The Instigator
bp1128
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nuka-Social
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 250 times Debate No: 94834
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

bp1128

Pro

It seems that the overall consensus is that Hillary is better suited to be our next president for the sole reason that it is believed that Donald Trump is "bad". As for myself, I am a Donald Trump supporter based on his policies (not all of them), and when I asked who I am voting for I get called a racist, a bigot, condescending, crazy. When I challenge back as to why they are voting for Hillary or not at all, an attack more on his character then his policies. Those who are Anti-Trump seem more upset on things he has said instead of things he has done. I for one, do not think he is not the racist, elitist jerk that everyone makes him out to be.
Nuka-Social

Con

In some regard, you're absolutely correct. At times people, including the media (sadly) go after Drumpf's grotesque personality more than his more grotesque policy positions. The people you are referring too, as you may know, are the "left-wing PC police/crowd." Before I continue, I should note Drumpf is not "anti-PC." Drumpf's just part of the "right-wing PC police/crowd," as he's shown many times before. Drumpf has sued or threatens to sue anyone who says something critical of him. He's threatened to "open the liable laws" if elected. This may seem like I'm attacking his personality. But this does show his extreme authoritarian leanings.

http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://gawker.com...
http://lawnewz.com...

Lets debate rival policies.
Debate Round No. 1
bp1128

Pro

Let's have a go at one of his hottest policies:Immigration. I think it is a reasonable policy to try and
stop illegal immigrants from coming into the United States. Looking at what he has actually said about immigration I don't
see any form of racism. This Wall that people are furious about. I believe that the main opposition to it is based upon
hatred towards Donald Trump himself. By seizing going after the billions of dollars in remittances sent back to Mexico every year, Trump will demand a one-time payment towards the wall in order for Mexico to maintain that cash flow. All he is doing, is completing the wall that already exists. As for his ban on Muslims coming from countries associated with terror organizations, travel bans and restrictions on immigrants in the interest of national defense has been done throughout our history. When attacks occur in the US in the name of Islam should we not want to close our borders to those coming from our enemies strongholds?
Nuka-Social

Con

Of course wanting to halt or slow illegal immigration is reasonable. What isn't, however, is the wall. The wall would be totally ineffective and the cost would be higher than what most people probably know. At first, Drumpf said the wall would cost about 4 bil. Then he said 6-7 bil. Then 10 bil. Then - "maybe 12." So he's gone from 4 bil to 12 bil. Experts say the cost of everything will cost 30% more than what he estimates, provided the costs of what it takes to just build the wall. So at least 16 bil. Now, the real cost comes in 7 years - when maintenance exceeds initial costs in those few years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This video with John Oliver goes into excellent detail of what else I can't afford to say here. It's funny and in some areas sad. Cites the info.

https://www.youtube.com...

This too.

http://www.pewresearch.org...
Debate Round No. 2
bp1128

Pro

Even if we do the 30% on top of what Donald Trump estimates and round up to 20 billion towards the wall (physical, detection, surveillance), then the 7 year mark where it exceeds initial cost, it still pales in comparison to what illegal immigrants cost the government. Illegal immigrants, 52% alone from Mexico the rest mostly from the Americas, cost our federal, state and local government $113 billion annually in expenditures, taking into account taxes the state and local taxes they pay on goods and services. Just at the federal level, the deficit is over $10 billion. Even if we make a dent in that $113 billion, it still outweighs the projected cost of protecting our border with a physical wall, more border agents, more surveillance and detection, a cost that in Mr. Trump's outline Mexico will offset. Illegal immigrants do benefit us by paying taxes, but the stress on health($5.9b), education($52b), and crime(170k+ convicted felons)exceeds those benefits.
Nuka-Social

