The Instigator
kyleflanagan97
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the Donald Trump wall be built on the US-Mexico Border?

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 1 vote the winner is...
kyleflanagan97
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 91634
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

kyleflanagan97

Con

First round is acceptance.
ViceRegent

Pro

I accept, stating that not only should a wall be built, but it should be militarized by soldiers with orders to shoot to kill invaders.
Debate Round No. 1
kyleflanagan97

Con

As the saying goes, a 20 foot wall only leads to 21 foot ladders. With recent estimates the wall will cost 25 billion at least, not counting maintenance. That is a large expenditure that would not actually make the country any safer. As for mobilizing soldiers to guard the wall I ask you clarify as to whom that would be, national guard or actually deploy soldiers. Because the US Armed Forces cannot be deployed on US soil unless their is a war. This move would also have drastic results on our diplomacy, this country was founded by immigrants, and by giving the appearance we are closing our borders with a giant wall. The stigma would be seen worldwide that we are no longer able to be seen as the head of multi country communication because we are not accepting of other countries and their people. This wall would not keep out anyone that this country should be afraid of, but would just keep out those who are coming for a better life.
ViceRegent

Pro

Funny, they do not worry about ladders in federal prisons. You thinking is too small.

Only a fool would thinking keeping bad guys put will not make us safer.

And we could deploy the regular military to guard the wall, accomplishing such in the same legislation that created the wall. No problem.

I do not care how other countries see us, all of whom have much more strick immigration laws than the US.

And the wall will keep out anyone we do not want in who is coming from the south. Very simple.
Debate Round No. 2
kyleflanagan97

Con

By this very allusion you are saying that Mexico is home to only those who need to be kept in Mexico which is the greatest problem with the wall. That it will cut off any diplomatic ties with Mexico, our third largest trading partner [https://www.census.gov...]. And who is the regular "regular military", you may need to read how laws work, because the Posse Comitatus Act makes it illegal to use those forces. The current wall is not guarded by US armed forces. You have not made a comment on the cost of the wall, and despite how ignorant you are on how diplomacy works, everyone in politics should care how the rest of the world views us. This is the only way that things get done on the national level. And the wall will not keep anyone else out, they will dig under the wall, or go over the wall. Those in prison do not have access to ladders, and most prisons are not 2000 miles long so not the same thing.
ViceRegent

Pro

No, I am saying that those who are south of the boarder who wish to enter this country illegally need to be kept out. An this is the purpose of the wall, not the problem with it.

Mexico needs us a whole lot more than we need them. They will not even consider cutting off relations with us.

As I said, the Posse Comitatus Act can be amended to allow tropps to man the wall in the same leglislation that authorizes the building of the wall. No problem.

We can cut welfare to pay for the wall, easily.

And you cannot put seismic sensors under the wall to detect tunneling? ROFL

And only an arrogant fool would think another's disagreement with them makes the other ignorant. Grow up, mental midget.

Really those in federal prisons do not have friends with ladders? Who would have thought, the federal bureau is so stupid to build those tall walls that can be defeated by a ladder or a shovel. ROFL

Come on, man, stop and smell what you are shoveling.
Debate Round No. 3
kyleflanagan97

Con

Why do they need to be kept out? What threat do they pose to the American people? Did they take that landscaping job you wanted for half of minimum wage? They might need us more, but we still rely on them for too much to risk upsetting them. Which there presidents have been very vocal about it ruining diplomatic ties. And by allowing US troops to guard the border you are treating our border like a war zone, which means that those south of the board are invading us. Which isn't true so you are going to further harm any chance of diplomatic ties. You can't cut welfare easily pay for the wall. That is a whole other massive law you would need to pass both houses and signed by the president to cut welfare. And you're the one using mental midget so am I the one who needs to grow up, seems like you pulled that right out of Donald's trump 100 word vocabulary. And their friends do have ladders, but the wall around a prison is what? a mile in length at most, do I need to explain why it is easier to guard a mile than it is to guard 2000 miles? And people do escape prison by tunneling out. As for the seismic sensors that's fine but what are you going to do when you know where they are digging? We do not have the capability to monitor 2000 miles closely with seismic sensors. You would need seismic sensors every few feet do be accurate as to where the diggers are so that is more money, more people working the wall. And they could still be off because they will just have fake holes they start to dig to set off sensors. These people aren't stupid, and the wall will not stop anything. The border between north and South Korea is one of the most guarder in the world. It is filled with land mines, it would be more secure than any trump wall, and yet you still see defectors who make it across the border. A wall does not stop people.
ViceRegent

