The Instigator
jackh4mm3r
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
CountCheechula
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
jackh4mm3r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 60280
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jackh4mm3r

Con

Re-Starting this debate; had problems accepting the debate suddenly. So, my first round is acceptance, Pro will start with opening argument. No argument in the last round by Pro to mirror the initial wants of Pro, the initial debate instigator seen here. [1] Good luck to CountCheechula, and may this be a good debate.

[1]:http://www.debate.org...
CountCheechula

Pro

Thank you for the challenge I got pulled into the same debate by another contender.
Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept.

Reasons for fence:
P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs.
P2 - Defense against an army
P3 - Jobs

P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security.

P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now.

P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well.

I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
jackh4mm3r

Con

As Pro is the stater of policy, it should be noted that Pro has full BoP in supporting action for a border fence. I now turn to his arguments, broken up in one place to create four arguments:
1. It will decrease illegal immigration by those south of Texas and Arizona.
2. It will decrease the trafficking of illegal substances.
3. Defense against an army.
4. Jobs.

I will assume that Pro"s arguments is based on the U.S. Federal Government building this fence, since any individual with the capability and perceived need of two big reinforced slabs with manned sniper nests has likely done so, and most individuals, frankly, don"t have the means to build a fence like that for their own land. I shall address points out of order to hit the weaker points first before moving to the stronger ones.

Jobs-"You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy...and snipers getting jobs as well." This is a fallacious argument because of the nature of government expenditures, which I assume is how this project will be funded. Government first gains revenue by taxation, borrowing money from the private loans market, or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, essentially creating the money out of thin air.

Taxation simply reduces the money the private sector has on hand in favor of the Federal Government; considering that private owners are connected by the price system to make better economic judgements and it will be the most politically connected, rather than most efficient, building teams that get a government contract to build this wall, the taxation method would be inherently wasteful to job growth. In borrowing from the private sector, the government is essentially taking all the money that would have started businesses or expanded them and then coming into the same political problems as taxation.

Which leads us to inflation, which will benefit the first receivers (those working on the wall), but will end up hurting the working poor and the retired the most; as the new money goes through the economy, the working poor and retired living on fixed incomes will see less of that new money as prices rise beyond what they own. Pro may claim this to be only a short-run effect, but when that short run effect affects a working couple"s education choices for their children or makes that one operation just to big to justify putting descendants in debt for, there are some really big human consequences. This may not mean the wall is not necessary, but the jobs point is moot considering all the jobs that might have been made in absence of increased spending.

War- "If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now."

First, highly unlikely; even Hollywood gives cubans a subsidiary role to a "greater" power in terms of foreign invasions, and the countries south of us are reliant on military aid from the U.S. to hold their regimes against dope-dealers and rebels; the U.S. is already fighting to keep puppets in control south of our border. [1]

Second, there is one place this wall is almost certainly not going to be; the cities that serve as checkpoints between Mexico and the U.S. You may, possibly, have made cross-country troop movement through desert wasteland untenable (though that waste makes crossing a fighting force with enough gear to arrive anywhere deep in fighting form pretty hard already), but you have simply made the cities a far greater target; they have roads to other major cities for troop movements, and they have suddenly become the path of least resistance. So, as unlikely as it is to occur in the first place and given the civilian casualties you invite in case of war, this point is moot.

So, that leads us to the next argument; Illegal Immigration. What exactly is the problem with illegal immigration? The arguments generally follow one of three points; "they take our jobs" "they just want free stuff" "they will vote for free stuff" Essentially, competition in the labor market, welfare, and they will vote democrat if given amnesty. First, competition in the labor market: So what? Jobs are not a fixed amount forever; jobs are created by production, and more labor means more opportunities for production. Claims abound that employers will skirt not only burdensome labor laws but actually harass the illegal immigrants and threaten turning them over to ICE. However, what group is willing to avoid justice between individuals for sake of documentation? This is a problem the government, the group supposed to be taking action in Pro"s resolution, can resolve!
Further, there is the case of welfare, generally in the form of public schools and ER rooms. And who requires that all school-age children, regardless of education, and grants benefits to children of non-taxpayers to go to college, and requires ERs to accept all patients? Again, the group supposedly needing to take action, when the ceasing of action it currently takes would again solve a problem.
So, what about the problem of illegals not voting for "traditional American values?" Don"t grant them citizenship! Allow them to work and live, paying for what they use, and you will have more production and real wealth, while not paying "free-loaders" or "fence-hoppers." Essentially, in this area a ceasing of action, rather than the effort of more action, would be more justifiable.

However, say this wall is built; what about tunneling? There is incredible problems in policing the border as it is, and illegals have learned many tricks to avoiding detection and getting into the country. How much air-power has to circle into Mexican space to keep tabs on the numerous tunneling attempts, not to mention possible networks?

Which brings us to drug smuggling; they would probably be a big funder of tunneling, paying for the tools to make tunneling possible and easier. The demand exists in the U.S. for the supply the cartels provide, and they will be heavily incentivized to get past that wall, whether by ship, balloons (high risk, higher reward), or tunneling. Such a wall would actually make defending the border from cartels even harder.

