The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
deion43
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Border fence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,837 times Debate No: 20052
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Con

The border fence we will discuss is the one that is being built and as been built in some areas. 1 sheet of metal, woo poles, metal on the other side. This fence pertains to America. This is a fence alone, border patrol are not going to be in this debate. Nor is surveillance. The second version of the wall is just thick metal poles.

C1: Hurts the environment.

I don't see much of a need to care about this but many people care about it. (for personal protection no government mandates)

A study published in this month's edition of Biological Conservation warns that the black bear population just north of the border in Arizona may be threatened by the increasingly impermeable barriers at the border. Also fragmenting the bear habitat are the growing urban sprawl in southern Arizona and the expanding highway systems that slice through rugged terrain, the study found. [1]

It hurts black bears, and their niches which they share with other animals, in turn hurting a lot. :(

Researchers used hair snags — pieces of barbed wire set up near bait to catch genetic samples of foraging bears — to track various bear populations in Arizona. They found significant genetic disparities between black bears in the east-central part of the state and the subpopulation just north of the border. The border bears, the study said, were more closely related to bears found in northern Mexico. [1]

That is proof that they cross the border, and that it affects them.

Walls have caused environmental destruction, fragmenting crucial habitat for animals, including endangered species, funneling migrants and Border Patrol enforcement activities through fragile ecosystems, and triggering large-scale erosion. [3]

C2: Cost

We are in 15 trillion dollars in debt, if you don't believe that I will show a source.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, claiming superior experience as the leader of the state with 1,200 miles of the border, advocated a more complex strategy, combining fencing and surveillance technology with "a lot of boots on the ground." Mr. Perry said that building a border-length fence would take "10 to 15 years and $30 billion" and would not be cost-effective. [2]

Based on what studies do exist, the analysts say that building and maintaining a fence through the remote or hostile terrain along the border would run into billions of dollars, with no documented impact on diminishing illegal crossings. [2]

that ineffectiveness goes with my next contention.

So far border authorities have built 650 miles of hard fence along the southwest border, including about 299 miles of vehicle barriers.

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line. [2]

It costs a lot...21 MILLION $ PER MILE!!!!!

The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today. [2]

perry says 30 billion, they say 22.4, who knows. But extra spending is not needed.

These estimates do not include the costs of acquiring land, nor the expense of maintaining a fence that is exposed to constant efforts by illegal crossers to bore through it or under it or to bring it down. In March, Customs and Border Protection estimated it would cost $6.5 billion "to deploy, operate and maintain" the existing border fencing over an expected maximum lifetime of 20 years. The agency reported repairing 4,037 breaches in 2010 alone. [2]

So ignore the border patrol extra cost, but do remember the buying of land part.

C3: Ineffective.

The border wall is one of the most ineffective projects that the United States has undertaken. It utterly fails to stop undocumented migrants or smugglers - an estimated 97% of people who try to cross the U.S.-Mexico border eventually succeed at entering the country. [3]

Also the show Penn and Teller BS proved it ineffective, that video will be posted next round.

The planned 670-mile fence along the US border with Mexico has proven remarkably ineffective at deterring or stopping illegal crossers to the United States, advocates and critics of the fence admit. [4]

And, where the 600 miles of fencing are already up, along the borders of California, Arizona and New Mexico, "smugglers and illegal immigrants continue to breach the fencing that is up, forcing Border Patrol agents and contractors to return again and again for repairs," the Wall Street Journal [4]

But a May report by Congress' research service found a "strong indication" that crossers had simply found new routes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once famously quipped that a 50-foot barrier would simply spur the invention of a 51-foot ladder. [4]

and the show penn and teller BS proved you can dig under it, climb it with or without latters, and even with a sledge hammer go through it...in 3 minutes.

Staunch advocates of the fence admit that it doesn't stop illegal crossings.

"It's not the whole fix, not even most of the fix," Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Journal. [4]

C4: hurts people.

Instead of halting people at the border, walls have redirected desperate migrants toward perilous desert routes, leading to the tragic deaths of thousands of men, women, and children. [3]

Also border fence workers have been killed by falling etc.

And illegals get shot.

