The Instigator
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
John_Quincy_Adams
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points

A mine field on the border would be much more effective than a fence.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,458 times Debate No: 2766
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

ericjpomeroy

Pro

A fence on the border is not security. A person with a pair of wire cutters can get past that little obstacle. Eventually there will be large sections of the fence that have been knocked down and cut to pieces. A fence will also be harder to maintain.
A mine field will not only be more secure, but it will be a deterrent! That is a 2 for 1 deal. I know what you are thinking, can't they just use a metal detector? That is why we use all sorts of different mines, plastic mines, metal mines, mines designed to injure, mines designed to kill, they even have wooden mines that throw nasty splinters everywhere. Once a person decides to enter our country illegally and sees his buddy blown to pieces, his priorities will change quickly.
John_Quincy_Adams

Con

The idea of using landmines to prevent unauthorized entry into our nation strikes me as ludicrious. To inflict violence and death upon individuals to prevent them from them from entering the country seems mildly abhorrent to me.

People seeking entry to this country assume that they can provide a better standard of living for themselves and their family. A family head who is determined to provide for his/her family cannot be deterred from doing so, it is often human nature. People try to navigate their way to Florida from Cuba on inflatable rafts combating basic human needs(water, food, toliet), dangerous ocean faring, and highly organized Coast Guard patrols. And some still get through. Individuals would attempt to brave this new set of dangers as they always have in inventive and not so inventive ways. And some would get through. Others would not.

These others who were not as lucky would be the biggest reason why said minefield would be almost immediately shut down. We still have freedom of the press in this country and our televisions would be full of bodies painfully exploding on American soil. Maybe a small family who bought a phony map of a minefield section from a former immigrant smuggler who lost his flow of cash would find one of these nice wooden shrapnel mines. Footage of a dead mother with a child riddled with sharp pieces of wood in his face and body crying in confusion and heartbreak would look very nice on international news programs. Our own country, not to mention our allies would force the government to discontinue the minefield after the first signs of continued human tragedy.

Then the military gets to be called off important work making former war zones safe across the world to come clean up our own house. Immense amounts of tax dollars would be wasted building and disarming something that critically wounds our credibility worldwide. All that because you'd rather have some people violently killed than live in the same country as you? There are a few words and labels that could be applied to that sentiment, but I don't want to go there...
Debate Round No. 1
ericjpomeroy

Pro

So your suggesting that a fence would stop more people from crossing over? Personally I feel that a minefield would be much more effective, and it would slow the flow of illegal immigration more than a fence. You state that the head of a house hold who is determined to provide for his family will find a way. That is very true. But to use Cuba as an example, the numbers that cross the border in Mexico dwarf the numbers that come from cuba in a raft, simply because it is more dangerous. Now the debate isn't whether it is moral, or humane to do so, and I recognize that or "free press"(which isn't free at all, but that is a different debate) would be down there to try and shutdown the minefield. But they have been trying to take our guns for decades, it hasn't happened yet. But it would be more effective and that is my point.

A head of a household would think a lot harder about coming to America illegally if it meant he may die. Also a gang banger, a drug dealer, and a rapist may think twice before trying to cross the border as well. If the mines were placed at random, and that was common knowledge there wouldn't be maps sold to families. It would also prevent illegal immigration INTO Mexico. A win win for citizens on both sides. Hell, it could get the ones who want a better life for their families to try and fix their own country rather than trash ours.

To close, the debate topic is "A mine field on the border would be much more effective than a fence.". That is true. It would be. Cruel, inhumane, fairly extreme, but much more effective than a fence. A mine not only stops the person who steps on it, but the people with him that see it happen. Mines are pretty nasty.
John_Quincy_Adams

Con

Minefield vs a fence. Lets break down how each one would function.

The Fence:
Let's say its a pretty good fence. Strong metal, razor wire, buried a few feet, maybe electrified in some places. Easily reparable, easily patrolled. Plenty of willing individuals who are afraid of foreigners already patrol joyfully with their guns. When someone climbs, digs or cuts through the fence it is a simple and easy repair. If they even have the time to disable the eletricity or not filet their hands on the razor wire or get spotted by an INS agent. I'm telling you this fence rocks. Heck a little ditch in front of it full of razor wire would work too. No one's stepping in that before they step on a minefield.

