The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
16 Points

Pick your own topic

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 19383
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




I was voting on debates and found this idea. So basically look at the issues section of my profile and find a topic you want to debate me on.
State the topic and your position, and then either make arguments or allow me to make the first arguments. Have fun.


Pro's profile shows that you are Con on the issue of a border fence. To keep the Pro/Con identification in this debate, the resolution is: "The U.S. should not extend it's use of a border fence." I will take the Con position that the U.S. should extend its use of a border fence.

The Resolution

A border fence should be one of the mechanism used to control immigration and the flow of goods over U.S. borders. There are already border fences in place and they should be maintained. Border fences should be extended as needed to aid border security. This should include a 700 mile double fence on the US border with Mexico.

A border fence is not needed everywhere. There are natural obstacles in some places and in other places there are less expensive enforcement techniques. The fundamental contention is that border fences are a cost-effective part of border enforcement.

The context of this debate is the present day United States. For this debate, there is no distinction between a "fence" and a "wall." We are talking about structural barriers.

1. Border Security is Needed

Border security is needed:

1.1. To control immigration-related benefit costs. Under the Constitution government benefits must be provided to every resident of the United States, whether legal or illegal. For example, anyone can go to a hospital emergency room and receive free medical care. Children may attend public schools and receive educational benefits without regard to citizenship. Even when times are tough in the United States, job opportunities are better than in poor countries. Immigration costs taxpayers an estimated $113 B, and in some states like Texas, the costs exceed budget deficits. [2] Without border security, the U.S. would be flooded with illegal immigrants, destroying the economy.

1.2. For health and safety. The U.S. controls what can be imported into the United States so as to exclude unsafe food products, lead-based paints and ceramics. It regulates trucks and aircraft for safety. It forbids travel from places suffering outbreaks of communicable diseases.

1.3. To protect against crime and terrorism. Watch lists are applied. There are visa restrictions that examine the suitability of immigrants from dangerous places in the world. Human trafficking is prohibited. "Human trafficking is the third-largest global criminal enterprise, exceeded only by drug and arms trafficking, … By some estimates, the industry is growing, and the [worldwide] illegitimate gain from the industry is as high as $32 billion per year." [1]

California currently houses 19,000 illegals in its prison system, convicted of non-immigration crimes, comprising about 20% of it's $11 billion corrections budget. 17% in Federal prisons are illegal. [6, 7] Additionally, the crimes they committed extracted significant financial and emotional costs on their victims.

1.4. To prohibit contraband. Recreational drugs are part of this, but there are also prohibitions on prescription drugs. Unregulated use of antibiotics, for example, poses a public health risk by facilitating the development of drug resistant strains. Endangered species and products derived from endangered species are prohibited. Fake prescription drugs, fake aircraft parts, fake luxury goods, and illegal use of intellectual property.

1.5. To reduce illegal arms exports. Fences work both ways, so a border fence will help control export of weapons to drug lords and other unauthorized consumers.

1.6. To collect taxes. Even if narcotics and other drugs were legalized, the US would still want to collect taxes on them. Judging from the "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco, the taxes would be steep, and well worth avoiding.

2. A border fence is effective

2.1 Most of the fence the US has built along the Mexican Border is ineffective because it can be easily traversed by climbing over it without a ladder or by punching a hole thorough it. However, effective border fencing has been developed and proven. Effective fencing comprises two reinforced fences with a patrol road between them. Congress authorized building 700 miles of such fence, but only 32 miles have been built. [3]

The effectiveness of the fencing is proved in San Diego where a double fence cut illegal apprehensions by 79%, even though the protected segment was only 11.8 miles long and illegals could go around the short piece. [4] The fenced area itself is 95% effective. [10]

The double fencing consists of two steel walls 15 feet high and 100 yards apart. Sensors placed between the walls, including cameras, detect intruders. [5] Additional obstacles may be included between the walls, such as barbed wire. The contained access road allows the Border Patrol to rush to an intrusion site before the intruders can traverse the second fence. One design features three rows of closely-spaced four-inch-diameter steel pipes filled with concrete and set in a reinforced concrete foundation. Other designs use welded steel walls.

