The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Aaronroy
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

U.S.-Mexico border fence

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,146 times Debate No: 15353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

socialpinko

Con

Pro will argue for a U.S.-Mexico border fence while Con will argue against. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.

The first round will be reserved for acceptance of the debate.
Aaronroy

Pro

I humbley accept this debate. I assume my opponent will be posting his contentions/definitons first.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

socialpinko forfeited this round.
Aaronroy

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

I know I'll probably lose the conduct vote for missing the second round but I'll try to get my argument in before I forfet another.

According to the Congressional Research Service a border fence spanning the entire border would cost up to 49 billion dollars. This does not include "the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors."
http://articles.sfgate.com...

The proposed border fence would also only cover a total of 700 miles of the border. The length of the whole U.S.- Mexico border is 1,969 miles total. http://en.wikipedia.org...
What use is the fence if it does not cover the whole thing? Can't immigrants just go around it?

VOTE CON
Aaronroy

Pro

My opponent has give me little to refute, but I will do so.

Response to first contention:

What does the matter of money have to do when illegal immigrants and drug cartels openly travel over the border? 49 billion dollars does seem like a small amount IN COMPARISON to the many FRUITLESS bills we have passed recently in Obama's administration. Examples: Stimulus package = 862 billion dollars. Healthcare reform bill = 875 billion dollars. Emergency teacher bailout = 23 billion dollars. These examples show how frivilous it is to look at the cost of a 700 mile border and think it is expensive. If the border is only 700 miles, isn't it better than just a wire fence? Certainly, some armed force group (most likely, the US National Guard) can be stationed in between gaps where illegal immigrants can sneak through. Let it be known that the border fence is proposed as 700 miles, not confirmed as to be built as a 700 mile fence.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" - Preamble of the US Constition

The US Constitution CLEARLY states that the US must provide for the common defense. Without a secure tangible border, how is there to be a common defense against the many drug cartels who actively smuggle cannabis, cocaine, and even illegal firearms across the border? A border fence seperating the USA from Mexico is only in best interest of USA. What will be the result? Less illegal immigrants, thus less under-the-counter paying jobs = less job corruption and more jobs for legal productive American CITIZENS. Less crime from the lower amounts of smuggled drugs across the border. Less gun violence from the fewer amount of illegal firearms smuggled from Mexico into the USA. All of this can ONLY be beneficial to the American people.

Vote PRO.
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://dmarron.com...
http://www.businessweek.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
People need to vote :/
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited giving 1pt to Pro and Pro annihilated Con's contentions
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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: con had better arguments. you can simply walk around it, also it costs an incredible amount of money. pro believed that con supported other costly projects by the government however he never said he did.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 6 years ago
anarcholibertyman
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's forfeit. However arguements go to Con because Pro did not answer his question of price. He simply said that it was worth it with no evidence to back it up.
Vote Placed by Extremely-Far-Right 6 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more sources and more reiable ones and Con forfeited a round. (Pro did have some mistakes such as not answering the price, but Pro provided more evidence for the position that he took and answered the other arguments) That being said, this debate goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wins conuct because of forfeit, but he never answers the argument of spending effectively. He concedes that for congress, it is nothing, however the rest of his answer is a red herring, and therefore, cannot be weighed also, hie provides no real source about that a fence would offset cartells, but we can save that for another debate.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
socialpinkoAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for forfeiting a round. Con loses arguments for putting almost no effort into it.