The Instigator
flaming.liberal
Pro (for)
The Contender
Our_Boat_is_Right
Con (against)

Trump's Border Wall Will Do More Harm Than Good

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Our_Boat_is_Right has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 116794
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

flaming.liberal

Pro

The Border Wall would be disastrous on several accounts. There would be no need to spend $21. 6 billion (http://time. Com/money/4915710/the-insane-cost-of-the-border-wall-if-the-government-shuts-down/) on a border wall that would actually do more harm than good.

--Contentions--

1. The wall would ruin cooperation on water allocation and ag -- that causes massive shortages for both countries (basically, It will create water shortages in both the US and Mexico)

We all know that if the wall is built, The US and Mexico relationship will be utterly destroyed. Mexicans are offended by the prospect of being forced to pay for the wall.
"We"re not paying for your f****** wall, " fumed former Mexican president Vicente Fox.

The administration"s approach threatens years of binational environmental border cooperation that has protected not only many wild species, But also agriculture on both sides of the border. A poisoned U. S. "Mexican relationship could also prevent the renegotiation of water sharing agreements that are critical to the environment as well as to water and food security, And to farming. (https://www. Brookings. Edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/). Energy production, And ecosystems on both sides of the border depend on equitable and effective water sharing from the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, With both sides vulnerable to water scarcities. Over the decades there have been many challenges to the joint agreements governing water usage, And both Mexico and the U. S. Have at times considered themselves the aggrieved parties. But in general, U. S. "Mexico cooperation over both the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers has been exceptional by international standards and has been hugely beneficial to both partners to the various treaties. That kind of co"operation is now at risk.

Water scarcity causes global wars -- the international system is fragile now, And interrupting small but critical supply streams is enough. Allied cooperation on resources is key to stability. (https://www. Foreignpolicyjournal. Com/2017/02/03/confronting-global-security-in-an-era-of-water-instabilities/).

Water scarcity could result in nuclear war. Regional skirmishes have the potential to become international crises in a world of shifting and unstable alliances. Conflicts in politically or economically disadvantaged regions can have unintended or unexpected consequences in advanced countries. Countries experiencing water supply instability, Both in terms of quantity and quality, May be less responsive security collaborators, Compromising the related interests of larger allies. According to a report by the United States National Intelligence Council, The prospect of state failure resulting from water insecurity will, As a "distraction" to ally governments, Compromise their ability to help manage global security threats.

If Trump gets authorization but Mexico doesn"t pay for it, He"ll nuke them -- causes extinction. (https://www. Thedailybeast. Com/how-to-stop-president-trump-from-nuking-mexico) Legally speaking, The authority to launch nuclear strikes rests almost exclusively with the president. While the Secretary of Defense must sign off on the deployment of such weapons, He/she has no veto power. Trump could order the armed forces to nuke Mexico if they refuse to pay for that "darned" wall. Thats right, It is speculated by a recent source and a reliable one as well. There is no reason to build the wall, When really it will result in possible nuclear war and water shortages.

2. Wall Causes Global Trade War

President Donald Trump"s plans to pay for a Mexican border wall could trigger the global trade war he has long threatened. A House Republican plan he embraced Thursday as a means of paying for the barrier would slap imported goods with a 20 percent tax " a levy aimed at boosting consumption of domestic products that could backfire by angering allies and upending the entire global trading system. Longtime trading partners " not just Mexico " could retaliate, Making American consumers pay more for everything from food to electronics and putting U. S. Companies out of business. The so-called border adjustment tax could trigger cases before the World Trade Organization, Spur other countries to slap levies on American products and put some U. S. Companies at a disadvantage with international competitors. (https://www. Politico. Com/story/2017/01/trump-mexico-wall-trade-war-234255) The resulting hit to the economies of foreign nations that depend on the massive American marketplace to gobble up their goods could prompt those governments to retaliate. And their methods could take myriad forms. They could launch trade enforcement cases at the World Trade Organization " an option that could take years and still not be successful, Given the likelihood that lawmakers would try to write the tax in such a way as to fall within the global trading body"s regulations.