Fencing less effective than the proposed double fence reduced illegal crossings by 94% in the Yuma district. A 1.5 mile strip of even-more secure triple fencing is described as "impenetrable." [9]

2.2 While most of the existing fencing is ineffective at keeping people from crossing the border, it is effective at preventing vehicle crossing. A vehicle barrier constructed on the ecologically sensitive border of Organ Pipe Nation Monument reduced crossings to nearly zero. [11]

2.3 The cost of double fence varies between $3.8 million and $10 million per mile. [5] 700 miles of the fence would cost between $2.6 B and $7 B. The 2011 budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $56. billion. However, a fence would last for many years, say 25 years, so the amortized construction cost would be about $ 0.2 B. Maintenance costs might double that, so $ 0.4 billion per year is a reasonable cost estimate. That's a trivial part of the Homeland Security budget, and it would be repaid if it it reduced illegal immigration costs by even a half percent.

In Israel, a 500 mile high-security fence was constructed in 2003 to deter terrorism. "Pursuant to the security fence's "sole purpose of saving lives of innocent citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000," There has been more than a 70 percent drop in the number of fatal casualties, despite there being other illegal methods of entering the country. Israel is paying about $3.7 million per mile for its fence – which includes all the techno-sensors and monitors that go with it - and the castle-like structures - once all of the engineering, construction, and operational costs are calculated." [8] Terrorists, willing to die in suicide bombing, are considerably more determined than either ordinary illegal immigrants or drug smugglers, yet their fence is effective.

The cost of border fence would easily be repaid even if the reduction in illegal traffic were a small percentage. I'm not arguing that a border fence is a complete solutions to illegal border traffic. It's a logical component in combating illegal immigration, drug and arms smuggling, and denying access to terrorists,

The resolution is affirmed.






Debate Round No. 1


^Note the above source is FAIR's complete study/paper on the source you are citing.
a)The education section doesn't account for the benefits of educating children, such as higher wages, and other benefits that come with education.
For example probably the most known Title 1: education program is head start (early education) which creates $9 in economic benefits for every $1 spent, this means that your source is inaccurately portraying the costs that these children "impose" on Americans.
b)Medicaid fraud. Your sources makes a rather odd assumption that the number of illegals who go to an emergency room because of a life threating medical emergency is equal to the number of illegals defrauding government health programs. This assumption is ridiculous, everyone who is hit by a car and taken to an ER by paramedics isn't activity defrauding the government
c)Your sources numbers don't add up in the B2 section they overinflate their final number by over 100%.
d)You're source is also double counting on the B3 section. They counted some emergency medical procedures twice.
e)I could go through the whole paper and pick it apart like I did above, but after browsing it I found a huge glaring hole in your sources study. You're source failed to include taxes that illegals pay, and the increased economic output of illegals economic activity. Sections a-e prove that your source is invalid and incorrect because your source double counts costs, and excludes numbers from the equation.
Now I will post actually studies that include the whole equation.

The National research council found that overall illegals pay thousands more in taxes than they get in benefits

They Perryman group found that in total illegal immigrants add 250 billion dollars to economic output every year.

1.2) The US has checked for the safety of imported goods for decades without the need of a border fence to do it. The FDA/USDA already checks food products for contamination, building a wall across the border isn't going to expand their inspections. My opponent needs to explain why all of the sudden we need a border fence to do things we've been doing for decades.

1.3) Homeland security and other crime related agencies already make attempts to combat human trafficking. A border fence just makes it so human traffickers just use a differ route.
A better solution would be to set up drones along the border and just have a police agency arrest people spotted on the drones; however with a border fence people would switch to digging tunnels and using boats making it much harder to find them and make the arrests.

1.4)I doubt the economic benefits of reducing the sale of certain goods is more than the hundreds of billions of dollars illegals contribute to the American economy.

1.5) I have a better solution for the drug problem. Legalize the drugs and the problem goes away.

1.6) In effect the lack of new illegal immigrants entering the country would reduce taxes, and economic output by more than what we would lose by catching people smuggling in goods.

2.1-2.3) I don't see a fence that cost 2.6-7 billion dollars and .4billion a year to maintain as effective; especially given the fact that the fence keeps immigrants out of the country who otherwise would enter the country and contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy.


1. Border Security is Needed

1.1 Con only addressed only a fraction of the costs associated with illegal immigration. He missed two of the eleven sections of the cost study [12], the sections that account for the taxes paid by illegal immigrants. If all his objections were correct, which they are not, the total cost would still be over $60 billion, rather than $100 billion.

a) The benefits of educating children come a generation later than the expenditures, If the US were running large budget surpluses e could afford more immigration now in return for a contributing population a generation to two later. Unfortunately we don't have the money now. The benefits will not accrue if the US collapses from overspending in the interim.