Con

I don't know if you've viewed the sources, but the wall would lose more money than gain. It won't put even a negligible dent in what illegal immigrants cost the Government, for the wall will over compensate for that, and is far from a sensible solution. If fact, this draconian idea would increase illegal immigration to the U.S. because this would harm Mexico, so more would feel compelled to come here for work. Remember many illegals here have not crossed the border illegally. Many crossed & flew in legally and now reside here on expired visas. If you want to net positive gain, then you must look toward another issue - the drug war.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/want-to-reduce-illegal-immigration-end-the-drug-war_us_55e0b5f7e4b0c818f617d3d1
commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM
pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
beta.deseretnews.com/article/865651652/Why-Trumps-proposal-to-make-Mexico-pay-for-his-wall-wont-work.html?pg=all
Debate Round No. 3
bp1128

Pro

So just ignore the numbers I set forth?
http://www.newfreethinkers.org...

You're right it would harm Mexico. And again going back to the money sent back to Mexico, which is the "squeeze" Mr. Trump plans to apply to the Mexican government. Though remittances represent only 2% of the Mexico's GDP, much of the income is geared towards a developing Mexican infrastructure that income has doubled over the last decade. Not to mention increasing border crossing card fees and NAFTA work visas (both used by those on expired visas). It may not be feasible to cover the entire border in a physical wall, but adding to the already existing walls help decrease a number of entry points into the United States is. Trumps immigration reform calls for tripling the number of ICE officers and cooperation between them and local police to combat the gang and drug war spilling over our border. Funding would come from cutting tax credit payments to illegal immigrants ($4.2b)
Nuka-Social

Con

Read what you cited just now. That doesn't change my points. The points provided in your source just further my argument, in terms of cost.

By harming Mexico, you're harming America. As stated before, immigrants, illegal or not, come to America seeking decent paying jobs to feed their families back in Mexico. As stated in your source. By hurting them, they'll seek to come here even more.

To say you'd just fund the drug war further doesn't help either. As cited, the drug war is a major cause of illegal immigration due to the power it has given drug cartels. So why not just end it, and make a positive change across the board? Ending it would even save moneyAlso, to say this would patch entry points doesn't really add^. As illegals enter the country via plane, tunnels - and drug cartels shoot their product over with cannons. They'll find ways. If Drumpf wants to lower illegal immigration, then he should look for intelligent solutions, rather than "wall = I can't see it, can't hurt me."
Debate Round No. 4
bp1128

Pro

It doesn't further your point at all, I provided ways to pay for all of it. And how could illegal immigrants want to to come to America more, when it is both harder to enter, harder to stay and the benefits they seek are gone? Increased penalties for overstayed visas, higher prices for work visas, discontinued use of the Matricula Consular, ending birthright citizenship, and terminate the J-1 Visa program which will give jobs back to the US, all discourage illegals from coming in and legal immigrants from overstaying illegally.

And the efforts of Customs, Border, and local agents are laughable at the moment. There is little to no joint capability among the 3 agencies and they are simply spread too thin. Locking down the border allows them to isolate our side, while American military can increase drug interdiction (which the Mexican Government allows and works with us) which has great effect. Legalize marijuana to cut demand and match the efforts on both sides of the border.
Nuka-Social

Con

It does further my point - because it'd cost another trillion dollars, just like the Iraq War did. Your solution wastes more money for no positive, realistic, change. The wall will lose us money in maintenance in just 7 years and still be ineffective (because of other methods) and to continue the drug war (legalizing cannabis isn't enough) will still make Central Americans (& Mexican's) want to flee here, and waste more money. Your idea to disincentivize illegals won't work, because it'll just make them not even bother with proper channels, so we'll have less of a clear picture of who's here. More will come, because IF you hurt Mexico, more will seek decent paying jobs, which are here, to feed their families.

To disincentivize them end the drug war. To do so further, make E-verify compulsory. Grant amnesty to all 11 million illegals so they can pay their share of taxes to the Gov. This net-gains us money, is 100x more effective, and eases up pressure for border agencies.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.