The FBI is investigating a deadly shooting at the U.S.-Mexico border between U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and a man trying to enter into the U.S. illegally. [5]

The suspect, who was shot and killed Tuesday night near San Ysidro Port of Entry, was throwing rocks at the agents when he was shot and killed officials said. [5]

So one may argue self defense but one should only use lethal force if dying is an option for them. Ex: someone hits me in the arm at school, is it acceptable to kill him? no. Also the agents could have used tazers that shoot or pepper spray to get them to stop. Their even trained not to kill unless they might or will be killed.

C5: might make the Mexicans mad:

The Mexican president said this:

"It is deplorable to go ahead with this decision of the wall at the border...The wall will not solve any problem. Humanity made a huge mistake by building the Berlin Wall and I believe that today the United States is committing a grave error in building the wall on our border. It is much more useful to solve common problems and foster prosperity in both countries."

So it may not make them but it sure won't help.

I will end this with a quote:

Rick Perry, the Republican Governor of Texas, was quoted in an Aug. 28, 2007 Reuters article titled "Texas Gov Says U.S. Needs Migrants, Not Border Wall":

"We need those individuals to continue to grow our economy...

If you show up illegally, without your card or you're here as a criminal element, I'm for throwing the book at those folks, but the issue of people who want to legally, thoughtfully and appropriately come to America to work and help us build our economy -- we should quickly come up with a program and an identification card to do that...

We know how to deal with border security, and you don't do it by building a fence."

sources:
http://www.nytimes.com... [1]

http://www.nytimes.com... [2]

http://www.no-border-wall.com... [3]

http://rawstory.com... [4]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com... [5]

Rick perry
deion43

Pro

Since I am more familiar with the LD Aff. format I will present the affirmative case.
NOTE: I really don't feel like looking up evidence so basically I'm going to wing it.
Since my opponent brings up the call that Border Fences pertains to America,no other evidence relating to other countries should be brought up. If again other evidence rather then the America is brought disregards all contentions and evidences. Ok lets get started...

1C: Border Fences provide security
The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. The America people don't put border fences to Hurt People or to even "might make the Mexicans mad". The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective. They don't put them up to spend the "governments money" again they put them up to provide security to the countries society. Which leads me to my next contention.

2C:Keeps illegal people out
It is really simple people come and go but the reason border fences are provided is to keep the illegal people out. The people that are surrounded by the border are the ones that we try to keep from coming to the Americas. The reason we don't allow them to come is because they cause the problems, and the truth is we always have to be the situation. Also the government doesn't hurt the people the people hurt them self. They know the laws of the border fences and still people try to cross the border. Again it is simple we have to keep illegal immigrants out. The way we do this is by border fences. This leads me to my final contention.

3C: Also keeps the illegal drugs out
If we keep the illegal people out then we can also keep the drug wars/drug lords out. just like 9/11 people can just come in an make a big mess. See if we restrict the drugs and the people from coming in it lowers the catastrophe from the income. Without the border fences drug dealers can come and go. This is the last thing we have on our laundry list, is for the people from other countries ruining the America civilization. So basically the one thing we want for the America's people is safety. We most certainly can not achieved that without out border fences.

So in conclusion, vote in Affirmation of this topic... Border Fences do good rather then harm. Again they allow the sense of security,while keeping illegal people out, and keeping the drugs out from the Nation Which We Stand United.

NOTE AGAIN: I didn't know if the pro. is to counter the con. Usually the pro presents his case and the con counters and presents case. Kind of confusing but yeah thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

hello again, thans for the response.

Let me basically disprove all of your contentions before I...attack them.

"I really don't feel like looking up evidence so basically I'm going to wing it."

Not a good thing to say, you tell me and the voters that u have not even spent a second researching the topic, henderig you unknowlagable (is that a word) on the topic. A better word would be uninformed.

"The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. "

You say it provies "a sense of security". So, that's a placibo. It is only good in medicine, but on a topic like this placibos are bad. I have proven that it is ineffective, therefore not providing security at all.

"The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective."

No thats not true, my evidence shows opposite and every study that looks at this shows that the border fence is USELESS. How is something that can be penetrated in 1:30-4 minutes be effective?

"Keeps illegal people out"

I have rendered that innefective therefor it probably doesn't keep many illegals out. And it may keep family's out as the family says "I do not want my 2 year ond daughter on that", but they can boat and go around. Also there are checkpoints thlet you cross for a few hours total and all you have to do is get through that and walk and or drive north.