Con's source claims a large return from early childhood nutrition and education, but that's compared to having the population and not educating them. We are providing the education, and the net cost to taxpayers is still over $60 billion. Currently, about half of Americans pay no income taxes, so adding low wage earners hurts, not helps. Estimated total Federal taxes paid by illegals is $9.4 billion [12, p. 44] of the approximate $2303.5 billion total collected [13].

b) Referring to page six of the study, fraudulent use of Medicaid is clearly a separate line item from emergency room expenses. Con was wrong is claiming that emergency room treatment was classified as fraudulent. Emergency room expenses are a cost consequence of illegal immigration, but are not fraudulent. Fraudulent use of Medicaid is the receiving of welfare medical benefits for which only citizens are legally eligible. Emergency medical care is only $250 million of the nearly $6 billion in Federal medical expenses for illegals. My opponent did not address the rest. The bulk of the costs fall upon the states, which my opponent also did not address.

c) The total for fraudulent use of Medicaid is indeed incorrect in the B2 section of [12], however the correct number is given in the totals on p. 22 and again in the summary on p. 5. The error had no effect because it was not propagated.

d) I don't see any double counting. It's a different category.

e) Con says, "You're source failed to include taxes that illegals pay..." That's untrue. Section II (pp. 32-41) is a lengthy accounting of Federal taxes paid. Section VI (p 72) provides the accounting for state and local taxes. The summary on page five shows $9.4 billion in Federal taxes and $4 billion in state and local taxes. The Federal outlays for illegals are $28.3 billion and the state and local outlays are $83.3 billion. Both tax income and expenditure are fully disclosed in the Summary on Page three. The net of expenditures minus revenue is a cost of $100 billion to taxpayers.

Con's reference to the National Research Council is a blog post that asserts "Illegal Immigrants are Paying a Lot More Taxes Than You Think." I see no reference to the National Research Council, nor are there any numbers. The blog says that welfare reform in the 1990's reduced welfare payments to illegals. The blog was written in 2006, Welfare reform was undone by the Stimulus in 2009. [14]

Con's link does not lead to the Perryman Report he cites, and I can't find it. However, generating economic activity does not translate to an equal amount paid in taxes. Our total GDP is $14.2 trillion, and that yields $2.3 trillion in taxes. With that proportion, we'd expect the $245 billion to generate $40 billion in taxes. $13 billion of that is accounted for in the taxes paid by the illegals, and the rest would be by taxes on the increased economic activity of their employers. Hence if the claim of $245 billion is true, the expenditures for illegals are $113 billion and $40 billion is returned in taxes, including the imputed economic activity. The net cost is $73 billion.

Nearly all the activity could be generated with a legal guest worker program that avoids most of the expenses. Legal border crossing allows workers to return home, so they don't need to relocate their families. Unemployed workers would have to pay the overhead costs associatd with their employees such as medical expenses.

Does the Perryman report deduct the economic activity lost by illegals wending money out of the country? Immigrants send about $69 billion out of the US to Latin America each year. [16] We cannot be sure what percentage of that is from illegals, but the illegal population is put at about 12 million [19] and the total Hispanic population at about 48 million [17], so a guess is that about $17 billion is exported by illegals. When money is sent out, it no longer circulates in our economy. The effect on the economy is multiplied by the velocity of money, MZM. MZM excludes long term bonds and the like. MZM is now about six, [20] If illegal immigrants send out $17 billion, the impact will be about $102 billion. The claimed $245 billion would then be $143 billion and taxes collected on that activity reduce to $24 billion. The net cost to legal taxpayers is then $89 billion.

1.2 Methods of smuggling in illegals goods have changed over time. In the past we didn't need to x-ray luggage, now we do. Now there are established smuggling routes across the Mexican border that did not exist in the past. The border fence is needed now to adjust to the changing environment.

1.3 Con argues that if the border fence cuts off human trafficking, other illegal methods will be found. We don't know if other methods will be found, and if they are found if they will be as effective. The principle is that criminals are deterred by increasing the probability of their being caught, so we should deter them.

Con does not address the problem of terrorists crossing the border. Arabs and Iranians have been apprehended by the Border Patrol. [19] Estimates are that only person in three is caught.