3. The wall would destabilize Mexico to a failed state -- that spills over to the broader region and causes a laundry list of impacts.

Trump threatened to build a border wall that could hinder Mexico's economy.

But there"s a deeper risk: What happens in Mexico tends to spill over into the U. S. Mexican economy could also pose security threats to the U. S.
Among the most robust empirical findings in international relations is that poor economic performance can lead to political instability. This kind of unrest increases the likelihood of even more protests, Coups and revolutions.

If Trump"s policies go through, Even partially, We could be looking at some significant political and economic consequences for the country. One of the biggest political challenges in Mexico is corruption, Which tends to get worse under economic pressure. 1 Officials and citizens become more desperate, And there is weakened state capacity to combat it. Drug trafficking and violent crime, Also huge problems in Mexico, Are also likely to increase under worse economic conditions

4. The wall would prevent vital anti-organized crime cooperation and hurt the Mexican economy which drives more people into cartels. It also causes Mexican nationalism which worsens polarization. All of the security benefits of the wall fail. (thehill. Com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/316851-us-gains-little-loses-plenty-by-sticking-it-to-mexico)

Mexico stopped cooperating with the U. S. In going after violent criminal groups and drug cartels, The U. S. Would be much worse off.
Mexico could retaliate further by giving up efforts to secure its southern border with Central America, Augmenting the flows of migrants and contraband to the north.
The U. S. Would then face bigger border security challenges than if it maintains a cooperative security relationship with Mexico without a wall. If U. S. -Mexico relations continued to plummet to an unprecedented degree, Mexico could even stop sharing counterterrorism intelligence.

A significantly weakened Mexican economy could further exacerbate the severe criminal violence that has gripped Mexico for over ten years.

Fewer remittances and increased unemployment and poverty have the potential of driving many more desperate young Mexican men to joining drug gangs, Or to increased poppy cultivation, Extortion, And other criminal violence.

Voters, As you can see, There would be no need to implement a pointless border wall that could result in water shortages, Then nuclear war, Destabilize Mexico, And result in a trade war.

Excited to hear a response.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

He wants too create the wall to keep illegals out. This way it will keep crime out of the country, And make people get in the U. S. The right way. American's tax dollars fund illegals, And I don't want to pay for illegal people. They also get free benefits such as education, Etc.
Debate Round No. 1
flaming.liberal

Pro

"He wants too create the wall to keep illegals out. This way it will keep crime out of the country, And make people get in the U. S. The right way. American's tax dollars fund illegals, And I don't want to pay for illegal people. They also get free benefits such as education, Etc. "

Okay well it didn't seem like you responded to the downsides: again, Nuclear war, Trade war, Ruining Mexico-US relations, Increased drug trade, And decreased water supply in both countries.

SO, FEASIBILITY FIRST! It will cost $21. 6 billion to build this wall. Here is the thing, That many Trump supporters can't seem to agree on. Some say, "Mexico will pay for it. " But as I said, Having them pay for it will result in a horrible poisoned relationship between Mexico and the US. So having them pay for it will do an insane amount of harm. SO, The alternative is to have the US pay for it, Which will again, Be too much. Conservatives are called conservative for a reason, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE WITH THEIR MONEY. Republicans are okay with an expensive wall, But not with health care, Or more welfare funding? Seems illogical.

Point is, There is no good way to pay for the Wall. Either way, It will create deep social divisions between democrats and republicans.

Now: we should go onto the bulk of your argument. "Keep the illegals out. " I have several sources that say, The wall won't work.

Trump's border wall won't work, Say hundreds of architects(https://www. Azcentral. Com/story/opinion/op-ed/2018/02/02/architects-oppose-trump-border-wall-mexico/1079739001/)
The idea of the border wall does not address this real complexity. It paves over the physical, Environmental and fiscal complications with emotional simplicity.

