The Instigator
Mister_Man
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico border

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Mister_Man
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/1/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 728 times Debate No: 112064
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Mister_Man

Pro

This is for the official Spring Tournament

First round is acceptance only.

Thanks in advance for this debate, Lan. I lost to you two or three years ago and hope to avenge my own death. Good luck :)

lannan13

Con

I accept this debate and wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Mister_Man

Pro

Hi there.

Before I begin, I want to state that I have no personal issues with most individual illegal immigrants, and I'm sure the majority of them are decent people simply looking for a better life. However the collective overwhelming financial, security and cultural burden they play on the country is too much to put up with any longer.

There are four main points I would like to get across in my first argument - Cost, crime, culture, and success in other countries.


Cost

*Figures are in US dollars

Trump is asking for $25billion [1], and the high estimate cost is $25billion [2] (I'm sure we can disregard the Democrats' incredibly biased nonsense figure of $70billion), so $25billion would be a good number to work with. The important thing when talking about cost alone is how quickly it we can see a surplus - considering illegals cost the country money when they come here in the form of federal and state government expenses, unpaid taxes, prison costs and taxpayer funded services, they run a pretty big financial burden on the country.

It's estimated that illegals are costing the country $116billion annually, a number that has risen by $4billion since 2013 [3]. Following trends, if a border wall were to be implemented, cutting illegal immigration down by approximately half [4], it would result in approximately $1billion saved per year, leading to a surplus by 2042. This is a reasonable long term goal which can play a major part in saving the country money in the long run.

On top of being a financial cost, the unpaid taxes are astonishingly high with illegal immigrants. While the average American citizen pays approximately $21,000 a year in taxes - leading to a total of $6.34trillion [5] - the total taxes paid by illegals is a mere $12billion [6], leading to an average of $960 per illegal immigrant, as there are 12.5million illegals living in the US currently [3]. So that's $20,000 that the country is missing out on per illegal immigrant.

With 310,000 illegals being caught trying to enter illegally [7] and a 40% success rate of illegals being caught [8], that leads to approximately 465,000 illegals continuing to enter the country illegally. So the implementation of a border wall - which would cut that number in half [4] to 232,500 - would cut down $4.65billion in unpaid taxes annually. Keep in mind that we are adding this number to the already existing burden of $116billion annually.


Crime

Although Mister President may have exaggerated a bit when he said only some illegals were good people, he had a solid point that crime with illegal immigrants is greater than that of American citizens. Comparing data in Arizona (a hotspot for illegals), crime rates are drastically different between illegals and citizens. Illegals are 146% more likely to commit crime, and almost twice as likely to commit serious offenses such as murder, rape, etc [9]. It's also important to keep in mind that the majority of these offenses aren't from people who simply overstayed a visa, so a border wall would be the most beneficial and practical measure of illegal immigration enforcement when it comes to crime and safety.

Violence also severely affects illegals who are hopping the border, from cartels executing illegals to rampant rape during the "hopping the border" process [10], the implementation of a border wall would cause would-be illegals to not even bother trying, or at the very most, attempt another way to enter the country, which would save their lives. Not only is a border wall beneficial for America, but for Mexican citizens (and other countries south of the border), as it would deter them from the dangerous trek filled with deadly cartels and deadly environmental elements - another area that has resulted in thousands of deaths over the past few years [11].


Culture

Although multiculturalism is a strength of western countries, nearly half of all Latin immigrants don't believe it should be necessary to learn English if they immigrate (legally or not) to America [12]. This number is most likely much larger within illegal communities, considering they don't have to pass any form of English test to gain entrance to the country. This fact simply shows that a cultural divide is more and more prominent with illegal immigrants and it's becoming more and more difficult to communicate with these demographics. If illegals had to immigrate here legally, they would be more inclined to learn the language so we could all get along as a nice big happy family.


Successful Barriers in Other Countries

Israel implemented a border wall on multiple border crossings along several bordering countries, and it cut illegal immigration and acts of terrorism down by up to 99% [13]. The implementation of a barrier between Spain and Africa cut illegal immigration from 3,700 down to 100 [14] - 97% effectiveness. Border walls have been proved to be effective across the world, and the implementation of one on the US border would most likely follow suit.


Well I think that's it for now. Looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Thanks!