Pro

The United States is a sovereign nation that has a duty to its own citizens to keep out invaders, the criminals, the diseased and just those who we do not want her, just like every other nation on earth does, including Mexico. It is because you are anti-American that this seems so foreign to you.

And yes, illegals drive down wages and drive up the cost of welfare, both of which are bad. If you had some training in economics, you would get this. It will also reduce the number of future Libtard voters, keeping America from becoming the same 3rd word crap hole these people created for themselves south of the boarder.

And there is zero Mexico does for us that we cannot do for ourselves. Abolish welfare, and you will have millions of Americans willing to pick lettuce.

Of course, the fear mongers on the left preach doom and gloom, but it will never happen.

Cutting welfare is easy. Have you seen the deficit it created?

Guarding 1 mile is no different than guarding 2000 miles, it just takes more manpower. No problem.

And we monitor the entire Atlantic and Pacific oceans with acoustic sensors for sub activity. No problem. When we find those digging, we summarily execute them as invaders. After the first few dozen are shot, the rest will give up.

Landmines, another great idea for the wall.

And there are no defectors across the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. But right now millions are crossing. If it trickels to 1-10 per year, I am cool with that.

You have made many claims, all of which are wrong or unsupported. You lose the debate. Go America.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
The previous vote non-removal was in error. Here's the actual assessment:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RedAnarchist// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were lacking in verified information, as shown by the complete lack of any cited sources. Con's arguments were well thought out and contained sources. Neither's conduct was entirely acceptable, however Con ultimately won through superior arguments. 6 points Con, 1 point tied.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Sources and Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific arguments made by both sides and not just state that one side did better on the basis of cited sources and "well thought out" argumentation. It should be clear what convinced the voter to vote for Con. Even on sources, the voter has to establish that the sources were reliable, and not just that they only existed on one side. As such, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: VelCrow// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con has stated good points to why the wall shouldnt be built. Namely cost of building the wall, overhead cost, diplomatic and trade ties. Pro has taken a very "Donald Trump" approach in this debate where all he spews are words with no actual facts or logical backing. Rebutting your opponents by quoting examples should be the way in a debate. Not ignoring your opponents points.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess points made by both sides, and not just the side the voter wishes to vote for. Dismissing Pro's points as generally illogical is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RedAnarchist// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were lacking in verified information, as shown by the complete lack of any cited sources. Con's arguments were well thought out and contained sources. Neither's conduct was entirely acceptable, however Con ultimately won through superior arguments. 6 points Con, 1 point tied.

[*Reason for non-removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Sources and Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific arguments made by both sides and not just state that one side did better on the basis of cited sources and "well thought out" argumentation. It should be clear what convinced the voter to vote for Con. Even on sources, the voter has to establish that the sources were reliable, and not just that they only existed on one side. As such, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hanate333 9 months ago
Hanate333
Vice regent-

You can't say that after avoiding all of my points and questions lol...

You are a master troll
Posted by RedAnarchist 9 months ago
RedAnarchist
@ViceRegent Says the uneducated, ignorant, cowardly, and arrogant "fool." Grow up and learn to accept when you're wrong, bud.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Uneducated, ignorant, cowardly and arrogant. This is why we need tests before people can vote.
Posted by RedAnarchist 9 months ago
RedAnarchist
I realize an error in my vote reason. It's minor, a simple typographical error stating the points given. I meant to say 5 points Con, 1 point tied.
Posted by Hanate333 9 months ago
Hanate333
Jesus Christ your points are too stupid to argue against. They are ACTUSLLY too stupid.