1.4 Con says he doubts that stopping the import of fake or uninspected goods will be worth the expense. Counterfeiters' bogus goods cost legit businesses about $650 billion a year worldwide, [15] The US has about 20% of the world economy, so we'd expect at least $130 billion of the world's faked goods, and probably much more since high-end goods are most often faked. The annualized cost of a secure border fence is only about $400 million, so the e savings could easily be significant.

1.5 Let's suppose all drugs were legalized. When alcohol was legalized after Prohibition, the Mafia did not go out of business, They turned to other crimes. The crime of choice for the drug cartels is kidnapping. A free border would facilitate that.

1.6 Con asserts without evidence that the benefits of illegal immigration would outweigh the loss in taxes by the smuggling of taxed legal products. Since under an optimistic scenario, illegal immigration is a net loss of $73 billion, that's not possible.

2. A border fence is effective

Con does not dispute that a border fence would be effective. He only argues it would not be worth $0.4 billion of the $56 billion homeland security budget. It would save at least $73 billion and increase national security. There are a dozen reasons why the US needs secure borders, and a fence is a cost effective way of providing increased security.


Debate Round No. 2


1.1)The point isn't to address every point in the FIAR study; the point is to show that it Is not a reliable source. The FIAR study left out the economic benefits of education funding; that means the FAIR study is not complete and is incorrect because it doesn't address all the factors pertaining to the issue.
a)This is odd; con says that we do not have the money to increased education funding even though it results in 9$ in economic benefits for every $1 spent; this means that if we follow his logic we do not have the money to build a fence. So I thank Con for providing me with another argument against the fence. : )
b)Con didn't address the point I made so I will just repost tit. "Your sources makes a rather odd assumption that the number of illegals who go to an emergency room because of a life threating medical emergency is equal to the number of illegals defrauding government health programs. This assumption is ridiculous, everyone who is hit by a car and taken to an ER by paramedics isn't activity defrauding the government"
c)And my point is that Con's source contradicts itself; how reliable is a source that contradicts itself?
d)Child birth is considered an emergency medical procedure; Con's source already counted emergency medical procedures meaning that counting child birth again means they are double counting. This means that Con's source is not reliable.
e)Even Con's source says that they did not account for all Federal taxes; they take the IRS data and then cut it in half, why they did this they do not say. On another note they also for some reason unknown only use half of sales taxes revenue gain from immigrants; for some reason they believe that illegal immigrants only pay half the sales taxes that citizens pay. This is impossible given that being illegal doesn't mean that when you buy goods you don't pay the sales taxes on them.
f)I find it odd that Con objects to me posting a source that doesn't provide a link, considering the fact that he did the same thing with his study.
g)The source [14] for my opponent is also unreliable for the following reasons. It states that following welfare reform people on welfare experienced an increase in their income. The fact is that after welfare reform people on welfare experienced a 1,500 drop in their income [1]. The second reason is that it says that this is a ploy by ACORN yet the ACORN organization no longer exists [2]. Then it for some odd reason claims that all increases in welfare funding goes to illegal immigrants. The stimulus act expanded welfare funding but kept intact measures to make it so illegals cannot get welfare.

I apologize for posting the wrong link.
The group accounts for spending done by illegals meaning that money sent abroad isn't counted as spending given that it is spent in another country. They conclude that illegals add 250billion to the economy yearly (or 2.6trillion over ten years)

1.2 True but the FDA/USDA checks retailers, meaning the goods smuggled are checked unless they are for personal use or dished out to friends.

1.3 Considering the fact that human trafficking already occurs via boat and underground tunnels I think it's safe to assume that those methods will be used in the future. I still say that a better solution would be to set up drones along the border and just have a police agency arrest people spotted by the drones; however with a border fence people would switch to digging tunnels and using boats making it much harder to find them and make the arrests. Also funding for police and drones are more flexible then a fence. Those drones and police can go to other places to reduce crime while a fence can't.

How many terrorists attacks have occurred from people crossing in from Mexico? 0? I don't find the rhetoric of a bunch of anti-immigration republicans especially Rick Perry as very convincing arguments that terrorism is a problem on the southern border.

1.4 Most of these counterfeited goods aren't useless goods they are just goods that are made by companies who do not have the patent to make them.