Sources
[1] https://www.reuters.com...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu...
[3] https://fairus.org...
[4] http://www.pewhispanic.org...
[5] https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
[6] http://www.politifact.com...
[7] https://www.cbp.gov...
[8] https://www.cfr.org...
[9] https://poseidon01.ssrn.com...
[10] https://www.heritage.org...
[11] https://www.gao.gov...
[12] http://www.pewhispanic.org...
[13] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov...
[14] https://www.theguardian.com...
lannan13

Con

I wish my opponent good luck in this debate. This round I shall be doing my opening arguments only and rebuttles shall be provided in the next round.


Counter-Plan

For this debate I shall be running the following counter-plan: Resolved: Mexico shall contract private US companies to build the US-Mexico border wall and maintance based on the Saudi Arabia-Iraq wall.

In this counter-plan, Mexico will pay for the wall and contract private US companies to build a border wall based on the Saudi Arabia Wall (seen below) vs Trump's border fense [11]. In this round, I shall go into how this will work and how this is preferable to the US building the wall.



Contention 1: US Hegemony

Ever since the Beginning of the Obama administration, US hegemony has been on the decline where the influence in Foreign affiars has began to decline. If you ever look at his achievements under foreign policy, there isn't much to brag about. US has failed to help end conflicts in Syria and detter the Russians in Ukraine. Other global events show the US has began to deline post Housing Bubble [1].

US hegemony is extremely important to the world as it help deters terrorism. A huge weakness in the Obama administration was that his lack of foreign policy and wanning of the US Hegemony helped lead to the rise of ISIS. The US hegemony is key in detering terrorism as any and all amounts of US policy should be devoted to national security and through this, the world becomes safer. This was shown at nearly every major event that the US would lead the charge to help people in need around the world to help fight off injustice and the terrorist movements [2]. The most recent one was the War on Terror and the US influence over a great deal of the Western nations. In having Mexico building the wall, the US is showing that the US still is a world power it was when the Soviet Union collapsed, allowing US leadership to help contain world issues. In this stage, the US is showing their influence by having Mexico create the wall that would benefit both nations. This influence would help show the world that the US is still the Hegemonic power it was and this will increase US influence in many different events leading to the crack down of many world events that the Obama Administration has failed to stop. A collapse in the US's polarity will result not in a multilateral brigade, but an anarchy on an international level that will make terrorism more possible.

Today we have reached a new age of terrorism where we have cyberterrorism, biological, and chemcial attakcs on innocent people. With the fall of US hegemony and the rise in terror, these types of disasters are going and will soon come home. There have been reports that ISIS is currently moving into the US from the open US-Mexico border and closing this off will be a key way to protect Americans at home from terror [3]. Things are getting a little too close for comfort as after several terror strikes oversees, ISIS has labled the US as a target for a terror attack. After the attacks in Europe, it was learned that ISIS was spying on Belgian nuclear officials and with US nuclear reactors leaking. It is possible that the US can be attacked via dirty bomb or the US can have a Fukishima incident [4]. Having the US Hegemony increased, the US will be able to help influence their allies to increase their efforts in a war against ISIS and other organizations to prevent such an event from occuring as such an event would be deadly.

Contention 2: US Debt

We can’t project power from bankruptcy court.- US Senator Rand Paul

Today the US debt is climbing to astronomical numbers. It is $19 trillion and climbing. This disaterous spending causes US inflation, and on top of the US debt this will cause a catastrophe for the US and nations all across the world. [5]

People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [6]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the inflation will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [7]




This debate we have to observe Ceteris Paribus, which means with all other things constant. With the US spending continuing to spiral upwards, we will see the US default in the near future. Though many people will ask, how did we get here. The US is and has been following a famous economic system that was under John Maynard Keynes. He argued that we should spend now and constantly to create jobs and grow the economy. The key issue with this is that Keynessian economics requires deficet spending for much of it's effects to work. Keynes had only meant for this to be during times of economic crisis, but the US Federal Government has gotten into an issue that has destroyed the economy with debt. What was Keynes's solution for debt due to his spending? "In the long run, we're all dead." [8] This means the debt is passed onto our grandchildren and their grandchildren until they collapse under the burden that we have done now. Many people talk about how much of an issue the debt is today and the fact is that it's not getting any better. If we continue this crisis then the US economy will crash. What happens when the US defaults? The markets will crash followed by large economic powers collapse. Japan, a holder of well over $1 trillion of US debt will lose this money which will lead to an economic recession of 20%. [9] Many other countries will follow suit.
(http://www.youtube.com...;)


