The Instigator
cam25aus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Davery
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Should we make a wall blocking Mexico from the U.S.?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Davery
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 87544
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

cam25aus

Con

We shouldn't make a wall because there are so many ways to go above the wall. Planes, boats (going around it), and simply not paying for it. Donald Trump said that he would make Mexico pay for it and he can't make them unless he declares war or threatens them. But he needs to be president for that to happen. And going to war will only make world problems more complicated. We would have war, ISIS, and other organizations trying to target the U.S.
Davery

Pro

This is my first debate on this site so bear with me.
I want to start by making it clear. I am not a "white supremacist" like the only person to comment so-far said I would be. I am also not a Trump Voter.
That being said I do agree that we should have a wall to separate the United States from Mexico (obviously I would agree because that's the topic). The wall's purpose would not be to keep Mexican-American citizens from entering the country. It would be to keep illegal aliens from entering. Mexico is a poorer nation than the United States. Their emigration is so high because being poor in Mexico is far harder than being poor in the U.S. They hardly have any funds (Dollar/Peso/Yen, Whatever) to their name, which would probably make it difficult to travel by plane/boat. And even then, we can come up with different ways to stop illegal immigration by Air or Sea.
The biggest reason I could see to making the Mexicans build the wall is the creation of jobs. Mexico desperately needs more jobs so if they create a Labor-Induced line of work, they'll most likely get a lot of those people looking to emigrate to stay and work, which (as much as it pains me to agree with Trump) would help out both their economy and ours, making a system not only augmenting the flow of currency in Mexico, but also limiting the increase in illegal immigration which is the "Mexicans" that most voters are afraid of.
All of that aside: I have no clue what the last two sentences in your argument are referring to. A president needs congress' approval to declare war on another country. Congress would never agree to war with Mexico. ISIS will be here no matter what we do with Mexico, so I'm not positive if this is part of the debate. Lastly; America was born on Countries/Organizations conspiring against us. We've been to war enough times to prove that there will always be someone who disapproves of us, and that will not change if (God Forbid) Trump gets elected.
Debate Round No. 1
cam25aus

Con

I'd say you are a white supremacist.
Davery

Pro

That's all you had to say...
You barely had time to read my full response in which I was trying to be as respectful as possible despite your obvious lack of understanding about how anything in government works, and I'm assuming you read all of about three lines based on your ridiculous response. It's Probably my fault as I thought we were supposed to take this seriously and actually try to bring up debate points. If you think I'm a White Supremacist for believing that creating more job opportunities for both Mexicans and Americans is a good thing and doesn't have to be achieved through aggression then you either are an illegal alien yourself, or you don't have a well functioning brain in your thick god damn skull. I'm leaning towards choice number 2.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 12 months ago
EccentricSenator314
I am for stronger borders, I am against Amnesty. Ultimately, Walls are archaic and divisive (Like the one in China, or the one in Berlin that was torn down in '91). Not only that, 'moles' (People smugglers who tunnel underground, these are otherwise called 'coyotes') will, as their name implies, dig tunnels to get around the Wall (Seeing as Mexico is against the Wall, they're not gonna do much on their end to prevent this...). Illegal immigration is mainly a problem coming from Mexico and, to some lesser degrees, South America (The Amnesty I speak of took place in summer '13. Hundreds of thousands of children crossed into the U.S. illegally from countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The parents are obviously using their kids as pawns (Or 'anchors'. Who's gonna kick a kid out, what kind of monsters would separate Mother and child!!??? Fools, they use such cunning emotional manipulation to cut in front of everybody in line to immigrate here legally; unacceptable and Unexceptional!!!!!) Not to mention, a pretty Trade War with Mexico just so we can have ANOTHER Liberal Apprentice is NOT in our economic interests here!!!!! I see nothing wrong with fixing a problem by tracing it's source (Illegal immigration is really only a problem at the Mexican border), but put simply we would not NEED a stupid divisive Wall were we to do the humane thing and #EndTheDrugWar !!!!! @EmperorDao: I hate ALL racists!!! White racists, black racists, Asian racists, Mexican racists; if you are racist, in any perceivable way, then there's a pretty good chance that I f**king hate you!!!!!
Posted by EmperorDao 12 months ago
EmperorDao
Wait for it, I bet a white supremacist will be your opponent
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Anjou 12 months ago
Anjou
cam25ausDaveryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I mean, technically, you're both wrong. Net emigration from Mexico doesn't exist at all; in fact, just as many go to Mexico as come to America. A wall is absolutely unnecessary, and is just more and more useless government spending. However, pro used much better arguments and spelling and grammar. source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/11/mexico-and-immigration-to-us/
Vote Placed by JayShay 12 months ago
JayShay
cam25ausDaveryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Pro for arguments, mainly because they went unrefuted by Con, who wasted round 2. Pro's best point was that the wall project could create jobs; though I would have liked to see some sources relating to this which would have greatly strengthened Pro's case. Neither side used sources, so that's a tie. Grammar is tied; no issues there. Conduct is tied; both sides were insulting at times. As both parties are new to the site, I recommend they always refrain from ad hominem attacks, and always use sources to boost their arguments.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 12 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
cam25ausDaveryTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for personally attacking Pro in Round 2. Pro loses conduct as well for losing his cool at the end of Round 2. S&G was good on both sides. Con essentially only made an opening statement and didn't defend his points. Pro's arguments stand unrefuted, so he takes more convincing arguments by default.