The Instigator
BrandonSiler2044
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Spritle
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Do we need a fence on the mexican border to solve immigration?

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
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,613 times Debate No: 18859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

BrandonSiler2044

Con

I am against the fence. That is all. Thanks for participating, whoever does.
Spritle

Pro

I am for the border fence. I thank my opponent for this debate!

Argument

The border fence is there to insure that illegal immigrants don't get into our country. The barriers are strategically placed to mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings into America. It is estimated that each year between 400,000 and 1 million undocumented migrants try to slip across the rivers and deserts on the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border. In 2005 over 1.2 million illegal immigrants were apprehended by the Border Patrol [1]. The fence is there to secure our borders and make sure that illegals don't gain entry. In 2008 there was estimated to be about 11 million illegals, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. This was down from 12.5 million people in 2007. [2]

Conclusion

Basically, if we didn't have our border fence we would have one hell of a time trying to round up illegal immigrants. There would be millions of illegal immigrants coming into our country for jobs, healthcare, etc. Without the border fence and the men and women who guard it, our country would be filled with people trying to be in America, illegally.

Sources:
[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
BrandonSiler2044

Con

Here is how you solve the issue of immigration. Stop subsidizing it by giving free healthcare, jobs, etc. And get our economy going! If our economy wasn't so terrible this wouldn't be an issue.

Also, its sort of unrealistic to have a 2,500 mile fence all throughout rivers and mountains and having soldiers just sit and wait for immigrants, especially when immigrants have ladders and many of them are coming by plane.

Plus, our national debt is at 15 trillion right now! There is no way that we can afford a 2500 mile fence! Were broke!!

A fence wont solve the issue, but the elimination of the subsidation and our debt problem will.

http://www.usdebtclock.org...
Spritle

Pro

My opponent barely touched the whole topic of the fence. All he did was state ways to remove the fence and what our national debt is.

And having a 2,500 mile fence is NOT unrealistic as it IS real. The fence to is to keep illegal immigrants out.

I honestly have nothing to rebute because my opponent hasn't given me a reason as to why we shouldn't have the fence.
Debate Round No. 2
BrandonSiler2044

Con

You said this
"All he did was state ways to remove the fence and what our national debt is."

First, I told you about our national debt to show you that we cant afford a fence!! We do not have the money for it.

Secondly, I didnt say how I would remove the fence. I just said that it wont solve the illegal immigration problem!

You need to solve the grassroots of the issue, not just temporarily fix part of it. Thats why we need to stop the subsidization of illegal immigration and get our economy moving again.
Spritle

Pro

My opponent stated "I am against the fence..." in the first round but never really explained why. He explains how to SOLVE immigration not why he's against the fence.

His only argument against the fence is our debt and the money it costs to upkeep the fence. The border fence is cheap compared to other expenses in the United States. The cost of the fence is estimated around 42 million dollars [1]. Compare this to the cost of security in airports which is roughly 8 BILLION a year [2].

Bottom line, the fence is relatively inexpensive compared to other things. I rest my case and leave it to the voters.

Sources
[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[2] http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I actually though CON won the debate. His points were good, but not articulated with nearly the skill as PRO. PRO failed to see CON's arguments, although I gave PRO a lot of credit for citing sources and good form. CON's poor form made his arguments tougher to spot.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Con, next time show the Penn and teller BS on the border fence, didn't persuade me but had a few good arguments.
Posted by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Right...
Posted by charleslb 5 years ago
charleslb
"Solutions" for the "immigration problem" that merely propose to ameliorate, i.e. reduce the influx of "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" into the brimming melting pot of the U.S. are of course merely Band-Aid remedies that fail to acknowledge the responsibility of the capitalist elite of Yankeeland for engineering, through the IMF and World Bank, the conditions of crushing debt and poverty in Latin American and the Third World that motivates the economically "tempest-tost" to leave their homes for the land comparative plenty. The only true solution, that is, for the "immigration problem" is the morally honorable one of forcing our reigning plutocrats to own their criminal culpability for visiting pauperism and privation on the countries from whence the dreaded "aliens" are coming; and likewise forcing said plutocrats to cease and desist from practicing the "shock doctrine" in, and to ameliorate the economic distress of the lands of the politically-economically enserfed South. In other words, doing the right thing, not taking draconian measures such as erecting an electrified Great Wall of China along the entire length of the border, is our society's only salvation vis-à-vis its "immigration problem". But then why would conservative politicians ever wish to actually seek ethical and effective solutions for a problem that serves them and the ruling class so well by misdirecting the people's attention to a foreign "them", and away from the incendiary truth that most of our socioeconomic ills are caused not by disenfranchised immigrants, but rather by our own society's power possessors.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's arguments were clear - 1) We can't afford a fence, and 2) Illegals are coming to get subsidized benefits, "free healthcare, jobs, etc.", cut those benefits and we won't need a fence in the first place. PRO failed to see this line of reasoning from CON, CON had burden of proof and as far as I'm concerned he met it. PRO has great form and well structured arguments and cited sources satisfactorily. However, his failure to address CON's points cost him the debate, IMHO.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really didn't make an argument...
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: we already have a fence though we dont need to but a whole new one and build it fro scratch. Con went way off topic only using the national debt in his argument. Sources went to Pro cause he listed many and the only one the con used was a reference to the national debt clock. Some of Con's argumetns were just retarded in nature so i threw conduct to Pro. Pro had an easy win here
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues that the fence is cheaper than rounding up illegals and shipping them home. Pro doesn't refute this.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued more compellingly and used sources., thus explaining my vote
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con only stated the national debt. The Pro proved him wrong on that single subject.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
BrandonSiler2044SpritleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no evidence as to why it should be removed. Poor debate but win to Pro