1.5 Alright so all the drug kingpins who want to sell drugs will exit the crime stage while all the criminals who want to stay criminals will move on to something else. Also considering that almost all the drug cartels kidnappings occur in Mexico building a fence won't decrease kidnappings. Also violence and crime has been steady falling along the border area, in fact border cities are safer than non-border cities, [3]. This means that the myth that the border region is experiencing extensive amounts of crimesis unfounded and just scaremongering used by politicians to gain political points.



I apologize for calling Pro "Con" in the previous round. Pro is opposed to a border fence.

Immigration is a good for the U.S., but it should be legal and applicants should be screened. Polls reveal that 165 million people would like to immigrate to the United States. [23] Immigration controls are needed to ensure the skills of applicants are needed, that immigrants will not overwhelm the system of benefits, and that applicants do not have a criminal record. Immigration is only one of many reasons why countries want to control their borders. Border security checks the spread of infectious disease, intercepts counterfeit and illegal goods, blocks human trafficking, and, in recent years, helps control terrorism. New methods for evading border security continually are introduced and law enforcement counters with new security measures. Currently, the U.S. border with Mexico is a lure for all manner of illegal border activities because it is so poorly secured. A border fence is demonstrated to be a cost-effective method of enhancing border security.

The cost of a high-security border fence is modest and would quickly be repaid. The "fence" is actually two fences with a road between them and electronic monitoring equipment. Basically, the fencing slows intruders and the road provides a means of high speed approach by law enforcement personnel. Nearly all the present U.S. border fence is low security, being the type that can be climbed without a ladder or having periodic gaps. Evidence from the approximately 20 miles of existing high security fence shows that it is extremely effective. Moreover, Israel has over 500 miles of the high security fence in place, and it has proven effective even against highly-motivated terrorists. Methods of defeating the fence such as long tunnels have proven impractical.

The cost of a border fence sis modest relative to the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS spends about $57 billion per year on security. The amortized cost of 700 miles of high-security fence is about $0.4 billion per year. My opponent did not dispute the fence costs.

1.1 Currently 90% of taxes are paid by the top 10% of earners, and the bottom 45% pay no income tax at all. It is not plausible that adding uncontrolled numbers of low income workers will not burden taxpayers. Were it true, we'd be running surpluses.

A detailed study of illegal immigration costs by FAIR put the total costs to taxpayers at $113 billion. My opponent claimed that the study did not account for taxes paid by illegal immigrants, but in fact the study carefully enumerated the taxes paid, a total of about $13 billion. My opponent also cited a study by the Perryman Group showing immigrant labor adding $245 billion in economic activity. But even if that is true, that would only yield about $40 billion in taxes, including the $13 billion paid directly. Pro says the Perryman Group study does not count money sent out of the country by illegal immigrants as part of the economic activity they produce, but I don't see any such claim in the Report. However, it's not just the money sent out at issue, it is the subsequent effect of the money failing to circulate in the US. There is a factor of six multiplication not taken into account which reduces economic activity here. Taking that into account, the net loss to the taxpayer is about $70 billion per year.

Pro attempts to impeach the FAIR study by finding small errors and claiming that invalidates the whole study. He didn't find anything substantial. He found an error in a subsection cost statement, but the error was not propagated into the summary. He said FAIR didn't account for taxes collected, but two entire sections were devoted to exactly that. Pro said that half of taxes paid by illegals are excluded by the study for no reason. The reason is given on page 33. It is that half of the illegals work in the underground economy where taxes are not deducted or paid. It isn't that half are are excluded, half are never paid.

Pro claimed that costs of childbirth were also included in emergency medical costs, but he gave no evidence that the costs were double-counted. Some people put childbirth into emergency medicine, but most do not. The Wikipedia list of emergence medical topics includes everything from cardiac arrest to snake bite, but does not include childbirth. [21] It is reasonable to put it as separate line item because of the incidence of so-called anchor babies, births arranged to convey citizenship. [22]

I argued that by adopting a reasonable guest worker program most of the beneficial economic activity would occur without the high taxpayer costs. Employers could be charged for medical expenses, and workers could travel freely to their families in their home country. My opponent did not dispute this.

Pro claims that the report equates emergency room use with fraud. it does not, as I pointed out in my R2 paragraph 3. He repeated the claim in R3 saying I didn't respond.

