Instigator / Con
14
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#769

Should Trump’s Wall Be Built Along The American-Mexican Border?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
14
1535
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Kiss my goddamn ass.