Should Trump’s Wall Be Built Along The American-Mexican Border?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- It will not stop drug trafficking.
- It will not stop illegal immigration.
- It promotes xenophobia.
- It wastes an enormous amount of money.
- It wastes time and labor.
Besides this, Drug smugglers themselves have admitted the same facts:
Clearly, The border wall will not be able to stop drug trafficking.
Ways to get into the U. S. When a border wall is present:
"One storm in Texas left a hole for months. Fences and walls can also erode near rivers or beaches, As the one in San Diego did. And they can be penetrated: Some fencing can be cut in minutes, And the Border Patrol reported repairing more than 4, 000 holes in one year alone. " [2]
Over:
"Much of the current fencing can be easily mounted with a ladder or from the roof of a truck. In some cases, Border crossers can scale the fence without any additional equipment. One viral video from 2010 shows two women easily climbing an 18-foot steel bollard-style pedestrian fence in less than 20 seconds. Smugglers can even drive over the fence using ramps. . . " [2]
Under:
"Tunnels are typically used more for drug smuggling, But they still create a significant vulnerability in any kind of physical barrier. From 2007 to 2010, The Border Patrol found more than one tunnel per month, On average. “For every tunnel we find, We feel they’re building another one somewhere". . A wall would likely increase the rewards for successful tunneling as other modes of transit grow more expensive. " [2]
Through Gaps:
"Border Patrol agents have told Fox News that a border wall would still “have to allow water to pass through, Or the sheer force of raging water could damage its integrity. . . In 2011, For example, A flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fence. " [2]
Clearly, A border wall can do nothing to stop a determined immigrant.
If a border wall goes up, Our children will learn about it. They will grow up being told that "we have to keep the bad people out." This will only serve to increase xenophobia, which incorrectly criminalizes innocent people.
As I have already shown, The border wall will accomplish none of the goals for which it was built. It is a waste of billions of dollars, Which can go to sectors such as:
- Welfare
- Public services (libraries, Fire departments, Etc. )
- Public transportation
- Fixing public buildings and streets
- Reducing the national debt
- Public education
Premise 5
How long will it take to build the border wall?
"One expert. . . Recently estimated that it could take 11 years for 10, 000 workers to build 1, 000 miles of steel border barrier, A length Trump had called for on numerous occasions during the campaign. " [3]
So not only does this waste money, But it wastes the labor equivalent to 10, 000 workers who work for 11 years on a wall that I have proven will not accomplish its job.
To conclude, the border wall should not be built.
Over to you!
1. Some of the examples just aren't applicable. Trumps wall is just that, a wall and not a fence with wires to cut through as was given as an example. To suggest otherwise is a mischaracterization of the structure that Trump has proposed, which in it's ideal form has been asserted to be solid concrete.
2. Some of these examples have been cherry-picked to established a less than favourable view of walls. For example, how often do floods and storms occur with such strength to penetrate concrete walls and leave holes which are then subsequently left unrepaired for months? My opponent has insinuated that such events occur frequently enough to render a concrete wall useless, and I would certainly be delighted if he could provide evidence for this.
3. Most of these examples are contingent on poor design. For example my opponent suggests tunnels are an effective method of bypassing the wall. However this may be negated by extended the wall sufficiently below ground level. Equally, a ladder may be negated in most cases by building the wall sufficiently high enough. If a structure does not sufficiently meet requirements, it is pertinent to modify the structure so that it does. Not, as my opponents suggests, to ignore the flaws and build it regardless.
4. My opponent has expressed that because of these examples, a wall cannot stop a determined immigrant. However this does not address the walls overall impact on illegal immigration and hence achieving its purpose.
"These projects did not lead to significant declines in border crossings, according to the data. Monthly border apprehensions in both El Centro and El Paso increased from November 2017 to November 2018 the first month after replacement projects were completed."