So, by virtue of an economic fallacy concerning jobs, the unlikelihood of war and fact that civilian populations become more prime targets, the fact that most immigration "problems" are either caused by the government or non-existent, and the increased motive for drug cartels to get their product into the States, Pro"s Resolution for building a really large, expensive fence is refuted.

I turn this debate back into Pro"s hands.

Source: [1] http://www.tni.org...
CountCheechula

Pro

I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds.

The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things.
The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone...

We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count.
A common cause.
Defense.

The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives.
Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place.
We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly.
Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers.

We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings.

Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE
Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore.

Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario:
BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar.
Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
jackh4mm3r

Con

Thank you for your response, Pro. The short nature of it allowed me to copy your entire argument and refute it point by point. Pro's arguments are in quotation marks.

"I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds."

So, essentially, all my points up until now have been dropped for the time being. That"s okay, Pro only has two of those rounds left, lest one wants to ignore the "no last round" provision to make this like the original debate.

"The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things.
The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone..."

Only point relevant to the debate: A wall helps with defense. Currently still refuted. As for "adding on to the wall," adding on what? If it"s a really good wall, then how much defense is needed to man the walls properly; tunneling can be used, artillery can be used, grappling devices can be used along all points of the fence, not to mention air-power and naval support. That is of course if such groups would have gone Pro's border route anyways; if the southern countries were to ban together and attack, the Panama isthmus would be the first priority, followed by any shore east or west of the wall that is less defended. The wall, framed in these purely defensive arguments, doesn"t account for the most likely means that a south-american coalition could conceivably win with traditional forces.

"We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count.
A common cause.
Defense."

You don"t stop drug cartels with a wall, and you seem to have U.N. nations going to war with U.N. member states; am I missing something here?

"The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives."

So, because tunnels are useless now, they can never be useful once the cartels want to have another avenue for smuggling? And they are not useless; they are used now in greater degrees of sturdiness, etc. for smuggling drugs [1]. The wall will eventually be passed over. Further, while the costs of tunneling are prohibitive now, they are more favorable if a wall is built; in such tunnels, depots for water could be maintained. In truth, a real invasion force would set itself up from a cornerstone tunnel system.

"Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place.
We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly.
Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers."

So now we are going with a resolution of 15 more borders? They have the same problem, and unless Pro (the one with the Burden of Proof) will state otherwise, having fourteen gates all at the border will be more burdensome to maintain than it will be for all the people that profit from bypassing them.

"We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings.

Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE
Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore."

First, since Pro is not in danger of using his character maximum; I request that a little more clarity be used in the fomentation of arguments. Second, happy government"s does not equal peace; 7 tyrannies constantly at war with their own people but not each other is still 7 states involved in great degrees of violence. A wall, in this case, keeps people from escaping tyranny; this argument of the wall bringing peace is odd. It ignores completely all views of international relations existing today; the realist vision would have power games being the ultimate decider, making the cost of a wall a big detriment in keeping power with the other States. The liberal vision encourages free trade; a wall will make trading more difficult.

"Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario:
BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar.
Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively."

Most of the big crashes following the U.S. housing bust occurred because of the tie to the U.S. dollar; a tie to Chinese currency may well help to stabilize the world in the face of a U.S. recession, especially when considering that the U.S. may well bankrupt itself from the creation of this very wall.

"Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall."

However the Isthmus of Panama is taken, the U.S. navy is divided, troops across the ocean have difficulty being moved back home, and the U.S. land offensive into South America is greatly hindered by the wall before the jungle environment comes to the South"s reprieve and preferred place of engaging the enemy. It is so good that the U.S. nearly bankrupted itself building this wall.

"Thank you"

And thank you, Pro. I look forward to a refutation of points I have made outside of defense.

[1]https://www.youtube.com...
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jackh4mm3r

Con

I shall extend arguments as we move on to our final round of debate.
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jackh4mm3r

Con

Arguments extended. Please note that, according to the rules set forth in round 1, this debate is over. Awaiting a "no round as agreed" or the time limit to enter the voting period.
CountCheechula

Pro

Sorry computer went wacko for some five days, I have also suffered losses in other current debates.
I apologize and my punishment will be my record.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sky55Anchorage 2 years ago
Sky55Anchorage
China built a wall visible from Space, still didn't keep people out.
Posted by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
Count, is english not your first language? Because, if it is, please type it as if it is. You claim you will forfeit next round and re-butt next round in the same sentence. If forfeiting a round, please type so as your round to save time.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
Sorry, work you know and a friend visit from afar.
I chose to forfeit the next as well with a mass rebuttal.
To the crowd kill me on conduct.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
jackh4mm3rCountCheechulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
jackh4mm3rCountCheechulaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro results in conduct points for Con. Pro's arguments were easily refuted by Con. Also, only Con used sources so sources point to Con.