source is better.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
As you can see a tax cut aimed at the middle class actually benefits the rich. Who would have thought Trump cared about his own interest before the majority who voted for him.
"Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here."
I've already said I am for taxation.
"Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?"
I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
"Don't know what you mean by "TDS"."
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well."
Agreed.
Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
I'm not getting into an argument over what Trump's intentions are. If he is doing what you say he is(or what u think he is) then I totally condemn it.
>>It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
>>Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed.
Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?
>>I assume you are talking about your TDS.
Don't know what you mean by "TDS".
>> For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well. The problem is that Trump has made it really clear with his most recent tax plan that he is only cared about reducing the taxes of the wealthy and not the middle class. If Trump cared about the middle class he would cut taxes for them. You support a president that lies about being a populist by showing his true intentions with the laws he passes. So basically the not-wealthy people who voted for him were conned and will still carry on being conned because I am sure they haven't even heard of what he has actually done instead of what he "promises" to do.
It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
"If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican."
Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed. I assume you are talking about your TDS. Trump is a successful business man who wants to lower taxes because it helps businesses thrive and help the economy. Now whether he is right that it will help or not, that is his intention. For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
>>To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses.
The debt is paid off with taxes not reduced regulations. I have very little faith that you know anything from what your idols have thought you. Whether it be Ben, Steven or even parents. Do some reason and actually talk about the surface. I ask you to explain but you can't then you commit a non-sequitur in the statement you made and to what I asked of you as well.
>>We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican.
To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses. We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
>>Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government.
This does not help me understand what you mean. What do you mean by limited government? You keep saying it but don't explain it.
>>I don't understand your churches and state argument.
I was asking questions. Like this one: should churches pay taxes?
>>Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
This is clearly a case of whataboutism. You are not addressing my point instead you point to someone else who has done it from a straw-man you have created of me. My argument wasn't Trump did this and Obama didn't. My argument was directly targeting your claim about a 20% tax rate. Who is going to pay for the debt if the tax goes to 20%? Try this time to actually address my argument instead of committing a whataboutism about a straw-man you created for me. It wasn't Trump who said he wanted a 20% tax rate it was you so do refrain from talking about Trump or Obama.
Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government. I don't understand your churches and state argument. Explain like I'm a 5 year old(legit). Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
You didn't answer my question. Should churches pay taxes?
I didn't not put words in your mouth. I pointed to the logical conclusion with the information you give me. Surely you want to abandon the state because it will lead to the least amount of corruption.
You don't understand what the separation of church and state was the church not being connected to the government. This would be impacting laws. Taxes are not a connection to the state in the same sense because the church can't say we want this law for this amount of money. So your argument for churches not paying that much taxes is a non-sequitur.
Have you seen the national debt? Whose going to pay it back when you have taxes down to 20%? I am not arguing for 100%. I am arguing for taxes which just about allows economic growth. The more the United States pays off from the national debt the less future generations would have to suffer because of it.
obviously I believe in some government, you did not respond to my previous comment.
I believe in government, I'm not for getting rid of it. You are putting words in my mouth. Churches should tax avoid or get very limited taxes, as that is a good example of separation of church and state.
I believe in some intervention on private businesses, but I think for the most part very limited, and limited taxes down to a rate below 20%, probably 15.
Churches tax avoid. Should that still be the case?
The logical conclusion of your stance of government would be the removal of the state. Basically anarchism. If your basis for small government is that big government is corrupt why not remove all the corruption by simple removing the government?
About your stance of private business so are you for the complete de-regulation of the government on private businesses?
I believe they should have the same rights as others. They already do have same rights if I'm not mistaken.
I like small government because the more government there is the more corrupt it gets and the gov. ends up ruling so many aspects of your life. It is not their job to tell everybody and private businesses what to do.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
So the church should be bound by laws of the government?
I don't take your position seriously. If you were an actual Christian you would want a Monarchy but these conservatives are playing around as if they want small government. I am sorry what the hell does that even mean? Conservatives make a vacuous statement like small government so that they don't have to deliver on actual promises.
Believing a minority should not have the same right as the majority sound pretty fascist to me.
That would be infringing upon separation of church and state. Marriage is to be determined privately, and is characterized as a cultural or religious tradition, not a government intervention. Less government is not fascist, it's anti-fascist.
Believing in silencing people with different opinions and using violence against them is what you are for. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
Removed, per request.
Believing the government should not be in the business of civil unions seems pretty fascist to me.
I found your twitter- https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
Believing in silencing people with different opinions and using violence against them is what you are for. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
Say what you want. I will avoid you because you don't listen to reason.
says the fascist.
oohhh i voted for the wrong side accidentally, bsh you can remove it.
He is a triggered conservative who copies from his idols. No wonder he dislikes people who aren't fake.
What are you doing in the voting section? Pro forfeited but you gave everything to him.
Do you think I can improve my opening argument?
Just planting down my lawn chair.