It is estimated that the US-Mexico wall will cost $25 billion which has yet to include maintance costs and it is shown to excede that number with maintance after 7 years and skyrockets will baloon. Israel's wall costs up to $260 million in maintance per year [10] My opponent has yet to provide an exact number, but with the amount of money will cost will have the US increase their debt which will increase the likelihood of US collapse which would destroy the Global economy as I had previously brought up. By having Mexico pay for the wall, the US does not have to go through this and could focus on spending in other areas or even having to pay off their own debts.

;

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
5. (http://tinyurl.com...)
6. (http://tinyurl.com...)
7. (http://tinyurl.com...)
8. See video for quick guide to Keynesian economics.
9. (http://tinyurl.com...)
10. (http://tinyurl.com...)
11. (https://homespunvine.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Mister_Man

Pro

Thanks, Lannan. Interesting counter plan, I was expecting something other than "it's bad because x, y, z," so nice.


Mexico

For this argument, we need to look at two things: practicality and possibility of Mexico even having the ability to build a wall to begin with, and the Saudi wall's purpose and results. The latter I will address in the next section.

Using your source [1], Saudi Arabia is expected to spend $40billion on their border wall. Given that the length of said "Saudi Great Wall" is 560 miles and the US-Mexico border is barely under 2,000 miles [2], it would be fair to assume that the dollar value for a similar wall built in the US would be in the $150billion rage. This isn't taking into account the portion of the US-Mexico border that cuts through water, which would cost significantly more. $25billion compared to $150billion is a big difference.

Given that Mexico's national debt is just over $600million [3], multiplying that by 242 and raising the debt to basically the entire cost of the wall is absolutely impossible and will not work. You've said that "Mexico will contract private US companies to build the US-Mexico border wall," but you never got into that, and the very fact that this wall will be at least $150billion just shows how improbable this scenario is. There are several questions that can destroy this argument: 1) What kind of company(s) will invest tens of billions of dollars in a wall owned by Mexico? 2) How would these companies gain this money back (with a surplus, as no company will invest a billion dollars with no return) when Mexico's GDP is almost five percent that of America's [4]? And 3) Why would US companies invest billions in Mexican infrastructure when they could invest a seventh of that in American infrastructure?

You've said a few times throughout your argument that "Mexico will pay for it," but I don't see that happening, and neither does Mexico. Mr. Trump wasn't able to get Mexico to pay for it, and the President of Mexico even stated that the country "does not believe in walls" [5]. So Mexico does not want a border wall, does not want to pay for it, and sure as hell doesn't have the resources to build one even if they wanted to. This is why America has to build it themselves, with American money, by Americans.

I may be jumping to conclusions, but if the first half of your argument is "Mexico will pay for it somehow," that just doesn't work, as they don't even want a wall to begin with.


US Hegemony

You're right that the US hasn't done a hell of a lot to help out around the world, but you haven't explained how having Mexico build a wall such as the Saudi one (which won't happen) instead of America building the one Trump has proposed is related to hegemony at all. "The US getting Mexico to build the wall" is obviously a better idea than the US doing it themselves and using their own money, however this just isn't practical or even feasible, as I've already shown. You claim that Mexico building the wall will "benefit both nations," but there isn't a single reason Mexico would want a wall to begin with. Illegals and/or terrorists are not sneaking into Mexico from the US, and considering the primary reason the Saudi wall was built was to prevent terrorism, this is a battle that isn't worth fighting, as it doesn't exist to begin with.

I've stated in my previous argument that less advanced, less expensive, and less time consuming walls in other parts of the world such as Israel and Spain have worked at up to a 99% success rate. To quadruple the amount of barriers and protection would be the definition of overkill, and completely unnecessary to tackle the primary issue that is affecting America - illegal immigration.

You state that "There have been reports that ISIS is currently moving into the US from the open US-Mexico border and closing this off will be a key way to protect Americans at home from terror," which is exactly why Mexico doesn't care enough to build the wall like you're asking. As I've stated in my previous argument, Israel has seen a major drop in terrorism attacks - upwards of 90% - since they built a smaller version of Trump's proposed border wall [6]. Your proposed barrier would, again, be overkill and just not a possibility the way you envision it.