The Minefield:
Ok so somehow this minefield is given the go ahead to be built. It's going to have to be a good minefield obviously. 50 yards at the very least, although upwards of 200 yards would be optimal. How long is the border, close to 1000 miles maybe? That is a really awesome minefield. Biggest best minefield in the world easy. Plant a few million mines and we've got the most effective killing zone besides the business side of an AC 130 Spectre. Let's figure out how to maintain this minefield. If we don't want those horrible foreigners getting into our soil we'll have to make the minefield fairly dense, as dense as you can without causing chain reactions, I'm not sure what that would be. Now this will take some time to construct, quite some time I'm sure.
It'll be a shame how many rapists and gangbangers will be able to easily sneak into the Southwest to spread carnage during this construction. But that'll just be for awhile. Then we gots us a beeeg minefield blowin foreigners up. Well then theres the staffing of this giant minefield. The U.S. military would have to constantly replace mines because of the amount set off by people trying to cross (and they would, often)and random wildlife getting in. And we would have to replace them or else it'd be easy to see where to cross. Then of course we would have to stock the minefield (our side of course) with emergency medical resources in case theres an accident with one of our brave troops replacing mines. Plus we'll still need a guarded fence to make sure one of our own citizen's doesn't get confused and wander into the field of death.
You know what? I could keep going into detail the intense amount resources and services required to maintain and build this minefield not to mention the incredible high price of disassembling and cleaning it up but it is not nessecary. The unthinkable amounts of money that would go into this is ridiculous. Calling this a more effective solution than a well patrolled, well fortified, easily maintained fence is simply not true. It is not true. You propose using a 1000 mile calamity that would mire the INS into financial woes as well help choke an already ineffectively funded military as opposed to a well guarded, tall dangerous fence guarded by night vision goggles and pickup trucks full of rifles.
How could you call something that would cost 20 times as much (if not more)more effective than an option that with proper care would keep just as many if not more out since our own officers wouldn't be afraid to get near it. Are you even taking into account the great number that just smuggle in on covered trucks and tractor trailers? Yeah, they sure do. Your option is not more effective than my fence. It will not keep more people out than my fence. It would be the most ineffective measure the nation could take since the Bay of Pigs.

And decent human beings being blown up can be considered a win-win? Man, thats screwy.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
The fence is more effective at keeping our borders safe. Thats what the news media always says right? Keeping our borders safe? The minefield does the opposite of effectively keeping it safe.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
I'm sorry I didn't mean to use the word grammatically, I apologize, it was for all intents and purposes grammatically correct.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
I still do not think a minefield would work better. Also kudos to ericpomeroy. I read the title of your argument quickly and then your grammatically amusing opening argument and pounced on it like a like a fat guy at a buffet. Not realizing that it was bait to get someone to overlook your actual argument but only see the ridiculousness of it. This is quite apparent by your much more heightened sense of logic and grasp on the English language in your rebuttal. Underhanded sure, but very clever. Although my hat is off to you, I feel I present a strong case for my fence being better than your murder field at keeping the border safe.
Posted by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
A fence may be more resonable but a mine feild would definitely work better.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Anything that requires maintenance at the boarder is worthless, Do you know how much a uav costs? It's a monumental waste of tax payers money. Anything that a person is in charge of is worthless, they can be bribed and bargained with. Things such as electronic surveillance, uav,s and the like are worthless. You are relying on the person to say something. A minefield in front of a fence is best. A fence needs maintenance, yes, but the fact that it can't be bargained with or bribed makes it a good enhancement to the mine field.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
A fence is a much more reasonable option than a minefield.

However, most experts would agree that given the size of our territory, it would be much more successful to maintain a fluid border. With the ever broadening technology behind UAVs, and some of the virtual reality at Iowa State that has been developed to allow one person to control dozens of them, you could actually bring about a much, much more successful element of border control with a fraction of the cost.

Given our diplomatic stances on minefields for the last several decades, I'm pretty confident that building a minefield on our border would probably end our ability to have any diplomatic relationship with any other nation in the Western Hemisphere, which would be pretty bad given the fact that they're starting to import our goods thanks to our failing currency, and their ability to buy them cheaply.
Posted by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
Not to mention people selling maps of the locations of the landmines, and people finding ways to fly or glide over the landmines...
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kristiepomeroy 8 years ago
kristiepomeroy
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kusfraba 9 years ago
Kusfraba
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by scottynewins 9 years ago
scottynewins
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
ericjpomeroyJohn_Quincy_AdamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03