1. I called you stupid with perfect grammar lol
2. You ignored my questions and just asked more, and they aren't even real comparisons between walls.
3. Instead of showing why this wall would help, you say others have, even though those walls were not nearly the same as this one is (ex. Fort Knox compound)
4. You say that government officials know more than me about building a wall, and I should listen to them, instead of telling me why a wall would work (which I have clearly shown it doesn't, and that evidence you continue to ignore). Speaking of which, the VAST MAJORITY of qualified officials and people know a wall is a waste of money and time.

I'm not bothering to answer these. Someone else can, it is honestly a waste of my time to answer questions with such obvious answers. I don't think anyone could get across to your ignorant and frankly quite stupid beliefs.

So, answer me please. Answer those questions, instead of avoiding them with other questions about other walls. Debate about THIS wall, not others. Ok? And then I will take you somewhat seriously. Right now, responding to you is a waste of time and I will not continue to do so unless you debate like an intelligent person.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
I am stupid, he says with poor grammar.

How man times have you read those outside of prisons breaking their friends out? How come? The wall stops them.

I do not understand, do not those in Gaza have the materials to get over the wall? And have millions of those in Gaza gotten into Israel? Or has the wall worked?

And yes, North Korea has made it clear that they want to invade the South to reunify, which is Libtard speak for steal with the South Koreans have and enslave them to the state. Why don't they do this? Perhaps the wall and 1 million land mines? So, why does this wall work and not the Mexican wall?

Do walls around the U.S. gold depository at Ft. Knox keep the gold safe? Does nobody want than gold?

And yes, Trump has made it very cleat that the wall is for national security reasons.

And actually Congress and Obama agreed to build a wall, but then it fell short. But hey, you know more than everyone about national security.

BTW, the budget Is $2.5T with most of that going to welfare programs. Cut them and we can easily afford the wall.

BTW, tell us of your education? And government high school does not count.
Posted by Hanate333 9 months ago
Hanate333
Dude...

Walls are safe and non safe based on where the materials are easily... If the materials are in Mexico, chances are they will be used to get through the wall. If the materials are on this side, chances are they wont use it to help people get through the wall. And that argument is so bad lol. By saying that people will have friends, YOU JUST FURTHERED MY ARGUMENT. Not only will Mexicans have materials to get through the wall, but Americans could help them.

It is not the same as Israel and Gaza. Gaza is completely blocked off. They can't even go around the wall. Plus, you obviously haven't read the news to know that TUNNELS WERE FOUND under the Israeli wall.... Jesus you're stupid...

Your North Korea point is just as retarded. Nobody in North Korea wants to leave, as they are brainwashed. Ad nobody in South Korea wants to go to the north, because they are normal. But in our case, Mexicans want to come here. Plus, north and South Korea have a minefield separating each other....

Donald trump knows nothing about securing a nation, and he is the only person trying to build a wall. Now all the other more qualified officers and politicians do think a wall is a bad idea. So it seems you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

Now, how about instead of being ignorant and coming up with impossible comparisons, answer this: What would building a wall do for us, in detail? Answer this, instead of coming up with bad what ifs and the sort.
So here are my questions for you, which you will ignore and be such a hypocrite:

How would a wall help, in detail?
Why wouldn't immigrants just come legally and overstay visas like the VAST majority do?
Why wouldn't they just build ladders?
Why would you listen to trump over over literally every other official and politician?
How would you justify the cost after all that?

Now how about you stop ignoring and insulting, and at least try sounding intelligent...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
kyleflanagan97ViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out problems of a wall including ineffectiveness, diplomatic relations and violating the law if enforced by the military. You guys both just flung bare assertions at each other, so I have to cancel out arguments that answer each other. Pro and con disagreed with the effectiveness of the wall so that is thrown out. Pro mentioned an amendment in the law so the posse comitatus act does not hold up as a criticism to pro's plan. Con however did point out a negative impact on diplomatic relations by building the wall that was never answered. Also pro needed to argue why we should even bother keeping illegal aliens out, and he never made that argument. Arguments to Con