We also need to keep in mind that the majority of terrorist attacks that have affected the US have been carried out by people legally in the country [7], and "hopping the border" is not a viable option for would-be terrorists. The very fact that there is a 40% success rate in capturing illegals hopping the border would be enough deterrent for a would-be terrorist to obtain a travel visa to guarantee entry, and not be tied up with the law.

To add to your hegemony point, Mexico fought briefly in WW2 but hasn't done much to help it's allied countries before or after. Mexico not being a world superpower has very little support to provide the US, but with that being said, even if a wall were to be built and a war were to break out on North American soil, Mexico would most likely have to intervene along with Canada as a war would affect all three countries involved, geographically and otherwise. On top of that, considering the fact that Mexico will not assist in the production of a wall in any way, the US putting her foot down and building the wall the way the US wants it will show that the US still has a backbone and will get what it wants done regardless of who wants to help or not. It will show the world that when America wants something, it'll do it, and that the country still is not one to be messed with. And in all reality, there are many larger factors that can hinder international relations other than a simple border wall, which plenty countries already have. And as long as those countries understand that this border wall is simply for the safety of American citizens and not to keep out law abiding decent people, there shouldn't be a problem.


US Debt

The number is actually $21trillion [8], and the wall ($25billion) would be a mere 0.12% of that. If we were to implement the wall the way you wanted, it'd add almost an entire percent to the debt. As I've stated in my previous round, the wall would pay for itself in a couple decades - decreasing the federal spending on illegals, not missing out in billions of tax dollars, draining the prisons of illegals, and saving money in a handful of other areas. On top of all that, with an immigration reform making it easier and less time-consuming to immigrate to the US, there would be significantly more incentive to immigrate legally and contribute to the US economy.

I feel like there's more I should say but I think I touched on the economic impact of a wall enough in my first argument.


So to summarise...
-Mexico does not want a wall, will not pay for it, and your idea of Mexico getting US companies to pay for it will just negatively impact the US economy even more.
-Mexico will be obligated to fight alongside America if a war were to break out on US soil, even if it were in order to defend Mexico from becoming a battleground. A wall wouldn't change anything.
-The wall as Trump proposes will begin to show a surplus in the long run.



Okay thanks bye



Sources
[1] https://homespunvine.com...
[2] https://www.usatoday.com...
[3] https://countryeconomy.com...
[4] http://statisticstimes.com...
[5] http://www.bbc.com...
[6] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov...
[7] https://openborders.info...
[8] https://seekingalpha.com...
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and for this round, since my counterplan solves for all of his disadvantages he brings up, I'll be addressing his 3rd round arguments.

C1: Mexico

You will have to forgive me as I was unable to go into more details as I was down to under 50 characters last round for debating, so going into much detail was a bit hard, so much of my rebuttles may be seen as me going more indepth here. I do find it interesting enough that my opponent is bringing up geographical issues, as that very same issue would apply to my opponent as well. Geographical locations such as rivers is indeed problamatic, but the difference between the wall that I had provided and the one Trump is doing is that Trump's is more of a fense, while the wall that will be built under my counter-plan has multiple layers and this includes a technological aspect with sensors and this can be placed on river banks and such which can detect illegal immigration. Under the wall my opponent has, this geographical concern remains. This would show that my wall is preferrable due to the aspect that it reduces human error and the inability to constantly reduce and halt illegal immigration. This is something that solves for my opponent's harms and his issues still remain in this regards.

My opponent states that the wall will be owned by Mexico and Mexican infrastructure, but most of this will be American companies and American infrastructure as private companies are doing this. Under my opponent's plan, the USFG is building the wall, which shows that under this plan the USFG will be taking on the entirety of the costs while under this plan, the US will be incurring no debt involved. President Trump has thought of many ways in which he will get Mexico to pay for the wall, these range from Tariffs to deal trade offs in NAFTA [1]. Mexico objects to paying it in a lump sum, but my opponent's plan to having the wall be paid for just saving finances from reduced reliance on Social services, this is more mythical than the way Mexico is already paying for the wall through tariffs and other deals that are occuring. If the reduced version of finances work in terms of the US paying for the wall, then why wouldn't it work for Mexico? The funding will likely come from trade and will be to US companies which will provide jobs for Americans and Mexicans alike, this will give the Mexican government to give lucrative deals to many companies willing to build the wall.