Furthermore, The likely expenditure of more than $20 billion could do more good for more Americans if invested in numerous public projects, Like parks, Libraries, Schools, Mass transit, Water harvesting, Renewable energy, A 21st-century power grid or opioid-related health care programs. This is an opportunity cost, Meaning that if we spend money on that wall, We will be missing out on health care, Public schools, Libraries, And more important things.

It seems that a lot of Wall supporters feel that America is #1 priority, And it is very important, But it isn't everything. To appeal to your sense of logic:(America 1st), You should really look at the harms for Americans.

Example 1:

The wall ruins cooperation on water allocation and ag -- that causes massive shortages for both countries.
Felbab-Brown 17 (https://www. Brookings. Edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/)

We all know that if the wall is built, The US and Mexico relationship will be utterly destroyed. Mexicans are offended by the prospect of being forced to pay for the wall.
"We"re not paying for your f****** wall, " fumed former Mexican president Vicente Fox.

The administration"s approach threatens years of binational environmental border cooperation that has protected not only many wild species, But also agriculture on both sides of the border. A poisoned U. S. "Mexican relationship could also prevent the renegotiation of water sharing agreements that are critical to the environment as well as to water and food security, And to farming. (https://www. Brookings. Edu. . . ). Energy production, And ecosystems on both sides of the border depend on equitable and effective water sharing from the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, With both sides vulnerable to water scarcities. Over the decades there have been many challenges to the joint agreements governing water usage, And both Mexico and the U. S. Have at times considered themselves the aggrieved parties. But in general, U. S. "Mexico cooperation over both the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers has been exceptional by international standards and has been hugely beneficial to both partners to the various treaties. That kind of co"operation is now at risk.

Water scarcity causes global wars -- the international system is fragile now, And interrupting small but critical supply streams is enough. Allied cooperation on resources is key to stability. (https://www. Foreignpolicyjournal. Com. . . ).

Water scarcity could result in nuclear war. Regional skirmishes have the potential to become international crises in a world of shifting and unstable alliances. Conflicts in politically or economically disadvantaged regions can have unintended or unexpected consequences in advanced countries. Countries experiencing water supply instability, Both in terms of quantity and quality, May be less responsive security collaborators, Compromising the related interests of larger allies. According to a report by the United States National Intelligence Council, The prospect of state failure resulting from water insecurity will, As a "distraction" to ally governments, Compromise their ability to help manage global security threats.

If Trump gets authorization but Mexico doesn"t pay for it, He"ll nuke them -- causes extinction. (https://www. Thedailybeast. Com. . . ) Legally speaking, The authority to launch nuclear strikes rests almost exclusively with the president. While the Secretary of Defense must sign off on the deployment of such weapons, He/she has no veto power. Trump could order the armed forces to nuke Mexico if they refuse to pay for that "darned" wall. Thats right, It is speculated by a recent source and a reliable one as well. There is no reason to build the wall, When really it will result in possible nuclear war and water shortages.

So as you can see, There are definitely harms to America if the wall was built. So there is even harm to you, As an "America 1st" kind of person.

Hope you respond to what I said in both responses b/c you didn't respond to it in the first place.

Thanks! I await your response.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

Building a wall is a great use of money, If means keeping 11+ million illegals out of the country. You mention it could go towards health care, Gov. Schools, And other government stuff. This would be a huge waste, Because the government sucks at everything. Schools are terrible, Health care is inefficient and payed for by taxes, And basically we should not spend on government run stuff. I'm sure the water saving thing would not be big enough to be worried about, And maybe the Trump admin. Could work around that. Asserting that trump would nuke Mexico is bogus and another left wing propaganda.
Debate Round No. 2
flaming.liberal

