Instigator / Pro
12
1455
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic

Wall on Mexican Border

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
24
Sources points
4
16
Spelling and grammar points
2
8
Conduct points
0
8

With 8 votes and 44 points ahead, the winner is ...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
56
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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.

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-99001
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. 

Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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.