C2: US Hegemony

The relation is quite simple in terms of how it is hegemony as I have explained in my previous round. By getting Mexico to pay for the wall and be able to build the wall, the US is exerting their influence in the region stregthening their hegemony in the world and showing that the US still remains a prominate player on the World Stage instead of the US beginning to give up the mantle of responsibility to the world, which the continuation of this allows for terror cells and other rogue nations to flourish without US influence. The wall will benefit both nations, especially Mexico. The US currently has a construction labor shortage and this means that there is one specific place where the nation can make up for the lack of workforce and this is Mexico [2]. One of Mexico's stipulations in the funding of the wall could be a tradeoff of Mexican workforce, but, of course, these things are all speculation at this point of time. With this being a likely tradeoff with Mexico, this brings up an important concern for my opponent, with there being a construction shortage, how will his wall be built under the current issue at hand in the marketplace? Under the status quo, my opponent's wall cannot be built under the status quo.

The building of the wall will also benefit both nations, and this is through STEM jobs. Over the next 10 years, the US is expecting over an influx of about 10 million children to pass through our school systems and this plan, even if it inspires just 1% of them, we would see a massive boom in STEM jobs and as the world is progressing, these STEM jobs are becoming the key jobs of the future that are the engineers and the scientists. With the US 35th in the world in PISA on math and Mexico is near the bottom as of 2016, this plan is able to help both the US and Mexico [3]. This deal is extremely lucrative for Mexico as they will be able to have a new influx of STEM jobs into their economy as the shortage of labor in the US construction industry will allow Mexicans who will be on the labor teams become trained in these fields and this will allow them to take their trade back to Mexico when the wall has been built to help improve their economy by providing an overall boost. One example where a high tech project had actually helped the economy of the US as well as inspire years of people for generations is the Apollo program in sending men to the moon. The Apollo space program had helped the US have a massive boost in their economy as they saw a 36% increase on investment in capital goods and a 6% economic growth [4]. For both the US and Mexico to see similiar numbers would be a Godsend for both nations and, as my opponent has brought up, Mexico has a smaller economy and seeing an explosive economic expansion like this would make it much more appealing for them to help with the wall. Not to mention that they would be able to retain the knowledge their workers would gain from the STEM skills and be able to help improve their nation through that. This is a huge economic impact that both nations would need.

The huge wall has massive impacts as it does help and the Spanish and Israeli walls are indeed effective, but as my opponent has brought up, the boarder lengths are extremely smaller than the US-Mexico border. This poses several different challenges which my opponent has also brought up. By having the use of technology in the walls, it not only boosts STEM technology, but helps eliminate human error and helps in cracking down on illegal immigration faster as one simply wouldn't be able to "dig a hole" under this wall. Making the current border wall that is being built, ineffective. Mexico would support the US and there being a wall wouldn't deter Mexico from helping in the event of a war. The US has actually already began to put their foot down on immigration as recent events have shown that President Trump has sent the National Guard to the US border [5]. My opponent even defeats his own argument with his answer by showing that as long as there's a mutual understanding then there wouldn't be a problem. Why wouldn't this apply for this case as well?

C3: US Debt

The counter-plan requires no adding to the US debt, while the wall my opponent has brought up in this case will be built by the US government, meaning that all costs would be inhereted by the government placing the burden on the taxpayers. Even if, in the long run, the numbers my opponent has brought up does cover it in terms of reduced costs in other areas of the budget, it does not cover the Fiscal cliff argument that I have brought up. My opponent's spending on the wall can easily be enough to send the US over the Fiscal Cliff causing the next great depression of a 20% in the US economy. This is a harm that my opponent has not solved for, but my plan does.

I appologize if I had missed anything as I am almost out of character space. With that, I turn things back over to my opponent.

Sources
1. (https://www.cnbc.com...)
2. (http://time.com...)
3. (http://www.businessinsider.com...)
4. (http://www.larouchepub.com...)
5. (https://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
Mister_Man

Pro

Well thanks for a good debate, Lannan. Definitely interesting.


