Instigator / Con
7
1488
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1746

U.S Southern Border Wall

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

logicae
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1526
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

Now I suppose a general description of the rules.

Rules:
(1.) BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)
(2.) Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions that are unable to be defended by mere facts)
(3.) Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks,... etc)

In this debate I will obviously be defending the side that a southern border wall is a bad idea to say the least. I would like to use the weighing mechanism (as we call the scale in debate) to be net benefits or who ever shows the greater number of benefits should win. Another weighing mechanism can be used however, but I think for this debate this is the most concise. For further clarity here are the sides laid out clearly:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For side Pro (For Border Wall): To support (build evidence on) and defend the Southern Border Wall.
For side Con (Against Border Wall): To support (build evidence on) and defend against the Southern Border Wall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This debate is set up to be quick. We will have three rounds and 24 hours each turn to post your speech, so be ready to respond!

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Christen

I agree, you make good points on how corona is worse. I too think it has a far worse potential based on its ability to spread and the number of people who have died already. But the main point when it comes to immigrants is whether this is a world-wide phenomenon or if it applies to southern immigrants specifically. Since even you have seen it spread to the New England area, I think it is safe to say the virus is already here and in addition it had not come from immigration from the southern border, but started and spread from China. This means stopping immigration does not logically follow unless we quarantine ourselves completely off from the rest of the world, as the whole world has the potential to spread the virus. I think because such an action goes too far at the moment, we should let the idea rest.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

There are at least 3 reasons I can think of as to why this new coronavirus is scarier than ebola.

1. Ebola has existed for at least 40 years, which means we've had plenty of time to develop treatments and/or cures, so not as many people will die from that nowadays, whereas coronavirus has only been around for a couple months, so we haven't had much time to develop treatments and/or cure yet.

2. It's not fair for you to compare the number of deaths without looking at the death rates. Even though ebola technically did kill more people than coronavirus, coronavirus is killing people at a much faster rate. 40 years is equal to 480 months. In 480 months, ebola killed 11,310 people. In 1 month alone, coronavirus killed over 2000 people. Multiply 2000 by 480, and that means that, in 40 years, unless a cure or treatment is created soon, coronavirus will have killed off at least 80 times the amount of people, that ebola killed off in 40 years:
(2000 * 480) ÷ 11,310 = 84.8806366047745358090186

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

3. Coronavirus is also spreading faster than ebola, and has infected more countries than ebola. I live in Queens, New York. The virus has already made it here, and I, or any of my loved ones, could catch it, die, and be added to that list of victims.

I apologize if I came across as someone who does not value any immigrants at all, but allowing more and more people into this country is getting riskier and risker every day. We need to be more cautious and careful, especially around those who recently traveled here. Nobody wants their own loved ones catching this and dying, and the decisions of countries like the United States to allow more and more people into said countries is the reason it's spreading to begin with.

-->
@Christen

3000 deaths world wide (though mainly in China [2,912] where it originated from). Compare to Ebola which had 11,310 deaths.

I will end the conversation here as I fear it will take up too much of our time. It seems to me then that you do not value immigrants or, correct me if I have it wrong, people in general by intrinsic value but only by their practical use. If we cannot see the value in immigrants as people, we justify apathy to our own community here in the U.S. So then people become practical tools not for our good, but only for our convenience.

This reaches a dangerous precedent because people become expendable to our own preferences and to what we like. I do hope you do not mean you see no value in immigrants other then what the could be used for, else we must start talking also of our own worth. Worth such that an American is only worth in so as much as he is labeled an American.

Whatever it may be, I wish you well. Keep searching for truth, as it is the best thing we all can do.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

Yes, your source confirms over 3000 deaths... in only a few months.

It's bad enough that we have Americans committing so much crime, I get that, so we can at least cut down on the crime involving the illegals so we don't have more crime on top of the crime we already have, and also figure out why Americans are committing so much crime too, if that helps

I suppose legal immigrants would be valuable if they had skills and higher forms of education that were in high demand, and would be productive, but it's tricky for me to answer "by how much?"

Even if they somehow could pay for a home, there's still the issue of homes being in low supply with a high demand at the moment, meaning that many people would have to wait until either new housing is constructed, or until some people move out of their homes.

-->
@Christen

"We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the corona virus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to."

Then we can have the same standard for immigrants, but that does not discount them from coming.

"Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases."

True, I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, but assuming that it is significant I still cannot see how you discount them based on that. If some states in the U.S for example have much higher levels of diseases, we don't ban everyone from those states from moving around.

"How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families?"