And some Israeli policymakers attribute the relative peace in the West Bank compared to Gaza—despite both having walls—at least in part to the West Bank's continued economic growth.
"No matter their original purpose, some basic principles behind walls remain timeless. Walls do work, at least for a time. There is a reason, after all, why states across the centuries have turned to walls as solutions to strategic quagmires. " [3]
So this debate is basically that one side claims that the wall doesn’t fix the problems it was intended to fix, thus the money is better spent elsewhere - whilst the other argues it does fix the problems it is intended to fix.
The problems mostly boil down to efficacy - if the wall is shown to be effective, then pro wins, if not - con wins. As con has dropped pros argument that illegal immigration is massively detrimental - that appears to be clearly the case.
Firstly, both sides agree that there’ll be no improvement in drug trafficking.
The main issue of efficacy is that con points out substantial issues with walls - that they can be dug under, climbed over, broken through - and pointed out that it requires holds and gaps for natural geographical features - like water.
Pro argues that walls work - citing the Israeli wall and the wall at Yuma.
In pros main response, he argues that the problems described, such as potential damage, crawling under, etc - isn’t necessarily a problem with the structure proposed (points 1+3). However pro doesn’t actually state what has been proposed.
Pro argues that damage and holes that aren’t repaired for months are not necessarily rare, and that con should provide evidence these would be a common occurrence.
Con goes on to point out examples of damage, points out that the prototype examples have all been breached, and undermines pros points of the wall.
Con also undermines - somewhat the fence and Yuma and Israeli walls - by claiming one wasn’t effective and the other was only effective due to large amounts of surveillance.
As for xenophobia - I am not considering this as I don’t feel it’s topical. While Trump maybe xenophobic, and some supporters may want a wall for xenophobic reasons - I side with pro that the wall isn’t in and of itself xenophobic.
My takeaways here is that pro did a lot of burden of proof arguments - claiming that he needs to prove a number of claims.
At some point one side needs to show their position is correct.
The competing issues for me, are that pro gives two examples of walls which “work”, though does not quantify how well, how much, and what the overall benefit is - though gives some arbitrary numbers quantifying the size of the problem.
On the flip side, con gives me some good reason to believe that the efficacy of the wall will be greatly reduced, and did better in quantifying the cost - and defending the efficacy problems - tunnelling was particularly well defended.
I read this about 4 times, now, and have come down on a different side each time I’ve read.
I’m really left with not knowing how well the wall on the southern border would work, not knowing how much of an impact it would therefore have, and whether - in the grand scheme of things - that money and time spent would be worthwhile compared to some other plan.
As a result - I am forced to award this as a tie.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Would you be willing to hold native born Americans to the same standards? Meaning if they aren't productive to society, they would get deported? What if unemployment benefits/welfare was removed for everybody? Then illegal immigrants aren't munching off of the system because no one would be.
No, because they also have to show why they are here and how they will help economically, you get so many people who will not help.
Should we accept any peaceful person that knows enough English into the country? If they don't, should they get assimilated in classes they pay for?
That depends. A large percentage of illegals don't have a lot of experience, don't speak English, or don't have the necessary requirements to be in the U.S. I believe that immigration helps the economy, but legally. We have to control and know what people are in our country and make sure they would contribute to society. Since the legal immigration process is slow, I believe in a comprehensive reform to speed it up a little and perhaps accept some more people.
Read something wrong. My bad.
Blamonkey doesn't have that many debates to his name. If he did, he probably would be #1. When did I say that? I already debated him once.
Why can't blamonkey finally take his spot as the best?
You did say you were going to debate him.
Why can't all the illegal Hispanics just go to Spain?
You should have focused on what the economy does on immigration. The argument for immigration is better than against based on economy.
I was slow to pick up on that, too. Once I did some debates made much more sense.
Oh. I didn't know that was the case.
First time I heard you take a right wing stance on an issue.
As opposed to the Canadian-American border?
Speedrace is bordered in red- therefore con.
Are you pro?