Mexico

s://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com...; alt="" />
[1]

This is not a "fence." These are several prototypes for Trump's wall, which can easily be placed in rivers if need be, yet when the worst case scenario is to have a couple dozen guards on a river, it isn't the end of the world. Your barrier would be significantly more expensive and would rely more on software than hardware given the sensors and whatnot, and considering water is a factor here, the electronics and electrical integrity of your border could be put at risk infinitely more than my wall.

You say "most of this will be American companies and American infrastructure," yet that's the exact opposite of what your plan is. You're saying the Mexican government will build a border wall with loans from American companies, but that still makes it property of the Mexican government. On top of that, you haven't explained how this is even possible. What companies will invest in an expensive Mexico-owned wall instead of a cheaper American-owned wall? That makes no sense.

If I countered a border wall with a GPS-guided satellite laser targeting system to incinerate anyone within a 100mi radius of the border, I'd have to explain how that would be feasible, I wouldn't just say "this idea is better." We aren't talking about only ideas, we're talking about practicality, implementation, feasibility, and so on. The fact of the matter is, no American companies will invest billions in a Mexico-owned border wall when they can invest less in a US-owned border wall. And even if Mexico granted them shareholder privileges and the wall was 99% owned by American companies, it wouldn't make any sense why any company would do that, as there isn't any profit to be gained other than minimal interest paid by the Mexican government (which would be quite low considering the country we're dealing with) and as it is, the US government could do it for cheaper.

American companies will be hiring workers as it is to build the wall, jobs aren't a product of your wall only. And did you forget the part where Mexico doesn't want a wall to begin with? Mexico will not do what you want to do. That destroys your entire argument right off the bat. America will do what I want to do. Looks like the case is closed.


Hegemony
You're right that there's a construction labour shortage, yet Mexico is in the same boat in a different sea. They don't want a wall. There is more chance of Mexicans being granted an American work visa to help with the wall than there is for Mexico to build a wall and hire Mexican workers. We all know how terrible wages are in Mexico, so they'd earn even more if they helped the US build a wall - and keep in mind these people don't have an opinion on the wall, as they just want to work, and will work for whoever pays them the most (which would be the US).

Unfortunately saying "we'll get Mexico to do it" requires some reasoning as to why Mexico would build a wall in the first place. You can't just say "Mexico will do it" and leave it at that. Because in the end, Mexico won't do it, as I've stated before, so the best chance for the wall to be completed would be if it were built by the US the way they're planning now.

Good point on STEM jobs. However you bring up that engineers and scientists are the primary focus of your wall, yet there are still a multitude of jobs in the area to be created with my wall. Engineers obviously having to construct through different land orientation and ensuring the wall is sturdy and is positioned properly. Scientists taking into account atmospheric elements and Earthly minerals throughout several different biomes, as well as marine and land life being displaced and evolving without being able to cross the border anymore. Your wall has more bells and whistles, but mine offers a multitude of areas to advance our knowledge and growth in STEM areas.

Comparing space travel to border walls is like comparing apples to Jagerbombs. It's not the same thing. There are a plethora of reasons the Apollo space program boosted the economy, and a creation of jobs wasn't the only one. On top of that, your proposition seems to be helping Mexico significantly more than America, and the wall is being built for America, considering, well, Mexico won't build it.

Tunnels are, in all honesty, not a problem. The efforts put into finding these tunnels and either sealing them up or arresting whoever comes out the other side is far less than the investment and manpower put into the electronic systems you wish to implement [2]. Only 80 have been found since 2006, which is on average less than 7 a year. The cost, time, manpower, safety risks and security risks that go into making smuggling tunnels for small carts used for transportation of drugs is significant enough - to put people in would take even more work. And even if one or two tunnels pop up for a week before being extinguished, the amount of illegals that would come through would be minimal. Implementing an additional $125billion for a handful of tunnels is a waste of money, to say the least.

I'm saying there would be a mutual understanding between the US and Mexico if the wall were built to keep out criminals and illegals, and legal law abiding citizens were allowed in. The only people upset about this would be people who are either criminals or are looking to gain entrance to the US illegally. No bad blood with good people.


US Debt
So when Mexico asks American companies for $150billion, you think all those companies will just write a cheque from their bank account? None of them will borrow any? An additional 0.12% added to the debt will not be enough to push the government over the fiscal cliff, and I cannot find a single source that has talked about it recently. The debt ceiling is being raised, taxes have recently been cut by Mr. Trump, so if they need to be raised slightly it won't have an impact, and I really do need to touch on this again - this border wall is a more likely option than a Mexico-owned border wall regardless of additional debt incurred. Cutting spending in other areas can lead to a very quick balance.