Pro

"Building a wall is a great use of money, If means keeping 11+ million illegals out of the country. You mention it could go towards health care, Gov. Schools, And other government stuff. This would be a huge waste, Because the government sucks at everything. Schools are terrible, Health care is inefficient and payed for by taxes, And basically we should not spend on government run stuff. I'm sure the water saving thing would not be big enough to be worried about, And maybe the Trump admin. Could work around that. Asserting that trump would nuke Mexico is bogus and another left wing propaganda. "

Hey, Just a small request: could you put your sources when you use information/statistics? Just want to make sure that your info is correct. You scrutinized my source because it was "left wing propaganda, " so I want to make sure that your sources are perfectly unbiased and I just want to make sure that you actually have them.

I'm going to do this paragraph a little bit differently. I'm going to respond to each statement individually, Just to make that we have full coverage of the topic and your points.

---"Building a wall is a great use of money, If means keeping 11+ million illegals out of the country. "
---------As I have already stated in the last response: "Trump's border wall won't work, Say hundreds of architects. " This source is from Feb. Of 2018, So very recently, And hundreds of architects and actual professionals simply say that the wall won't work.
"We have serious border issues. Let's solve them with serious proposals that won't damage our communities. "-says New Mexico Architect. This source is uncontested by you, And unless you can find one that is more recent and more reliable(as mine is agreed with by professionals).

---"You mention it could go towards health care, Gov. Schools, And other government stuff. This would be a huge waste, Because the government sucks at everything. "
---------This is a very confusing statement because there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies within it. You said it would be a huge waste because the government "sucks at everything. " But wait? Wouldn't the wall be built by the government? Yes of course. So you are saying that the gov. Sucks at projects, BUT you also say that the wall that the wall will be "a good use of money by the US government? " Please clarify because I am confused.

---"Schools are terrible, Health care is inefficient and payed for by taxes, And basically we should not spend on government run stuff. "
---------Yes, Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Schools do need to be improved, Which is EXACTLY why we need too spend the money to improve the school system! Health care can be improved. SPEND IT ON THAT. Public projects, Like parks, Libraries, Schools, Mass transit, Water harvesting, Renewable energy, A 21st-century power grid or opioid-related health care programs can all be improved which are MUCH BETTER, Than paying for an unnecessary wall. So thank you for saying what you said, Because it actually helps my case.

---"I'm sure the water saving thing would not be big enough to be worried about, And maybe the Trump admin. Could work around that. "
---------Your response has no substance. No evidence, No source, It isn't even logical. You didn't use logic, So I'm going to use some of my own. The wall will cut off the Rio Grande River, A main source of water for both Mexico AND the US. Its geography 101. But here is some more evidence because you didn't seem to really answer the last evidence:
The wall ruins cooperation on water allocation and ag -- that causes massive shortages for both countries.
The administration"s approach threatens years of binational environmental border cooperation that has protected not only many wild species, But also agriculture on both sides of the border. A poisoned U. S. "Mexican relationship could also prevent the renegotiation of water sharing agreements that are critical to the environment as well as to water and food security, And to farming.
And your response to this was basically: "they will figure it out. " No, They won't. "We"re not paying for your f****** wall, " fumed former Mexican president Vicente Fox. Contrary to popular opinion, Trump can't control everything. Mexico has control over the US. They can decide if they want to cut relations with the US, Automatically leading to the impact of water shortages. So they can't simply, "figure it out. " Find a source, And your argument may be valid.

