The Instigator
champio0on
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

The Ignominious Wall

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,465 times Debate No: 822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

champio0on

Con

The U.S.A. has invaded and/or intervened other nations more than 169 times between 1798 and 1945 (more than half in Latin America), which obviously continued after 1945 (Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Granada, Panama) and which brought with them uncalculated deaths, hunger, and missery. However, the story with The United Mexican States (Mexico) is completely different. Mexicans have forever been the U.S.of America's greatest victims.
What is know today 7 states of the U.S.A, was more than half of the then Mexican teorritory. Mexican history claims to have the biggest number of invasions and intromissions from the U.S.A. in the history of the world. "Mexican people have proved to be uncapable of governing themselves. With such ethincal backrounds, mostly composed of indians and adventurous Spanish conquistadors, they are not able to aspire for liberty and justice; in one word, democracy. They must be repressed. They have forever been victims of degradation that has been imposed by their governors: Thiefs and assasins. Who can ever assure us that such race of people will some day build a different, better country, and that we, American people, will not run the risk of paying for the consequences if we were to do nothing about it instead of acting drastically?" (Woodrow Wilson, former president of the U.S.A).
Those "drastic" actions have gone from flying the U.S.A.'s flag in downtown Mexico City in 1847 to hundreds of other unbelievably inhuman actions. Today, the ignominious wall. Will the mission: "Stop them from comming" be accomplished? One of the reasons Tejas (Now Texas) was lost was because of the very little population in the then Mexican territory, an error that Mexicans are today trying to fix by becoming a majority. The invader is finally being invaded.
revleader5

Pro

So you are trying to tell me the mexicans have a right to come in and steal our jobs, taxes, healthcare benefits, etc just because we invaded them in the early 1900s? That is a load of crap trying to justify illegal immigration. Tell me one thing, you think that is what is running through their heads as they're sprinting across the border into America? NO! I'll be that 90% of them, no 95% of them don't even know who Woodrow Wilson is or what he did to their country. It was wrong to steal the land, fair enough, but they don't know that, and it isn't justification for what they do to us.
Debate Round No. 1
champio0on

Con

champio0on forfeited this round.
revleader5

Pro

This is really too bad. I wanted to see your point of view on this. Post a third round argument. Please!
Debate Round No. 2
champio0on

Con

champio0on forfeited this round.
revleader5

Pro

revleader5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
Here are my arguments to all arguments against me----
-People are saying I degrade others. I'm just stating the truth. Probably 95%+ of illegal immigrants don't know who Woodrow Wilson is, or what he did to them. Is it their fault? No. Is it their fault if they find out about it and THEN try to justify their residency? YES. Unless an illegal finds out about WW brings statements, documents, etc, and demands citizenship, then they should have to wait like everyone else who wants to get into America.

I'm not a racist, I just hate illegals who take jobs away from hard working AMERICANS who are trying to live their LEGAL lives.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
That is great, and I'm glad you have an opinion (tainted as it might be). However, I voted because Con didn't respond, and under the rules of debate... that means victory for Pro. Regardless of what you seem to think, this is how it is. I cannot convince you of this, and thats fine. The majority of debate.org seems to realize that dropping all arguments warrants a loss, and is thusly reflected. If you really wish to be stubborn, I won't try to sway you.

I was just saying, don't let personal opinion get in the way of the debate. I then proceeded to tell you the rules. If this doesn't convince you of the right way to vote, thats fine. I think that had it gone full out, Con would have won. I can't say for certain, but it's a guess. However, it's neccesary to respond. This is why I, myself, voted Pro. He may "have a life" and this "may be his first time" but that shouldn't make me want to vote for him, and it doesn't. I voted on what I saw in the arguments, nothing else (as you should as well). I cannot guarentee that you voted without personal bias, and there is no way to judge it. I was merely stating it's something to avoid, as it taints the process. I then showed why I was questioning you. You got all up in arms about it, and I have merely re-stated my stance over and over. A misunderstanding? Probably. My pardons for the (apparent) offense, I never meant it. I just wanted a point across, and I hope it has stricken its target.
Posted by confines_of_gravity 9 years ago
confines_of_gravity
omg

quit saying that

he didnt reply
cause this is his first time
doing it
and he has a life
okay
hes not just sitting around waiting
for the person who debated him to reply

so i voted for him
because of what i said in previous comments
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Yes, but under the rules of any debate, silence is compliance. The only time that changes would be in the final speeches which Con did not bring up. If you drop an argument, it is assumed there is no response to it, thus meaning you agree. No responses = a vote for Pro. The only way you wouldn't do that is: Voting on your personal opinion OR Voting because of a bias.

The second is irrefutably bad, while the first renders debate meaningless. Why not just have a poll if people vote on personal opinion.

Redgardless of the stength of arguments, a unbiased judge or voter assumes that all aguments are voters unless they are refuted.
Posted by confines_of_gravity 9 years ago
confines_of_gravity
Rousseau,
read my posts
i say why i voted for con

i would have voted for con even
though i didnt know him

it doesnt matter that he "dropped" arguments

the argument he had was better

its not about quantity but QUALITY
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
The fact remainds, however, that Con dropped all arguments. You are tainting voting with personal opinion.
Posted by champio0on 9 years ago
champio0on
THE REASON I DID NOT RESPOND IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENTION FROM REVLEADER5 TO DEBATE.. instead OF stating what he believes about my post or why he is in this case: PRO THE IGNOMINIOUS WALL, he said I was wrong and tried to prove me wrong without any backup.

It is, I believe, lame to contribute to an empty post.

IF ANYONE DOES, BY THE WAY, WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT MY POST I WILL POST IT AGAIN
Posted by confines_of_gravity 9 years ago
confines_of_gravity
His first comment was a lot better than his opponents.
I voted for con because of that. If you read the rest of my comment you would have seen what i wrote about pro. His comment that states "I'll be that 90% of them, no 95% of them don't even know who Woodrow Wilson is or what he did to their country."

Is completely unacceptable. How can he degrade a people like that? His remarks were extremely offensive to me.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
How can you possibly vote for someone who doesn't respond to the arguments. Your personal opinion seems to be getting in the way. Added, personal experiences have no weight in a debate about credible literature. You have shown bias towards Con, and ignored the fact he dropped all the arguments. A vote for Con is a ridiculous ballot.
Posted by confines_of_gravity 9 years ago
confines_of_gravity
luissss!!!!
ahahaa

its angela
from brownsville

aha
dude
i was like looking through debates and i saw your
picture of your eye
ahaha
dude
ahhahaha
well you better get on
to see this

anywaysss

revleader5
you had no clear contentions and made degrading comments.

"I'll be that 90% of them, no 95% of them don't even know who Woodrow Wilson is or what he did to their country."

How can you make that assumption?
By saying that you have lost the debate
and your respect.
That is such a degrading thing to say, i did not expect to read something
like that in a site where there are supposed
to be good, intelligent debates.

oh
and btw
i live in a border townand i know that the "border wall", which is really a fence, will prove to only be a waste of time and money.
Construction of this wall is going to cut through the Fort Brown Golf Course, the wildlife reserve, Laguna Atascosa, and acres of property owned by United States citizens.
It will also discourage our neighbors in mexico
form visiting my city and others around it, thus, contributing to an economic downfall.

If the government really wants to help
the cities that are going to be near the border wall,
why dont they fix the levees in Brownsville, TX? It is a fraction of the cost of the border wall and will benefit the citizens more.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by confines_of_gravity 9 years ago
confines_of_gravity
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by malaki 9 years ago
malaki
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
champio0onrevleader5Tied
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