I will do you one more, that their situation is dire at best. Who needs healthcare when they are going to die in a week? And as far as living prices go here, I don't think they will have a problem paying with the wages that we have. We are only the richest and most productive society in the world.

"As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns."

Are they valuable or not? And by how much?

"Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it"

Yes and there could be a crime wave in your neighborhood. Since American Citizens have twice the crime rate, I think we will live.

"There's just too much risk"

I have to hold you to what I have found so far, that many of these points you give are exaggerated and so over inflate the risk. We do many risky things in life, but it is no way comparable to letting desperate people have the same opportunities as we do. Put on the immigrant's shoes (or lack there of) and you see a whole different story.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Christen

Here is my source for the corona cases count: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Good Night,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to.

The coronavirus is deadly and is killing off thousands of people and infecting millions. It most certainly is not overblown.

It isn't even just coronavirus that these people could be carrying. Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases.

We don't let them in if either we don't know if or think they can be trusted, or if we are too low on resources for it. We already have lots of homeless people living in tents on the sidewalks and you want us to bring in more people when we are already struggling to care for the people already here.

How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families? Unless you want them "work for their families" while living on the streets and have little access to good quality health care and other valuable scarce resources.

As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns. Having legal immigrants is important, but having too many immigrants becomes a problem since it requires more and more resources to care for them, and it becomes harder to manage. Too much of any good thing tends to be a bad thing.

Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it.

There's just too much risk and too many problems with blindly accepting every immigrant without making sure it's okay to let them in and that we have the resources necessary to help them and our own people.

-->
@Christen

The corona virus idea is a non-sequitur (an argument that is not consistent or is a logical double standard). Mexico has only 5 active cases while the U.S has 73. Using this logic we should lock down U.S citizens into quarantine. Though you are right about the harms of the virus, it is simply overblown by the media, just as Ebola was.

But to be honest it seems like you are finding any reason to keep out refugees. Even this small minority of immigrants that come though the un-fenced regions, what do you have against them? Why can you not at least be open to letting them work here to support their families (keep in mind this means through legal means. If we make it legal to work here and thus keep track of immigrants coming here to work and return home, we can make the illegal problem dissipate)

Again I must press you with the question of value, why do you not want to answer it? Do you not think that immigrants are valuable? Please answer this.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@skittlez09

“Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.
Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance”

Morality has no limits. If you say we have an obligation to help people, we have an obligation to help ALL the people. Saying that we have an obligation to help AS MANY as we can inherently means that I will suffer to help someone else. It’s like two extremes meeting in the middle. The poor gets richer and the richer gets poorer. Now as the provider of my family that works to enrich my family, it would be immoral for me to decrease my family’s standard of living.

-->
@ILikePie5

Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.

Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance

-->
@logicae

Now that we have new diseases and stuff like this new deadly coronavirus that's been popping up all over the world, it's even more important now than ever, that anyone we allow into this country is checked to make sure they didn't pick up this virus. Any illegal immigrant that enters this country illegally who turns out to have this virus is putting our entire nation at risk, even if they're just "the small minority" like you claim.

At this point, I'm more afraid of people sneaking in illegally than people who first come in illegally but then overstay their visa, since anyone sneaking in illegally without being first checked for this virus risks infecting our people with it, whereas we can at least know that those who came in with a visa weren't bringing the deadly virus with them.

-->
@skittlez09

Yes, my obligation is to enrich my family, not make them poorer. And your “moral” proposal is basically socialism at that point.

-->
@Christen

I wonder why you focus on the small minority of illegal immigrants coming in through the border?

"since the Jews' country had their government which was the Nazi party that blamed Jews for the problems"

So are you blaming Jew's for the Nazi's and evil African leaders for the evil done by slave drivers? It is a well known fact that the Jews actually opposed Hitler, which is why (as many dictators tend to do) he killed them off. Also it makes no sense that slave owners have no stake in their own crimes (namely buying, beating, and killing African people as they were forcible enslaved on plantations).

Why are you trying to make this defense? I would agree though, as analogies permit, that these are different situations to immigration, but where both sides share the important similarity is at the moral ground. Both people are dehumanized (slaves and Jews killed and called animals and immigrants deemed illegal (as if a person by their nature could be illegal) and alien) Also both are treated inhumanly (Slaves and Jews in the most direct way and Immigrants by being turned down their only chance at life, outside of their perilous position in their degraded and often war torn and drug lord driven home country)

"Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem"

Agreed and this is not an either or situation. Until such situations alleviate, the refuges still need a home, a place away from the violence they are escaping from. Any sensible person sees this with the outbreak of a tornado or fire where we give refuges of these crises aid to help them now as they rebuild. When people require help it is our obligation fulfill their needs with what we can. (and I don't think that being the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world gives us an excuse, do you?)

"Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution."

I can make a similar claim: Declaring that whole countries need to get better while ignoring the thousands of helpless migrants is at best like a doctor instructing a smoker to stop smoking while he is dying from a stroke.

I think for the sake of simplicity I will end our conversation soon and I thank you for having it with me. It was a civilized and thoughtful one and I hope our generation can gain these useful skills and respect for each other as I think we have.

I do have one last question that encapsulates all the rest and the issue as a whole:
What, if any value, do you grant an immigrant?

To Truth! -logicae

-->
@ILikePie5

You believe it would be immoral to willingly lower your own standard of living to make other peoples easier?

Morality has a limit. It is moral to help people. But it is also immoral to make yourself and your families standard of living go lower to help as many people as we can.

-->
@skittlez09

There are a variety of ways to address illegal immigration. It's only a matter of figuring out what the best or most optimal option is.

Getting rid of free health cares and other services for illegals, and fixing the terrible countries they come from, would reduce the incentive to come here illegally.

-->
@Christen

Feel like a more effective way to reduce illegal immigration would be to reduce the incentive to come here illegally

-->
@logicae

The ones that enter through the southern border illegally were not checked, so the question becomes can we address the issue of those overstaying their visas, and if so, how?

Ironically, now that I think about it, the countries of the Africans and the jews are partially to blame for slavery and the holocaust respectively, since the jews' country had their government which was the nazi party that blamed jews for the problems, and I don't know why the African governments allowed their people to get taken and brought somewhere else to be sold as slaves in the first place. The Africans probably didn't have governments at all, and instead had tribes and tribe leaders, so they would have been more vulnerable overall. Regardless, It's still difficult and tricky trying to compare them to illegal immigrants.

You'll have to ask someone else why we don't have enough of those things I mentioned. We don't have enough of it because we didn't create enough of it yet. That's the best answer I can give at the moment.

The terrible countries are the main problem because if you fix those countries, people won't have to leave them to try coming here in the first place, plus some of the immigrants who are already here would likely self-deport and go back home once their home is fixed, which will free up resources and space, thus allowing us to accept more immigrants that want to come here, thus resolving the issue of people not being able to come here. Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem, which will result in our immigration quota being able to accept more people. Changing our immigration quota alone does not address the root of the problem. Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution.
Fixing those countries fixes the source of the problem. Letting more immigrants in to use up more of our resources without fixing those countries only addresses the surface of the problem they are having.

-->
@Christen

I had to take a break, I apologize.

You say that the difference is,
"legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not"
-While this is partially true, because, according to the center for migration studies, two thirds of illegal immigrants are actually visa overstays. So the problem on the whole is not that illegals are not checked, but that they are deemed "illegal."

Link- https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/?gclid=CjwKCAiA7t3yBRADEiwA4GFlI0qS32T2TElkZYZZUvDK-PyRlkZKxZcJtUSkdNk-5F_5RVAgD8ZaUhoCtswQAvD_BwE

"living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily"
-That is the point of an analogy, the comparable part is what is voluntary or not. Both of these situations are comparable because they are both voluntary actions.

"We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants."
-Why?

"the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust."
-I totally agree here, this is why blaming Mexico for the immigrants is absurd. The immigrants had nothing to do with the evils in that country and so should not be lumped together with them.

"Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place."
-Why is this the main problem? (I understand this is the reversal of my original statement, but you have not given a reason for it) The immigration quota makes it so that perfectly good and needy immigrants cannot come in. It has not been updated in 30 years to meet the current demand (this is why we have a backlog). Simply update the quota to meet the new demand and the problem ceases to exist.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

I answered you on the difference between legal and illegal immigration: legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not

We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants.

Even if you slightly change your nazi and slavery analogies, not only is living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily go become a slave or a member of a comcentration camp, but then the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust.

Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place.

-->
@Christen

What is the difference between illegal and legal immigration? I responded to this in the debate.

"Our lack of the necessary resources"
What lacking?

"No, the Jews and Africans did not voluntarily leave their homes"
Did they live there voluntarily?

"Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from"

I think I will bring back my analogy to respond here:

Scenario 1: Nazi Germany

"Instead of blaming Hitler and saying Nazi German law is being "used immorally to kill" Jews, blame the terrible country that these Jews live in" -Nazi Sympathizer

Scenario 2: Colonial America

"Instead of blaming our legalization of slavery and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" slaves, blame the terrible countries that these slaves come from" -Pot Plantation Owner

-->
@logicae

Once again, you're mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. I call you out on this and you still keep doing it. You have shown that legal immigrants help us increase our prosperity. The sources you cite talking about the benefits of immigration refers to legal immigration specifically.

If our resources are increased to the point where we are able to afford to care for more migrants, then I suppose we could consider talking about allowing more and more migrants in to help us. Our lack of the necessary resources to take in and care for all of them should be enough "evidence" that we can't do such a task, at least not at the moment.

No, the jews and Africans did not volunarily leave their homes and go out to get themselves killed and enslaved in other places. They were taken from their homes and brought to those places to be killed and enslaved.

Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from, with their terrible governments who are too lazy to properly address the crimes and violence in these places that causes many of these immigrants to flee in the first place.

-->
@Christen

"In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble."

That's just the thing, the places they are escaping from (the trash pit that Mexico is now), the length that they go to get away (risking it all), it cries out desperation, does it not?

Also I agree we are not unlimited with our resources, but I also think you discount our resourcefulness and that of the immigrants as they actually help increase our prosperity. (see economic argument about increased jobs and job pay) Assuming that they cannot take care of themselves in the short term, why do you hold so strongly that we cannot care for these immigrants (what evidence shows we can't?)

"It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing""
That's were I would redirect you to my earlier question: "what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?"

"Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will."

Using this line of thinking the Jews lived in Germany voluntarily and the slaves lived in Africa voluntarily and so their deaths were voluntary. The problem here is that you talk only of the actions of the refugees but not that of our immigration system. The analogy I made shows how law can be used immorally to kill. In the case of our immigration system, it is holding refugees against their will, who die as a result.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble.

There is a limit on how many migrants we can take in and care for. We don't have enough time, money, space, housing, medicine, and resources for all of them.

It's not about which is "more valuable". It's that we don't have enough for all of them. We cannot provide what we lack or don't have to every migrant.

We can't take care of "they" if we don't take care of "us" first. "They" need "us" to take care of them, so we have to care for "us" so "us" can in turn help care for "they".

It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing". This means that we have no way of figuring out what their real names are, where they could have come from, or why they are here, since they won't have any form of identification. The only thing we will have to go on would be their testimonies, which often aren't reliable, if ever.

Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will.

-->
@Christen

Thanks for your answer,

Now what does "in need" mean to you? Also what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?

You said later that we should be able to verify genuine asylum seekers, while it does seem to me at first like a fair question, I realize we don't ask this question to anyone else in immediate need, this is a guilty until proven innocent mentality. This means that immigrants escaping death can be denied life simply for not having the right government document or for none at all as many come with nothing.

Why do you think that immigrants risking their lives to come here, don't want to come here? I explained why they have to come illegally earlier with the immigration quota problem (they simply aren't allowed in legally). Further, when your life depends on escaping death through illegal means (as in slavery times for a slave or for a jew in Hitler's execution camps), would you think that to be wrong?

Louis Brandeis puts this beautifully, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable" -Louis Brandeis

I think our current border practice is deeply flawed, and a simple change in admitting immigrants can fix this whole mess, but we need to understand that law is not morality, it can and does change, and should be reviewed for flaws.

To Truth!
-logicae

Darn. Only 1 vote so far. Should have requested a longer voting period.

-->
@logicae

To answer your first question: It depends on what exactly they are "in need" of, and how many of them we can reasonably afford to take in. If we can confirm that they are truly in need of genuine safety from some bad things bad home, and we can reasonably afford to take them in without costing us too much time, money, or resources, then we will have them sent to a court where a judge can review their asylum applications and make the final descision as to whether or not we let them in. However, a lot of these migrants will claim or pretend to be "in need" of safety when they really just want to be allowed into this country to cause trouble, or if we can't afford to keep taking in more migrants, then we cannot and should not "help" them. We must put our country, our safety, our security, and our people first.

To answer your second question: It's not about whether or not we "think that these immigrants are fleeing opression". It about whether or not we can verify their stories, prove that they're actually fleeing opression, and confirm that they're not bringing in any dangerous diseases, or lying or making things up just so they can be allowed into the country. We cannot be too trusting towards those who claim they're "fleeing" something, because then, liars will be able to come and take advantage of the same trust that we give to innocent genuine asyluk seekers. When they enter illegally through the southern border, we are running the risk of having them turn out to be bad people, or having them infect our people with a foreign disease we don't know about, since we cannot possibly verify their claims or check them for diseases or drugs or anything they might be carrying. If they enter this country illegally, they obviously aren't seeking a better life. They are obviously looking to cause trouble, since if they wanted a better life, they wouldn't enter illegally and put themselves (and their children, if they have any) at risk of being arrested, deported, and/or separated for doing so.