I too have run out of space and I thank you for this debate.


So to summarise:
Your wall would be incredibly more expensive.
Your wall would rely on software as well as hardware, which can malfunction.
The practicality and feasibility of American companies investing in an expensive Mexico-owned border wall is significantly less than a cheaper American-owned border wall.
Mexico has said many times that they do not believe in border walls and in no way would build their own.
It is more practical for the US to build a wall and hire Mexican workers than it is for Mexico to build a wall and hire Mexican workers as Mexico does not want a wall to begin with.
My wall will produce a lot of opportunity for development of STEM jobs.
An additional $125billion to find a minuscule amount of tunnels is an absolute waste of money.
0.12% additional debt will not push the US over the fiscal cliff.

The main point against your argument is that Mexico does not want a wall. If you ask them to build one with American investor's money, they will say no. You have not provided a detailed explanation of who will invest in a wall, why anyone would do that to begin with, and how you'd propose Mexico build a wall that they've said numerous times they don't want. Mexico will not build the wall, leaving my option to be the only one, and therefore the United States federal government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico Border. Thank you, and goodnight.

Sources
[1] https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com...
lannan13

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate here as we come to a close.

C1: Mexico

There are several "proto-types" of walls that President Trump has purposed. The issue with this is that my opponent has yet to give a purposal which they can properly guard here. Constant reliance on a large amount of border patrol agents would make issues and cause Opperational Costs to skyrocket. Leading to the technological advancements under my plan not only reduces costs, but it drives down costs in the long run through the new adoption of technology which developes from the wall. You'll have to forgive me here as some of the points from this contention and the next will tend to mess together. My opponent has seemed to missunderstand my counterplan. I had stated that "Mexico would contract private US companies to build a border wall..." this indicates that Mexico is paying the US companies to build the wall, not Mexico building the wall themselves. I have stated in this debate that Mexico might have some sort of clause in the funding which would require a certain percentage of these workers to be Mexican or other similiar trade-offs. This would show that this actually solves for what my opponent is arguing while stating that it would be cheaper if the companies invested in the American-owned wall, which it will be. I would like to highlight the main difference in the plan is that mine involves private companies while my opponent's plan requires the work to be done on the Federal level. My opponent has yet to bring up evidence to support Federal agency building over the Private Sector. The loans have no effect on the ownership of the wall. Mexico is only acting as a 3rd party in this case.

This counter-plan and wall is feasible, as I have previously shown the wall can be done and isn't a myth. My opponent's only complaint is that it doesn't make sense to have more wall, but this defeats my opponent's own plan as he has stated that the wall is made to help deter the free rider issue. This only makes it more secure and solves my opponent's own advantages better than his do. There actually is profit to be made here. This can be seen in a real life example, but for US military fighters, and this production company and the only company that can produce these is Boeing. Many companies would be competing to secure the contracts as they know that in the future, they will be always called upon to fix the wall or have other security implamentations across the country just as Boeing does. This, alone, is the key reason why companies would want to take these contracts. I have already shown why Mexico would want the wall, most of which is covered in my second contention of Hegemony below.

C2: Hegmony

My opponent keeps stating in one breath that Mexico doesn't want the wall, but in the next states that they have a need for labor force due to low wages and acknowledges that STEM jobs will help benefit Mexico. These are two contradicting arguments that should be both thrown out of this debate that my opponent makes. My opponent even concedes that they want the work, this itself should be proof enough that they want the work. My opponent states that my wall would have issue with terrian, but still fails to acknowledge the fact that this very argument applies to his own case. If we took his critique of my argument, we'd have to apply it to his as well, defeating his own plan as well. The amount of STEM jobs that would be created out of my plan would be astronaumical as the amount of technology that would be needed for my plan would be grand in amount. This wall isn't too far from the Apollo program. The amount of technology which stems from the amount of security and sensors needed for the wall would actually excede the amount compared to the Apollo program and the amount of steel would be significantly higher, creating more jobs than my opponent's plan, which is another key issue here [1]. With that, I extend my initial argument across the bord here. I didn't go too much into tunnels and simply used them as an example. The amount may be minimal, but there is other issues that arrise out of my opponents arguments. Who knows what may come out of these tunnels as he even concedes there may be drugs or other illegal activites. My opponent concedes and brings up this disadvantage to his own problem here.

