The Instigator
Gamehero
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Winning
77 Points

Should there be a border fence?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,751 times Debate No: 10046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (19)

 

Gamehero

Pro

Hello. This debate is not about illegal immigration in general, but the question is this: Should we put up a real, tangible fence on the U.S.-Mexican border? Since this is my first debate, I will let my opponent go first.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

As Pro and Instigator, it is my opponent's duty to uphold the resolution.

I shall begin by presenting the following definitions:

border- the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another
http://dictionary.reference.com...

fence- a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially : such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I negate the resolution.

A border fence should not be utilized because:

a) It would be too easy to break through due to its posts, wires, and boards. The wires can be cut with pliers or hedge clippers, while the posts/boards can be knocked down with sheer human force or by power tools.

b) The fence would have to be carefully maintained due to its posts and boards. Poor weather, such as rain, can eventually rot some of the boards and create an ineffective fence. It would take more time, effort, and money to maintain such a fence.

c) Financially, it would be quite a burden to have to pay for wire, posts, and boards. As per the reasons above, it would cost even more replacing broken/rotten parts of the fence and create heavy tensions between border patrol, being that they would have to spend more time inspecting the fence than the Mexicans.

I propose that a border wall would be more effective than a border fence. Physically, a border wall is much easier to produce, maintain, and care after in comparison to a border fence. Also, it is much harder to break through or go around a border wall than it is a border fence. And, since border walls rarely get rammed through or severely damaged, the extra cost of maintenance is completely eliminated.

I have successfully negated the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Gamehero

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

1.) "I propose that a border wall would be more effective than a border fence."
By saying this, you are basing your whole argument on the semantics.

2.) Your definition of a fence suggests that a fence is always made of wire and boards. It does not say that it cannot be made of another, stronger material, such as rebar. This would require much effort to get through. You could say that they could get through it with power tools, but they could get through a wall, too.

3.) "Financially, it would be quite a burden to have to pay for wire, posts, and boards."
http://www.immigrationcounters.com...
This website has a counter of statistics on illegal immigration. Currently, approximately 334 BILLION dollars have been wired to Latin America since 1996. Sure, some of they money is legitimate. But how much do you think is sent by illegals in the form of remittances to their families? Not to mention the 11 MILLION jobs taken by illegals. Do you think a border fence would cost 334 billion dollars? This more than justifies the money spent on the fence. The Border Patrol may spend more time inspecting the fence, but that may be all they have to do, since there will not be many illegals coming across the border.
studentathletechristian8

Con

1) Although this may be true, my opponent did not clarify exactly what he wanted to debate in the opening round. I defined what a border fence was, and established an argument that supplemented a border fence with a border wall. No harm, no foul. My definitions were given when my opponent did not specifically define anything. Thus, my definitions stand.

2) My opponent's next argument merely attempts to prove that another substance could be added to fences to make them stronger. However, rebar was not mentioned in the definition and holds no water. Besides, even if people can get through both rebar and a wall with power tools, that does not help either side of the debate.

3) My opponent provides random facts that really do not help either side. At the end of his point, however, he states that in comparison to money spent in reference to illegal immigration, it would be a small sum to pay for a border fence. However, that does not justify the money spent on the fence. It would be cheaper to spend on a border wall, due to the relatively low prices of cement and the few breakthroughs that would occur. For a fence to be established, it costs relatively more money for the material, maintenance, and reconstruction after the fence has been either ruined from natural causes or immigrants themselves. A border wall would clearly be a more viable option than a border fence.

My opponent left many of my arguments unrefuted. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Gamehero

Pro

Okay, I am conceding defeat. I should have specified more what the debate was about. One thing, though.

"My opponent's next argument merely attempts to prove that another substance could be added to fences to make them stronger. However, rebar was not mentioned in the definition and holds no water." Your definition says "such as" that does not limit what a fence can be made out of. Goodbye.
studentathletechristian8

Con

My opponent quotes:

"Okay, I am conceding defeat."
My opponent has given up the debate and has accepted defeat. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
If you used proper spelling and grammar, there would be less chance of creating a faulty debate.

Take the last sentence you just typed:

"no im good, i might word the res wrong, and you'll just win of semantics."

It should read: No, I am content; I may word the resolution incorrectly, thus allowing you to win off of a semantical argument.
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
no im good, i might word the res wrong, and you'll just win of semantics.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
So your telling me if I content a debate you instigate there are circumstances that allow me to tell you what your arguing when you fail to tell me? Cause Common sense and coutousy tells me its only approprate for me to ask you to specifey.

If I'm wrong about that being standard courtousy then I'm wrong about the conduct vote.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Thanks, Cody.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
lm17, I proposed another alternative. Let's debate, not hate ;)

If you feel inclined to badger and torment me, why not challenge me to a debate and see who wins?
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
sac, all you do is win on semantics, you knew what he meant, but you just wanted to win, instead of debating the real topic. a$$
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Marauder, let me refer you to a quote from Pro:

"Okay, I am conceding defeat."

Con wins. Period.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Thank you, Skeptic.

Marauder - I gave various arguments for a proposition of a border wall and refuted my opponen't arguments. My opponent really did not attack my arguments, and conceded all of his arguments. When he dropped all of his arguments, he conceded the debate. Therefore, the arguments default to Con. Sources should also be tied, nothing really popped out. Conduct should be tied. Pro did not define in the first round, so Con used definitions to clarify the debate.

You're relativley new, so you may not exactly understand the entire concepts of the votes.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
PRO conceded the debate - vote to CON.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
arguments: your opponent left one argument before giving up that for me was not satisfactorily refuted, that your using semantics.

so conduct and arguments can go to pro
sources can kind of go to him
and spelling is the only that remains tied.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by wesswll 6 years ago
wesswll
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Gamehero 7 years ago
Gamehero
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Gameherostudentathletechristian8Tied
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