-->
@Christen

Once again thanks for taking the time to debate me Christen. I wish this type of conversation could be more regular among Americans (that would solve a ton!).

I'm wondering about your characterization of me using appeal to emotion in the final round. I wasn't able to respond, but I would like to clarify what you meant. Do you think that we do not have an obligation to help those in need? Also do you not think, given the evidence of economic ruin and gang violence, that these immigrants are fleeing oppression?

I was very careful to show the context for why immigrants are desperate enough to make the journey here, so I hope you can explain why we should not be concerned.

Thanks!
To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Barney

Thanks! It's the first non-FF vote I've done on the site.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Very nice vote!

-->
@Christen

Spelling mistake, please ignore:

As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have "half" the crime rate of U.S citizens.

-->
@Christen

I want to thank you here Christen for the debate and also for the wait. In addition If my opening seems poorly explained it is because I could only fit the necessary information in, such as evidence and sources and points of argumentation. I will build and explain them after hearing your opening.

-->
@Singularity

Bring it on! ;)

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

I would use the same arguments I used to win against opponents superior to you, on Debate.org. doing so would Dox me, so I'll pass

-->
@Christen

Roger that.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Singularity

I see your interest in the topic. Would you like to accept? I only ask you make sure to have your arguments and evidence ready.

To Truth!
-logicae

A border wall also means we force Mexico to force their issues, I stead of shipping their dissidents to America. Why would you prefer Mexico stay a 3rd world shithole than to help them by forcing them to keep their dissidents there. Are you against helping our neighbors live the same quality of life as us?

I see, your argument is for open borders. Even if you have an open border policy, why are you against protecting the borders. Little girls are raped and treated like cattle for passage into the United States. Why do you prefer they are raped than we put up border security so they can come in legally and safely?

-->
@logicae

Why is it a bad ideal?

-->
@logicae

We should also get at least a week for arguments.

-->
@Christen

Done. Crazy how quick the wall has become a fad. Is there anyone still out there that still thinks it is a good idea?

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

The voting period should be at least a month.

Trying to bump this. Anyone know anyone interested in this topic?

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@bmdrocks21

Your probably support Trump's wall. Are you interested?

-->
@Alec

Agreed. The great Milton Freedom once said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welfare is Warfare on everyone else who is stolen from. Indeed it makes no sense that a corrupt and bureaucratic centralized power (our federal government) would do a better job helping people than us as the local community.

Great thought,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

If we have open borders, we should ban welfare too.

-->
@logicae

Indeed, to truth!

-->
@SirAnonymous

All the better lol,

Take care man,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Alec

I agree Alec. Taking a step out of the whole economic issue (which you can certainly make against the wall) It seems odd to exclude people who are in need (and no, this does not mean a wall = exclusion, but it directly represents keeping these people out, which is indeed exclusion) Now this statement is heavily contested, which I find also odd, because people don't just leave behind their home, family, and give up everything to just move thousands of miles into a foreign (and quite hostile) land, they do it because their situation is dire. Evidence of this of course comes in the form of migrants from war torn, poor, and failing countries such as Venezuela, Mexico (add in a good portion of Central and South America), the Middles East (for obvious reasons), and most of Africa.
Contrary to many that support the wall, I think it is not horrible to let these people in to struggle for a better situation and grow to be good hardworking citizens. If they don't, then they are no worse than the criminals we currently have. It is simply a part to whole fallacy to discount the many desperate and hard working migrants for the few criminals widely publicized on big media and social media.
But even this ignores the crux of the issue: Whether we as a country have an obligation to help our neighbors. I think this question is simply answered in your daily lives. Whenever you see that guy on the side of the road with the flat tire or that old lady asking for help to reach a store shelf, you are actively engaging to help your neighbor. This is also applied to a greater scale as well, as migrants are just our many neighbors in need. Can we not at least let them have the same opportunity to struggle as we do?

I think we should,
you guys tell me what you think,

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

I'm not really considering accepting it. If you reread my post, it's a series of horrible puns. In any case, I already have a different debate planned (I haven't posted it yet because I want to have my R1 argument written beforehand), and I only do one debate at a time.
This debate does look interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading it.