The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
crushboy79
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The US Should Not Have a Border Fence

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 4 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,932 times Debate No: 63929
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Just playing Devil's Advocate for fun.
First round acceptance.
US=United States
No semantic arguments nor trolling.
crushboy79

Con

I accept this debate and it's rules. May the best man win.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

Well you see the border fence is incredibly expensive.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...
The source above shows us that the government has already spent 2.4$ billion on 640 miles, and another 700 miles are to come. This is a massive amount of money, and the benefits of the fence need to outweigh this massive cost. Now, this fence was built (and completed) in 2009. Let us see the amounts of terrorism in the US.
Even before this fence was built, terrorism was already declining.

[source: http://www.fbi.gov...]

Now, let us take a look at the terrorism attack successfulness rate in the US.
s://greatpowerpolitics.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="487" height="293" />
source:http://greatpowerpolitics.wordpress.com...

Now let us see another graph on terrorism attacks on the US from the same site.
s://greatpowerpolitics.files.wordpress.com...; alt="US Attacks" />
You can clearly see a noticable drop at 1972, then at 1993, then a much smaller drop at 2004, and although it does seem that the year the fence was built--2009--the attack had dropped, apparently it really didn't do much to the successful rate, and ever since 2012 there seems to be a gradual rise in the attacks.
In fact the exact year the fence was built there seemed to be strange rise of wounded people due to terrorism attacks.
s://greatpowerpolitics.files.wordpress.com...; alt="US Wounded" />

In fact, the fence seems to do nothing to prevent terrorism deaths and wouds. The site I mentioned before talks about how the fence was made from 2006-2009, and logically if the fence was efficient wounds and deaths should decline. But this is not the case, apprently.
s://greatpowerpolitics.files.wordpress.com...; alt="US Casualties" />
You see, the deaths and wouds have actually dramatically increased, from 2006-2012, huge peaks, one taller than another, show huge lack of success within the border fence.

Not only has the border fence largely failed at preventing terrorism, it has failed to prevent illegal immigration and bought other harms with it.
http://www.no-border-wall.com...
I'
The source above clearly shows us, "97% of people who try to cross the U.S.-Mexico border eventually succeed at entering the country". This only adds to the inefficiency of the border fence, and furthers to why it should not have been built. Furthermore, as the site notes, the fence only redirects the good legal immigrants to horrible places, caused environmental damage, "disturbed ancient graves and archaeological sites", stripping the local people and companies out of their private property, and most disturbingly, the cost to maintain the fence is much much worse than how much it cost to build it. 2.4$ Billion to build the border fence? Oh yeah, but it costs more than $49 billion to maintain the fence, according to the site above.

To elaborate specifically on the environmental damage, the border fence actually goes against the Coastal Zone Management Act as it damages the reserve, including marshes and endangered animal as well as plant species. [see: http://www.no-border-wall.com...]
Not only so, the cite notes how within the "Smuggler's Gulch", the border fence creates large amounts of erosion due to its need of bulldozing, blasting, among other mechanical actions that heavily damage the environment. The erosion allows water to flow into the environmental site, and in the website's words, "disrupt the twice-daily inundation of sea water upon which its fragile ecosystem depends."

IN CONCLUSION
I'm not sure why I was pro on border fence. I guess I just felt like it would be efficient at keeping terrorism and illegal immigrants away. It looks like it is not very efficient after all.
Onto you, my opponent.
crushboy79

Con

Thanks, to start off, I'll address your statement regarding the connection of the border fence and number of deaths. Who said that the death rate would go down? Is that a guarantee that death rate would go down? I should say not. The well-respected Glenn Beck has said before that a fence would greatly discourage a family or person trying to get over, especially if that fence is electric. As stated in the comments, a fence would only have to be built once. (heh heh, thanks dude) Since he helped me I'll help you. Last week, a Islamic terrorist slipped through the border fence, and headed toward Houston.(he was caught by the way) So, back to you

All sources from the Blaze.com
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent has yet to justify why the fence would only have to be built once, and why it can be effective at preventing illegal immigration or terrorism. My opponent commits the texas sharpshooter fallacy by merely choosing one terrorist, while my statistics obviosuly show terrorism overall beating the U.S. border fence.
crushboy79

Con

So? One terrorist is all we need. Go to Better faster cheaper border security at the Heritage Foundation .com to back my cheaper fence statement
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

FINAL ROUND
Even this cheaper fence will definitely still cost a lot to build and maintain. My opponent hasn't justified why one terrorist is enough compared to my massive statistics of attacks. One fence is weak and worse than none. He has also not rebutted why one fence won't damage the environment severely. Most of my arguments remain heavily un-refuted.
I WIN. VOTE ME.
crushboy79

Con

You win? Vote you? True, a fence would not be environmentally sound, but one fence is stronger and better than none. Yes, terrorists have gotten in, which is why we need a border fence to make it more difficult for them to get in. No, you do not win yet, though you may. Good luck, see you in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by crushboy79 2 years ago
crushboy79
That would be awesome, great solution!!!
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
We should not have a border fence. We should have 2 of them 200 yards apart. And a mine field in between.

The real solution is those illegals, all 20,000,000 of them invade mexico, get rid of the corrupt government that is creating such poverty and stay there.Then when Obama and the democrats wreck our country, we can go down there are get jobs.
Posted by Vox_Veritas 2 years ago
Vox_Veritas
Sorry.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I know, try not to help con too much
Posted by Vox_Veritas 2 years ago
Vox_Veritas
Illegal immigrants cost 100 billion dollars a year.
http://www.fairus.org...
This border fence would only have to be built once, and it'd quickly save enough money to be a worthy investment.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
A border fence won't do much against terrorism and illegal immigrants should be allowed to cross, but quarantine them in a set location until they obtain citizenship. If they don't, they can't leave the area. Why not make New Mexico into an actual New Mexico? Those people, while intrusive, still need our help. Mexico is a harsh place to raise a family compared to America, and any loving parent will do whatever they can to ensure their children grow up in a safe place, no matter the laws.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
LOL. Dat preparation. XD
Of course 9space would put himself in a really bad position in a debate. Although I'm pretty sure he'll win. :P
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
9spacekingcrushboy79Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Neither had any major spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to rebut several points throughout the debate, this left Pro open to maintaining the BOP and for this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. While both utilized sources, Pro's came from less biased sites and was overall of higher quality. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
9spacekingcrushboy79Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments for pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
9spacekingcrushboy79Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of Pro's arguments went uncontested.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
9spacekingcrushboy79Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Spelling were even in this debate. However, arguments go to Pro because they were not completely refuted by Con. There was an attempt to refute the terrorist argument yet Pro provided much more sound information concerning that topic. Arguments discussing the environment and cost were untouched by Con. Sources also go to Pro, not because Con didn't use any, but they certainly weren't presented in a way that could easily be accessed and found where he was pulling the information.