"Also keeps the illegal drugs out"

Um it hasn't worked up to now for one thing. Also I have provn it INNEFECTIVE. Sorry for the repitition jez.

COclusion to the rebuttals:

His whole argument revolves around the fences 'effectiveness' yet he has provided no sources or proof that it is effective. His contentions basically say "it is effective, so it works" But that is not the case.

Also usually drops, not refuting my main contentions, is counted as consessions. SO you have just said my whole case is corret without actually saying it.

C1: Hurts the enviroment

Conchise County, Ariz — Bill Odle lives 385 feet from the border wall that separates Arizona and Mexico — so close he can see it from his straw-bale house.

And he’s seen firsthand the environmental degradation the 670-mile fence has inflicted on the surrounding area. [1]

SO he's seen the damage.

What it has done instead is fragment an already stretched environment and prevent animals from accessing large portions of their habitats, which is pushing some toward extinction. [1]

so it makes things go extinct and threatens them.

Bill Odle, who lives next to the border wall, says he's seen first-hand its negative environmental impact. [1]

The U.S.-Mexico border fence will make life harder on some South Texas farmers, damage valuable wildlife habitat, impair views and generally become an obstacle to border life [2]

that = bad eviromental impact.

C2: cost

Um...I have provedt that it costs a lot. So I needn't expand here. But lets just add one snidbit.

Congress recently decided that the best way to protect America was to build a wall. So now taxpayers are paying for a barrier that later this year will extend 670 miles across our southern border. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at nearly $2 billion and an additional $260 million per year just to maintain the fence. [3]

C3: ineffective

Let's do this again.

But while the fence is hundreds of miles long, the border is thousands of miles long, so most of the border will remain unfenced. And even where there is a fence, illegal immigrants determined to get in can get around it. [3]

But while the fence is hundreds of miles long, the border is thousands of miles long, so most of the border will remain unfenced. And even where there is a fence, illegal immigrants determined to get in can get around it. [3]

So it is easy to penetrate.

There's also no evidence that the fence has reduced the number of illegals who cross, eventually. [3]

yeah is that enough, I proved it above I just felt the need to add on as your case relied on that belif.

C4: hurts people.

I needn't prove this either as common sense proves this.

When seeking alternate routs some families die in the deserts.

Or they fall of the wall when climbing over it hurting themselves.

Or when they cut through it the wires hurt them

or when digging under it a mishappen occurs.

There are many ways people can get hurt while crossing the fences.

C5: might make the Mexicans mad:

I have proven that hte mexican president dislikes the fence. Also they are the ones that started the hurts the envoriment concept. It may also make other latin america countries mad:

The governments of five Central American countries, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Mexico joined forces Jan. 9 against the U.S. plan to build a high security fence along portions of its borders. [4]


SO many goverments are against it. It is an intrnational dislike.

Conclusion:

due to it's costlyness, its effectiveness (none), and its international a enviromental downsides, the order fence is a bad idea. I urgeyou to vote con on this debate.

I like quotes right now so I'll finish with one.

"The security fence is reversible. Human lives are irreversible."-Silvon Shalom




sources:

http://pavementpieces.com... [1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2]

http://abcnews.go.com... [3]

http://www.finalcall.com... [4]
deion43

Pro

My opp. failed to understand the duty of rebuttals the duty of the rebuttals is to refute and restate. The problem is is that my opp. decided to bring up new evidence. Therefore all the new extensions to my opp. case should be considered invalid. So if I am correct we are in rebuttal I will layout a road map. First I will refute my opp's. case then I will present my affirmative case again.

First my opp. 1C: He alone states that (I don't see much of a need to care about this) so therefore if my opp. can not even believe in his contention then who is to say that he believes in his negative case. Swiftly I can prove to you that my opp. can really care less about the environment. So again my opp. 1C is invalid due to the unbelief in my opponent's words.

The negatives 2C basically says that the border fences are too expensive and ineffective. Again I will prove my opp. contention wrong. It is simple you can't put a price on security and from that you cannot put a price on life. My opp. tries to prove that life is important. My opp. rebuttal he leaves us with the quote... ("The security fence is reversible. Human lives are irreversible."-Silvon Shalom) So basically my opp. contradicts himself with Shalom's quote. You can't put a price on security and again on life. So therefore my opp. contradicts his 2 and 3 contention.