---"Asserting that trump would nuke Mexico is bogus and another left wing propaganda. "
FIND A SOURCE. My source is from 2016, At the very high rise of this wall debate, So it is reliable. It is also written by the national security correspondent for the Wall Street Journal.
You said that it was essentially made up by the left wing, HOWEVER: Donald Trump himself talked about the usage of nuclear weapons against Mexico. Here is a portion of that article. (https://www. Thedailybeast. Com/how-to-stop-president-trump-from-nuking-mexico)

How to Stop President Trump from Nuking Mexico(article title).
Trump tweeted about using nuclear weapons. He was curious when he reportedly asked three times in a one-hour briefing with a foreign policy advisor. If the U. S. Has nuclear weapons, It doesn"t use them? The answer is to keep billions alive. Legally speaking, The authority to launch nuclear strikes rests almost exclusively with the president. While the Secretary of Defense must sign off on the deployment of such weapons, He/she has no veto power. The fate of civilization depend on just two people in the Executive Branch. " Trump could order the armed forces to nuke Mexico, If they refuse to pay for that darned wall.

Again, Not left wing propaganda because your own RIGHT WING president said it.

I'd love to know your responses!
Thanks for a lively debate so far.
:-)
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

How else will we protect our borders without a wall. Nothing is working right now. Illegals can not climb over walls like they are doing right now if the wall is built. Who cares what a handful of architects say? The wall is thoughtfully planned out. Schools are run by school districts and state lwas. Not the fed gov. Government health care should be gone. We should not spend on public things because we already have so much and nothing has changed. (https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=q2jijuj1ysw)
The rio grande is the edge of the mexico border. It would be bulit on one one side of it, But not across. If a wall was built across it, It would be a damn, And water would flow over it.

Claims that Trump said to nuke mexico is bogus. They were made by an MSNBC anaylst, And they have yet to be verified, Prbably because they are the most left wing news out there, And they are lying.
Debate Round No. 3
flaming.liberal

Pro

Okay,
Let me just set something straight about the nukes going towards Mexico. You said that the source was MSNBC, But did you even look at the source I put? It was TheDailyBeast. Com, Which is a neutral source. It can be slightly left leaning but a lot of right wing people support it because the information is accurate. You should really look at the sources your opponents use when they are debating instead of accusing them of using a source that doesn't fit your own personal views. But all of that is irrelevant because YOUR OWN REPUBLICAN, PRO WALL, PRO NUCLEAR WEAPON, ANTI-IMMIGRATION said this.

I found a quote from the foreign policy advisor that Trump was talking to, So if you say this quote is wrong, Than you are disagreeing with Trump's administration, And thus you will be undermining yourself in this debate.

Quote: "Three times, [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times. He asked at one point, If we had them, Why can't we use them? "
AP News. Com(unbiased source because you care about those so much): "Trump administration officials said Monday they"re crafting a new legislative package aimed at closing immigration "loopholes, " hours after the president called on Republicans in Congress to immediately pass a border bill using the "Nuclear Option if necessary" to muscle it through"

They are literally passing a bill to use the "nuclear option" if possible. You can fact check this on the GOP website! So there is still a high chance that Trump will nuke them. It's not propaganda, Its fact.

Okay on to the rest of the case.

---"How else will we protect our borders without a wall. Nothing is working right now. Illegals can not climb over walls like they are doing right now if the wall is built. Who cares what a handful of architects say? "
---------You are questioning hundreds of architects who have dedicated their life to building, Structuring, And more than just the fundamentals of building. You seem to think that you know the ins-and outs of architecture because, "Illegals can not climb over walls like they are doing right now if the wall is built. "

Q: Why does your opinion about the wall beat the opinion and science of professional architects.
A: It doesn't

Point proven, Your point fails.

---"The wall is thoughtfully planned out. "
---------Trump randomly threw this idea out during his campaign. How is it planned out. If you think that because they are building prototypes that they are being "thoughtful, " but it really isn't. "Thoughtful, " would be testing public opinion, Listening to other peoples ideas, And finding a way to build it without causing social divisions and sparking outrage.

---"Schools are run by school districts and state lwas(laws). "
---------Are you implying that public schools don't get federal funding. It is basic fact that the federal government pays/helps to pay for public school. Then you say that it is payed for by school districts. Where do you think that school districts get the money? More than 14% come from the federal government, So why can't we add more money into the school system and make the federal government's percentage go from 14% to a higher percentage. Every penny counts. So you are blatantly just wrong about government funding.

