The Instigator
trumpfor2016
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
ADF28
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Is Trump's wall a good idea?

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 88050
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

trumpfor2016

Pro

Trump's wall is a good idea
ADF28

Con

Trump can not expect to have the Mexican people pay for his wall, if he does create the wall the U.S. would pay for it. This would just raise taxes and raise national debt.
Debate Round No. 1
trumpfor2016

Pro

A country is not a well defined nation without borders! There must be a wall across the southern border to lower the percentages of immigration.
ADF28

Con

There is a wall there, instead of building a wall and closing off trade with are neighbors, what if we partnered with Mexico to create jobs. It would take a fraction of the money and we would be creating closer trade relations with a very close country.
Debate Round No. 2
trumpfor2016

Pro

But what if it would make an uneasy alliance? We have a border for a reason, even if we shared jobs not all communities would except working with mexico. It could easily be used as another topic for republican VS democrat as for or against. This could easily split our nation into 2 and causing a "civil" war.
ADF28

Con

We as a country would not have to work with the Mexican people at all just a helping hand, you saying that more trade with Mexico would cause a civil war is putting people back to the 1500's by not allowing peaceful foreign communication. If you think so low of the people of this great nation, maybe you should go on the other side of your wall Mr. Trump lover!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: famousdebater// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] While the argument point allocation is sufficiently explained, conduct is not. There is some discretion with regards to awarding this point, but the voter cannot simply cite the use of a fallacy in one side's argumentation as a reason for awarding this. That's a logic problem, not a conduct problem.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SactownBoom// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively rebutted all of Pro's weak attempts at justification for a wall.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than simply state that one side's arguments were knocked down. They have to evaluate specific arguments made by both sides and explain, either based on BoP or weight of those arguments, how they affected the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by famousdebater 11 months ago
famousdebater
RFD 1/1

Pro had the entire burden of proof. Pro presented the argument of immigration as the argument used to fulfill this burden. Con presented a counterplan of using it as an alliance (ie. creating jobs). Pro responds by saying that this would create a civil war (this was unsourced but neither side used sources so this is fine). Con could have taken this debate but instead of refuting this point Con made an appeal to emotion by questioning Pro's views on the people of the US instead of providing a substantive rebuttal. As a result Pro wins on the basis that I am forced to buy the argument that without a wall there will be illegal immigration and a civil war will occur if we abide by the counterplan. If Con had chosen to actually talk about the actual probability of there being a civil war or had provided some objective evidence showing that American behavioral standards have changed then this argument would be sufficient to negate and for me to vote for Con as opposed to Pro.

I also award Pro the conduct point due to Con's appeal to emotion. This was a disguise as an argument however it was in fact an appeal to emotion so it shows a lack of good conduct to make an actual argument as well as disguising it as an argument rather than what it was - a logical fallacy. If Con had abided by my suggestion above as oppose to posting the fallacy in the final round that would have also eliminated my vote against him on the conduct point.

This debate needed a bit more detail guys. I don't know what the character limit was but it really should have been a bit higher than what it was. If the character limit was high then you both really should have been longer and you have no excuses for it not being so. The border fence is a massively pressing issue that the US is facing at the moment. People are having hours and hours of debate on the subject. There was so much potential.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
famousdebater
trumpfor2016ADF28Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by Peepette 11 months ago
Peepette
trumpfor2016ADF28Tied
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: This was a very thin debate PRO contends that a wall would lessen immigration. While CON rebuts that a wall would cost tax payers and trade relations would cost less. Debate to CON due to stronger weight in rebuttal. Tie S&G neither had glaring errors. Conduct tied, both respectful. Sources, neither provided any to substantiate position.