Ok know to my opp's final contention which is that it hurts people. I won't include his 5C because apparently 'might make the Mexican mad' is a USELESS contention. Ok to the 4C he states that it would hurt people. No it won't, again the illegal people hurt themselves by getting into that predicament. Then my opp. said illegal get shot the reason they get shot is because the neg stated it himself. They are illegal. Then my opp. provides an example of a male who was throwing rocks at agents and got shot. My opponent provide a defense to the male who got shot. The last time I remembered the stoning of rocks kills people therefore the agents did act in self defense. This leads me to refuting all of my opponent's contentions. They are and should be invalid due to the argument stated. Now I will provide my contentions again because my case should be put higher then my opp. He clearly contradicted himself and doesn't believe in his case.

Again I will present the Pro case. Vote again for the Pro to win this debate.

1C: Border Fences provide security
The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. The America people don't put border fences to Hurt People or to even "might make the Mexicans mad". The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective. They don't put them up to spend the "governments money" again they put them up to provide security to the countries society. Which leads me to my next contention.

2C:Keeps illegal people out
It is really simple people come and go but the reason border fences are provided is to keep the illegal people out. The people that are surrounded by the border are the ones that we try to keep from coming to the Americas. The reason we don't allow them to come is because they cause the problems, and the truth is we always have to be the situation. Also the government doesn't hurt the people the people hurt them self. They know the laws of the border fences and still people try to cross the border. Again it is simple we have to keep illegal immigrants out. The way we do this is by border fences. This leads me to my final contention.

3C: Also keeps the illegal drugs out
If we keep the illegal people out then we can also keep the drug wars/drug lords out. just like 9/11 people can just come in an make a big mess. See if we restrict the drugs and the people from coming in it lowers the catastrophe from the income. Without the border fences drug dealers can come and go. This is the last thing we have on our laundry list, is for the people from other countries ruining the America civilization. So basically the one thing we want for the America's people is safety. We most certainly can not achieved that without out border fences.

So in conclusion, vote in Affirmation of this topic... Border Fences do good rather then harm. Again they allow the sense of security,while keeping illegal people out, and keeping the drugs out from the Nation Which We Stand United.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

"He alone states that (I don't see much of a need to care about this) so therefore if my opp. can not even believe in his contention then who is to say that he believes in his negative case."

I am a hunter so I care if it affects my game, as hunters wish to preserve animals so they can keep hunting. I knew it was bad but when it hurt beas and deer I began to care. So yes I care now.

"It is simple you can't put a price on security and from that you cannot put a price on life."

A border fence isn't your life. And that's a bad example as life is far more important then security.

Yes I can price security, bordr fence=30 billion dollars on top of our 15 trillion dollar debt. And another security measure, a lock on the door costs 20$, 2 ofthem = $40 etc. Life is not priced, security is.

"Ok know to my opp's final contention which is that it hurts people. I won't include his 5C because apparently 'might make the Mexican mad' is a USELESS contention."

Actually the mexican mad one is very important because foreign affairs is important, especially when they border you. Also it could hurt our goverment to goverment alliance. So it is very important.

"No it won't, again the illegal people hurt themselves by getting into that predicament. "

Sure they do but falling of a 15 foot fence with a 2 year old kid s not gonna help lol.

"The last time I remembered the stoning of rocks kills people therefore the agents did act in self defense. "

Yes it is but their tained not to kill. And there was some doubt to the stoning case as the FBI is lookig into it. So the FBI don't think the border patrol case is good. So it may or may not be self-defense.

conclusion to the rebuttals:

my opponent thinks foreign affairs and innefficiency are false. And that cost doesn't matter. But he has no proof to show the border fence actually keeps people out, and the enviroment is uneffected. So my case is stronger and ha smore facs, his are all assumptions. And he also said he is to lazy to look it up.

Also I am just gonna talk about my quote. It makes sense because that means that fences can be taken down but the people on the fence that fall, their mistake will always be there. So depending on the interpretation it makes sense.

