All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
What was first being proposed was an entire wall across the US-Mexico border but as many people realized that is not feasible. There is a Rio Grande river and many mountains. Instead of delivering on a wall he has decided to make a concession. Only wanting half of the US-Mexico border filled with a wall. The thing is that a fence already exists but for some reason Trump would like to build a wall. Let’s say the wall was built what would that actually do? Trump has failed to deliver evidence to provide what the border wall can help so since he hasn't it can be said that it would be impractical. My argument revolves around if evidence was given to how effective the wall was it would only help Trump provide a better position for his proposal but Trump cannot which means it is impractical and by extension not worth doing.
Since Trump failed to deliver what the border wall would actually reduce. I will be assuming this and I think I am fair with these assumptions. I am guessing the border wall would help stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and are bad for the economy.
Click here if you don't want to find it in the article “National Drug Threat Assessment”
At least I changed someones mind. :)