1.2 It's much more efficient to intercept counterfeit and unsafe goods at the borders than at retail. If Pro's argument were valid, then we should suspend all border inspections, and no responsible enforcement person advocates that.

1.3 Pro argues that tunnels would be used to defeat a border fence. That did has not happened to any significant extent in Israel or with the U.S. high security fencing. The fence spacing makes tunneling impractical, and sensors detect tunneling operations.

Drones cost $8 - $17 million apiece [24] and they cannot arrest illegal immigrants. drones are cheap only in comparison to combat aircraft. A major part of the fence cost is the road needed to speed agents for apprehension.

1.4 Pro again gives no evidence of the effectiveness of alternatives.

1.5 Drug cartels are composed of professional criminals who have no limits on murder or kidnapping. Just as the Mob did not turn to honest work after Prohibition, there is no chance that drug lords would suddenly reform. In practice, it's extraordinarily unlikely that cocaine, meth, date rape drugs, and heroin will be legalized any time soon, so the likely avenue is to push these harder drugs. However, there is also precedent for turning to kidnapping as a revenue source. Professional criminals survive by crime, and kidnapping is a proven money maker.

Pro argues that overall crime rates are slightly lower in the US near the border than in the U.S. as a whole. Pro's source shows murder and assault rates to be lower, car theft to be much higher, and most other crime rates about the same. His source does not give the rates for drug smuggling or immigration crimes. "Near the border" means within 100 miles, There are few population centers that close to the border; much of the region is desert and rural. Drugs and illegal immigrants rapidly disperse throughout the country, so if drugs and immigration crimes are not counted it's mainly the rural crime rate.

There has been a general downward trend in overall crime rates for decades. That's generally attributed to an aging U.S. population. Since illegal immigrants are only about 4% of the population, they are not going to figure significantly in the overall trends.

The crime rate near the border should be near zero because of rural isolation. One rancher on the border with only the help of his wife and brother, has apprehended nearly 12,000 illegal aliens on his ranch in a 6 1/2 year period. [25] 3500 acres of border parkland are closed due violence. [26] It's unacceptable.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 3


1.1) Except that illegal aliens get very few benefits and still pay taxes; resulting in them paying more in taxes than they get in benefits. Also the 45% myth is just republicans again being dishonest; saying 45% of Americans don't pay income taxes would be like saying only smokers pay cigarette taxes; Federal income taxes only make up half of federal revenue. People who don't pay income taxes still pay payroll taxes etc etc.
The FAIR study as I've pointed out was flawed and inaccurate; they double counted, left out many taxes that illegal's pay and had a bunch of other flaws. I also posted 2 other studies that showed that illegal's create more economic benefits then the benefits they get.
The FAIR study did equate the number of people who got to the ER as the same number of people defrauding the government.
The FAIR study only counted payroll and sales taxes paid by half of illegal's why they left out have of working illegal's they did not say
1.2)Very few counterfeit goods or unsafe goods come through the border; and counterfeit goods do not harm American's they just provide them with name brand goods that are made by different manufactures .
1.3) There have been drug tunnels that end miles away from the border, meaning a fence won't deter drug tunnels because the tunnels don't end were the fence is.
Drone do not arrest criminals crossing the border but they can alert police to go arrest those; with a fence you still need police patrolling the fence to catch people climbing it. Drones cost 17 million apiece and a few dozen drones would be enough to monitor the border; I cannot say how effective they are but I believe they will be more effective due to being more mobile.

My opponent links to a source of a rancher who has apprehended 12,000 illegal's crossing his land and say that this is evidence of massive crime due to illegal's; his example is like comparing apples and organs. You use immigration offense and say that illegal's crossing the border is comparable to murder and theft.


To keep the number of arguments even at three each, I'll pass on adding to the debate in this round.

I urge readers to look carefully at the specifc support cited for assertions made by either of us. New arguments made in the last round should be ignored, as is standard in debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
I'll pass on the last argument, so that we each have three rounds of actual debate.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
Must it be from the Big Issues section?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter votebomb Teafood
Vote Placed by Teafood 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made good arguemtns that drones and other forms of polcei activity would be more effective than a wall
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 gave more accurate arguments regarding the economic impact illegal immigrants have on the nation and Con's resources worked well. I gave the con conduct because of Willoweed claiming that "Also the 45 myth is just republicans again being dishonest" with no proof and that was offensive
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: read the debate and found it quite interesting.