Ineffective (this is a rebbutal for him as his whole case is dumb if it doesn't work)

In the show penn and teller Bulls*!t they disprove the border fence. It took only 3:30 to cross is. (3 min 30 sec). They got imagrants hired them to build a fence similar to the ones othe border then told the immagrants to climb over it. The econd test was go through it, and the last was go under it. Heres a website with the whole show: http://www.unitedliberty.org...

Yeah so how is a fence gonna keep illegals out, provide security, and keep illegal drugs out if they can get through it in no time flat. Just sayin'.

C1: hurs the enviroment.

proved.

C2: Cost

proved

C3: innefective

go to link above, proved. Also




look arizona has a lot of border fence yet they have a immagation problem. This also proves its innefectiveness.

C4: hurts people

proved, sure they ht themselves anyway but falling off a 15 foot fence with a bby in your hand is not going to help.

C5: might make the mexicans mad

I need to prove this a little more.

It might strain relations between Mexico and the United States. And I will prove this with logic:

the president of mexico already has shown this (pretty solid proof) and also look a fences like this: berlin wall started as just barbe wire, moved to this, then a prison camp wall. Mexico would not like to see this, therefore it may make them mad.

I have proven my case with little rebutall from my opponent. VOTE CON!





Here's where the map is from: http://americanpatrol.com...
deion43

Pro

Again as I stated in the 2nd round my opp. failed to understand that You Cannot Bring Up New Evidences in the rebuttals. Therefore disregard all of the new evidence in this round. Ok now to my opponents refutes. My opp. clearly brought up useless arguments in this round. My opp. fails to understand the basics of rebuttals. He got the voting part down but failed to understand the refuting part.

First with my opponents extension to "He alone states that (I don't see much of a need to care about this) so therefore if my opp. can not even believe in his contention then who is to say that he believes in his negative case." He tries to cover up his need to care about the environment with hunting "game". He says now (So yes I care now.)So basically my opp. tries to cover up his really big mistake by saying that he cares now. If I am correct the Neg should have cared at the beginning of this following debate.


Now my opp. tries to understand my argument that I proposed. I said "It is simple you can't put a price on security and from that you cannot put a price on life." My opp. brings up the argument that (a border fence isn't your life.) But According to Maslow's Hiarchy Of Needs it shows that without security and safety you cannot uphold life. So basically what I'm trying to argue is that security and cannot be priced. Because if you price security then life cannot be upheld at all. Again safety and security is a necessity to uphold Life.

In my strong opinion the following refutes are not considered valid due to being off topic. Also the arguments provided are really bad.(hysterically) To me it seems as if my opponents arguments in round 3 are left over from the silver platter. S again I am going to present the Affirmative case to show that my case provides the need for this debate.



1C: Border Fences provide security
The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. The America people don't put border fences to Hurt People or to even "might make the Mexicans mad". The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective. They don't put them up to spend the "governments money" again they put them up to provide security to the countries society. Which leads me to my next contention.

2C:Keeps illegal people out
It is really simple people come and go but the reason border fences are provided is to keep the illegal people out. The people that are surrounded by the border are the ones that we try to keep from coming to the Americas. The reason we don't allow them to come is because they cause the problems, and the truth is we always have to be the situation. Also the government doesn't hurt the people the people hurt them self. They know the laws of the border fences and still people try to cross the border. Again it is simple we have to keep illegal immigrants out. The way we do this is by border fences. This leads me to my final contention.

3C: Also keeps the illegal drugs out
If we keep the illegal people out then we can also keep the drug wars/drug lords out. just like 9/11 people can just come in an make a big mess. See if we restrict the drugs and the people from coming in it lowers the catastrophe from the income. Without the border fences drug dealers can come and go. This is the last thing we have on our laundry list, is for the people from other countries ruining the America civilization. So basically the one thing we want for the America's people is safety. We most certainly can not achieved that without out border fences.



The purpose of rebuttals is to refute and present case again. My opp. failed to understand the purpose of rebuttals. Vote for Pro because the Negative most definitely does not know what he is presenting. Vote for Affirmative... Thank You







Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

I am using a new format:

defense of my argument:

My opponent states I cannot use facts in my rebuttals which is absurd. It makes my rebuttals fact oriented and not just assertions with no evidence. So my rebuttals are factual, not just un-supported statements.

