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
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?