My opponent has dropped the original argument made here in that building the wall will increase US hegemony world wide helping increase there stance against terrorism, especially ISIS, whether it would be in Syria or homegrown.

C3: US Debt

I have already covered why the American companies would want to do this and why the Mexican-American company operations isn't exactly to what my opponent thinks due to a misunderstanding. Taxes have been cut and the debt ceiling continues to be raised, but this is an issue that is covered by my own argument. The lowering of taxes, but still the increased spending and higher debt ceilings only encourages this type of spending to send us off the cliff. I have previously shown just why continuous spending is harmful for the US and can lead to a substainal financial collapse. This is an argument that my opponent has yet to counter for the economic collapse. Cutting spending is easier said than done. The recent spending bill shows this as it was signed in for $1.3 trillion and it funds many programs that the GOP opposes such as Planned Parenthood funding and funding Sanctuary Cities [2]. The GOP's reluntance to fund the Sanctuary Cities goes to show just how much of an issue the US would have in terms of fulfilling the paln my opponent brings up.

With that I thank you for your time and urge a vote for Con.

Sources
1. (http://www.larouchepub.com...)
2. (https://www.nytimes.com...)
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nd2400 1 month ago
Nd2400
No problem, just wish i had more to say. Well, i probably could, but won't.

@ Lannan
it was an interesting route you took. But sadly, the only real part i took form it was the plus side of the private sector taking up this project and the jobs for both countries.

Regardless a good read...
Posted by lannan13 1 month ago
lannan13
Like I said, I'm against a border wall, but I thought the counter-plan would be fun to explore.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 month ago
Mister_Man
Thanks for the input, Nd. The tournament rules were first round was acceptance only and 4 rounds total. I completely agree that the debate should start in the first round and it should go for five.
Posted by Nd2400 1 month ago
Nd2400
This was quite interesting.

I think both did a good job.
Unfortunately, this was only a 4 round debate. For good debater, it probably should be 5 rounds. That's just me thou.

I did like the fact that Lannan brought up the jobs factor for both the US and for Mexico.
I also agreed with Mister Mexico would have no part of building a wall for political reasons.
Lannan had a strong last round, kind of similar to me. lol This is why this probably should be had been a 5 rounds debate. Or instead of the 1st round being acceptance only, probably should go right into the discussion.

Just didn't get Hegemony part for this debate. As for me, i didn't think it was necessary.

I also disagree with both proposals for a wall of any kind. But that's just me...

Anyways good luck in the voting for both...
Posted by lannan13 1 month ago
lannan13
That would be much appriated.
Posted by Varrack 1 month ago
Varrack
I just read through this. Toruney standards apparently bar me from voting, but I might leave an RFD anyway.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 month ago
Mister_Man
Which one? Both of them in my final round work just fine for me, the picture is linked to source 1 since I didn't think it would show up.
Posted by lannan13 1 month ago
lannan13
Your link is broken, do you think you can find another one?
Posted by lannan13 1 month ago
lannan13
"Comparing Apples to Yaggerbombs"

Favorite line of the entire debate.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 month ago
Mister_Man
Dumb picture didn't load, glad I linked it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
Mister_Manlannan13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/113851/
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 month ago
Varrack
Mister_Manlannan13
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states that Con's wall (1) is more expensive, (2) will provide no return for the companies building it, (3) is unlikely given Mexico's reluctance. Con concedes Pro's wall is cheaper, but insists it will raise US debt, which could result in a market crash. Pro did show how the wall would pay for itself, though, so this point has no impact. Con seemed to drop Pro's other two points, but he did argue that his wall would result in more STEM jobs. It's true Pro's wall would create jobs too, but neither disputed that Con's *wouldn't* have more. Con then alleges that (1) his wall would ensure US hegemony, and (2) Pro's wall couldn't happen because the US lacks construction labor. Con's 1st point is rather presumptive; he doesn't really objectify hegemonic damage Pro's wall would have, and as Pro points out, the US taking charge of its own border can come across as hegemonic too. Pro dropped Con's 2nd point, so that makes 3 impacts on Pro's behalf and 2 on Con's. I vote Pro.