Also you mention the environmental argument. Stop with the red herring. I care about the contention now because as I stated it affects deer. So I didn't care until last round. Also even if I didn't care it doesn't matter because sometimes you have to argue other points. So once again, stop with useless sidetracks.

Also I can price security that's a bad match up. Also security of a fence that I have proved worthless...really? How is it secure if I have proved it worthless. So it is a worthless 30 billion dollar project. I have proved it infective. So it's a 30 billion ineffective tool. Also you can live without security, it may be unpleasant but it's doable.

Also the following refutes are important add-ons.

Now refutation of my opponents arguments...again:

1C: provides security

Stop c/p ing the same argument...please really add onto it. But this has been negated through my C3 argument. The border wall doesn't keep anything out, did you watch the video provided? It proved that you can penetrate the fence in 3 minutes. Also proving it a waste of money.

2C: Keeps illegal people out.

Once again a border fence doesn't work, so this argument is a fallacy and it is false. (it's both he he)

3C: Keeps illegal drugs out

This is a good argument, if the fence worked. You and I agree on the drug topic according to your profile but the fence doesn't work. I have proved this. I will prove it's failure to work when I expand my arguments.

--my arguments--

C1: Hurts the environment.

The federal government should take action to prevent environmental damage from floods related to the new barrier on the Arizona-Mexico border, an expert said.
"We believe we're beginning to see evidence of the consequences of ignoring environmental laws in building the fence along the border," Jenny Neeley, director of conservation policy at the Tucson-based Sky Island Alliance, told Efe. [1]

So an expert agrees. I have proven this point I think. I will show another example from another source though.

In the film documentary El Muro, first time producer Gregory Rainoff exposes a myriad of often ignored environmental effects of the wall's construction. [2]

So this video was done to show people the environmental effects of the border wall.

As mentioned, a poignant example of the environmental destruction caused by the wall is the massive toll construction has taken on the rare and precious ecosystem of the Tijuana River estuary. A shocking 90% of this habitat, home to at least seven endangered species, has been rapidly destroyed by pollutants and filled in with sediments from the wall's construction. [2]

So it made a few animals habitats and niches get damaged. :(

C2: COST

I have proven this and you really haven't refuted it and or proven a good reason why a fence is worth the money. So this argument could be refuted, but my opponent hasn't proven an effect.

C3: Let's re-word this, DOESN"T WORK

lol.

Judge Veronica Escobar of El Paso, a Texas Democrat, told CNSNews.com that the federal government's border security approach is "ineffective" because it involves building fences that are "pushing border crossers" to "more dangerous, treacherous crossings" or inspiring them to build tunnels. [3]

So they will just dig around it, take other paths etc. Also she didn't mention climbing it in 3 minutes, or ladders.

Escobar said that border crossers will "always" find a way around, under, or above a border fence. [3]

In fact, the Border Patrol's own statistics show that the border walls have not brought about a decrease in illegal entries. [4]

On the contrary, the greatest reductions in apprehensions, which according to the Border Patrol would indicate a successful strategy for stopping undocumented immigration, were seen in sectors that did not have walls. [4]

So according to this areas with no walls had less entries then ones with them according to border patrol.

The areas that saw an increase in crossings were California's San Diego and El Centro sectors, both of which have had border walls for over a decade. At the same time that the unwalled border witnessed dramatic decreases in crossings, heavily fortified San Diego saw a 20.1% increase. [4]

So places with walls saw increases. BORDER WALLS DON"T WORK, I have proven this.

C4: hurts people

Instead of halting people at the border, walls have redirected desperate migrants toward perilous desert routes, leading to the tragic deaths of thousands of men, women, and children. [5]

This is given some people will go around and die. Killing many people. Once again, people fall too and also die or get injured. A border wall is bad.

More human beings would die alone in remote deserts. [6]

The journey taken by migrant men, women and children who set out across the U.S.-Mexico border has always been risky. But border walls have rerouted migrants away from the safety of urban areas and forced them to walk for greater distances over treacherous mountains and through searing deserts. All too easily they can become fatigued, dehydrated, and unable to go on. In too many cases, they die alone in remote areas. [6]

:( sad

This month an Arizona Daily Star analysis found that migrants today are almost three times more likely to die on their journey than people who crossed in 2006, the year before the walls began to go up. In fact, the rate of death—the number of deaths per 100,000 Border Patrol apprehensions—continues to increase even as fewer people are making the trek across the border. [6]

This indicates that when the walls where erected people began to die. SO the fence increased the problem.