---"Not the fed gov. Government health care should be gone. "
---------Wait but I'm confused. A lot of Trump supporters seem to be against Obama Care, But you realize that Trump care still exists. It is still government owned, And it still gives people insurance. While yes, It did cut people off of the previous system, It is still "government health care, " which seems to be something that you are against. So you are disagreeing with your president which falsifies your argument in it's entirety.

---"We should not spend on public things because we already have so much and nothing has changed. "
---------(I copied and pasted your link to the youtube video, But it doesn't work for me). Okay, So here is why I'm confused. So you say that the government should pay for the wall. Okay, So that takes about $23 billion from the federal government. But then you say that public "things" don't work. But after the money for the wall is spent, What do you want the government to spend their money on? There are so many public projects that need funding, But by your logic, "we shouldn't fund any of them because nothing has changed. " I disagree. Public infrastructure, Schools, Social security, Protecting immigrants that seek refuge from their violent countries, And other public programs need funding, Or else they wouldn't be government owned. This argument that you have made makes very little sense, And it should not be considered in the judging of this debate.

---"The rio grande is the edge of the mexico border. It would be bulit on one one side of it, But not across. If a wall was built across it, It would be a damn, And water would flow over it. "
---------As con, You do not have the right in a policy debate (the kind we are in now) to dictate what the policy changes will be. We are debating the PRINCIPLES that have been set by president Trump and his administration, And as Pro, My job is to say the consequences would be of implementing the plan. You do not have the right to decide that it would be built with a damn. You do not have the right to dictate which side of the river the wall will be built on (by the way, This won't work. "Illegals, " as you call them, Would still be able to come in on one side of the river. So both plans of "one side of the river", And "a damn, " have been proven false. Thus the water wars/shortages disadvantage still stands.

Now that I have refuted your case, I am going to do a few last things.
1. Challenges
2. Recap

1. Challenges:
---Do you think that the wall is likely to be passed in the near future?

---Do you understand that the wall will not be built for at least 15 years and that immigration will still be an "issue" until then?

---There are eight prototypes bidding to become the model for President Donald Trump's proposed border wall cost between $300000 and $500000 each. This is much more than speculated. How do you expect this to be a reasonable cost?

2. Recap:
So basically what we are left with in this debate, Is a bunch of my points standing, And very few standing on your side. What I still have left over on my side is water wars. Your refutation fails because you do not have the right to dictate laws because you cannot in real life. Also you proposed two plans: both proven invalid. I still have my trade war point standing because you never attempted to speak on it, Same with the increased drug deals in Mexico. In case you want to respond to the in your last response, Here is the evidence for each:

Trade Wars
President Donald Trump"s plans to pay for a Mexican border wall could trigger the global trade war he has long threatened. A House Republican plan he embraced Thursday as a means of paying for the barrier would slap imported goods with a 20 percent tax " a levy aimed at boosting consumption of domestic products that could backfire by angering allies and upending the entire global trading system. Longtime trading partners " not just Mexico " could retaliate, Making American consumers pay more for everything from food to electronics and putting U. S. Companies out of business. The so-called border adjustment tax could trigger cases before the World Trade Organization, Spur other countries to slap levies on American products and put some U. S. Companies at a disadvantage with international competitors. (https://www. Politico. Com. . . ) The resulting hit to the economies of foreign nations that depend on the massive American marketplace to gobble up their goods could prompt those governments to retaliate. And their methods could take myriad forms. They could launch trade enforcement cases at the World Trade Organization " an option that could take years and still not be successful, Given the likelihood that lawmakers would try to write the tax in such a way as to fall within the global trading body"s regulations.

Drug Cartels
The wall would prevent vital anti-organized crime cooperation and hurt the Mexican economy which drives more people into cartels. It also causes Mexican nationalism which worsens polarization. All of the security benefits of the wall fail: (thehill. Com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/316851-us-gains-little-loses-plenty-by-sticking-it-to-mexico)

Mexico stopped cooperating with the U. S. In going after violent criminal groups and drug cartels, The U. S. Would be much worse off.
Mexico could retaliate further by giving up efforts to secure its southern border with Central America, Augmenting the flows of migrants and contraband to the north.
The U. S. Would then face bigger border security challenges than if it maintains a cooperative security relationship with Mexico without a wall. If U. S. -Mexico relations continued to plummet to an unprecedented degree, Mexico could even stop sharing counterterrorism intelligence.

A significantly weakened Mexican economy could further exacerbate the severe criminal violence that has gripped Mexico for over ten years.

Fewer remittances and increased unemployment and poverty have the potential of driving many more desperate young Mexican men to joining drug gangs, Or to increased poppy cultivation, Extortion, And other criminal violence.

I urge you to respond to both as they are very important and severe claims.

Vote for Pro because of recent information, Reliable sources, Logical claims, Bigger impacts, Faster impacts, More destructive impacts. Even if you personally believe the wall is a good idea, I still ultimately think I won on the basic fact that each piece of evidence was followed by a unbiased source.

Thank you for a lively debate, It has been one of my most fun ones yet. I hope that you have a great rest of your week. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond after this round, So don't go too hard on me.
:-)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by flaming.liberal 2 weeks ago
flaming.liberal
Asta, I'm not saying that the money going to the wall should pay for the entirety of these services, As they already exist. They will just help the COST, And because of this, It will decrease the amount the regular Americans are taxed. Its a win-win.
Posted by Zombieguy835 2 weeks ago
Zombieguy835
Here's a picture of France trying to build a wall to prevent a German invasion in WW2. Let's see how that worked
https://ww2gravestone. Com/with-france-secure-along-its-famed-maginot-line-the-german-army-traversed-the-seemingly-impassable-ardennes-forest-taking-its-enemies-by-surprise/
A similar thing will happen
Illegals will just go around it, Either by sea or air. Hell, They might you a ladder just to climb it!
Posted by asta 2 weeks ago
asta
"Republicans are okay with an expensive wall, But not with health care, Or more welfare funding? Seems illogical. " A wall is cheaper then Healthcare and welfare.
Posted by flaming.liberal 3 weeks ago
flaming.liberal
As the creator of this debate, based on these comments, that some of you didn't really even read what I wrote. You probably just clicked on the debate, went straight to comments, and typed your opinion. But what you must realize is how much harm that the wall would do. Instead, you are only focusing on "positives," and completely ignoring the harms: nuclear war, water shortages, trade war, and increase activity and cartels and drug trade; not to mention that it will completely poison the US-Mexico relationship. Is it really worth it to create a nuclear war, just so that we can keep people who need to get a away from their already dangerous countries. It is so illogical will not do anything to help. It will just do more harm that good.
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 weeks ago
Debating_Horse
Hmmmm.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 weeks ago
Mister_Man
I would accept this but have done too many debates on the topic so far. If you'd like, you can skim over the two I did - http://www.debate.org... - http://www.debate.org... - Good luck if/when you find someone to accept.
Posted by pali1 3 weeks ago
pali1
I still have not decided what is correct and what the U.S should do but, my understanding is that Mexicans are coming to the U.S illegally and they are getting our tax money. That is unfair to us and we have tried so many times to make them understand to either come here legally or stay in Mexico. Also, our tax money that is supposed to be used for our roads and other stuff is being given to them. Basically, they are living a free life and they are taking our advantage.
Posted by asta 3 weeks ago
asta
How else would we control undocumented immigration? I don't want open borders.
Posted by asta 3 weeks ago
asta
If the US pays for the wall, will Mexico still be upset?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.