C5: might make the mexicans mad

My opponent has dropped this point, and the cost, and the effectiveness, and the one above, it has stopped. He only makes a red herring on my first point, and my cost one a little bit.

DO I really need to prove this point though? I have proven it with my quotes from the mexican president. So I think I am done.

--conclusion--

I have proven all of my points with facts and statistics. I cannot say as much for my opponent. Once again, he said he is to lazy to look this up proving that his arguments are false and not researched. I have proven my argument, disproved his by refutation and my it doesn't work argument. So in closing, I have proven my point with facts, my opponent hasn't, and I urge you to vote con.

sources:
http://latino.foxnews.com... [1]
http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu... [2]
http://cnsnews.com... [3]
http://www.no-border-wall.com... [4]
http://www.no-border-wall.com... [5]
http://notexasborderwall.blogspot.com... [6]
deion43

Pro

My opp. is using a format for this round and if I am correct it is defending our own arguments.

The con tries to cancel every single one of my arguments, but the negative fails to understand the purpose of my arguments. I will present my case for the third time...

1C: Border Fences provide security
The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. The America people don't put border fences to Hurt People or to even "might make the Mexicans mad". The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective. They don't put them up to spend the "governments money" again they put them up to provide security to the countries society. Which leads me to my next contention.

2C:Keeps illegal people out
It is really simple people come and go but the reason border fences are provided is to keep the illegal people out. The people that are surrounded by the border are the ones that we try to keep from coming to the Americas. The reason we don't allow them to come is because they cause the problems, and the truth is we always have to be the situation. Also the government doesn't hurt the people the people hurt them self. They know the laws of the border fences and still people try to cross the border. Again it is simple we have to keep illegal immigrants out. The way we do this is by border fences. This leads me to my final contention.

3C: Also keeps the illegal drugs out
If we keep the illegal people out then we can also keep the drug wars/drug lords out. just like 9/11 people can just come in an make a big mess. See if we restrict the drugs and the people from coming in it lowers the catastrophe from the income. Without the border fences drug dealers can come and go. This is the last thing we have on our laundry list, is for the people from other countries ruining the America civilization. So basically the one thing we want for the America's people is safety. We most certainly can not achieved that without out border fences.

The reason why I provide my contentions again is because the Pro shows the case with great contentions. You can counter them many time but the Pro still upholds his side. The negative failed to show you that border fences are bad since I refuted every single one of his argument and show that they are invalid. The negative is this round must prove that defending his argument,well it is worth defending. But No the con cannot even believe in his case. He contradicts himself by showing that Life is not important. I strongly believe that my case is strong due to the arguments that I provided. In a debate the negative must show that the pro cannot uphold his side. But in the other hand I the Pro refuted and brought up arguments the Neg could not even provide the right evidence. Therefore vote Pro I provide the greatest case in this debate. The purpose of the debate is to bring up contentions with a reason. It never stated that the contentions must be defended with sources. Therefore my contentions are worth defending. In ending to keep the society alive we must provide border fences. Therefore simply vote Pro. Thank You
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
k
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Con, when you are done writing your case, please click on the spell check button in the bottom.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
why doesn't your case have evidence?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
good luck pro =)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
actually roy the Israeli fence was slightly effective, I have a few tricks to destroy that argument though.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
oh yes sources are not required, and there is no format. thanks for the question.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
<sarcasm>The actual current border fence has openings at regular intervals so ranchers can access their land from a road built on the wrong side of the fence. You may want to put that in as well, just to make sure that what is debated is clearly a border fence designed to be completely inadequate.

The Israeli's have five hundred miles of well-constructed double fence, and it's proved effective in keeping out terrorists. But don't debate that, it wouldn't be fun.</sarcasm>
Posted by deion43 4 years ago
deion43
i was wondering if you want the negative to provide sources. also is there a certain format you wanted to follow. thanks
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsdeion43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: COn had better arguments and sources to back them up.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsdeion43Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: "winging it" just lost Pro the source point