The Instigator
WilliamsP
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
Pokemonzr
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points

United States-Mexico Border Fence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,892 times Debate No: 49317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (5)

 

WilliamsP

Con

In this debate, I will argue that the United States-Mexico Border Fence should not exist.I will state my reasons in a few basic sentences: Nations should be allied, not at political war. We should assist illegal immigrants and grant them an opportunity for citizenship, not deport them. We do not need a border fence. We need diplomacy. A fence is irrelevant and won't positively influence anything.

NOTICE: Immigration Reform will be discussed in this debate.

I will now state the debate structure:

Round One: Acceptance / Stating Your Stance and Why You Have That View
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttals / Arguments Continued
Round Four: Further Rebuttal / Final Arguments
Round Five: Final Rebuttals / Debate Review / Conclusion / Concession if Needed


The rules are the following:

1. Sources will be cited using the proper MLA format.
2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used at all times.
3. Both debaters will use proper conduct when debating.
4. There will be no forfeitting at any time.


I patiently await my opponent's acceptance.
Pokemonzr

Pro

My stand is that the United States-Mexico border fence/barrier should continue in existence and that we should not assist illegal immigrants because all are criminals since they have illegally come here.

I accept all rules. Let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Con


Introduction


I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I believe him to be an intelligent, rational individual and therefore I truly look forward to debating him. I assure the voters that I will not be distracted from the facts for any reason. I will be rational and reasonable in this debate. However, I would like to define a few terms before we begin. Many words have multiple definitions, but I will state the definitions that best fit this context. A border is "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another." A fence, in this context is "a barrier enclosing or bordering a field, yard, etc., usually made of posts and wire or wood, used to prevent entrance, to confine, or to mark a boundary." Now that the terms have been defined, we can begin the debate.




Main Argument


As my opponent and the voters know, I will argue that there should not be a fence separating the United States of America and United Mexican States (the official name of the nation). I assure everyone that this is for good reason. I am going to restate the premise I made in round one and then I will expand on my ideas, presenting plenty of evidence to support my claim. I believe that nations should not be at political war. I believe in alliance and diplomacy. I am aware that drug cartels are an issue, but they can be dealt with. The border fence has environmental effects, economic effects, and other notable effects. According to The Environmental Impacts of the Border Wall Between Texas and Mexico, the fence has many negative effects on the environment:


"The United States government asserts that construction of the border wall between Texas and Mexico would affect wildlife and aquatic resources by conferring only “short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse and minor beneficial impacts.” This assertion is inaccurate, according to ecologists and wildlife biologists and information contained in the government’s own preliminary environmental documents. To the contrary, the detrimental effect of the border wall on wildlife and the environment in Texas will be significant. The serious deleterious effects of the border wall have been documented by scientific research, review of historical evidence, and expert opinion. In contrast, the data relied upon to formulate the government’s conclusion of “negligible to moderate adverse and minor beneficial impacts” is almost nonR08;existent. Furthermore, in its environmental reviews the government failed to adequately consider the proposed border wall’s indirect or cumulative effects, the effects to wildlife and conservation lands, and meaningful alternatives that could minimize environmental damage."


The MLA citation does not work on that specific source. I apologize for this inconvenience, but I will post the link below for you:


http://www.utexas.edu...






I do not understand how a fence - running for thousands of kilometers - can be beneficial. I hope you can answer this question in the arguments to come. Instead of a fence, there are alternatives I would propose. I would propose an innovative security system. I do not yet know what this system does and how it will operate, but I assure you that we need it. This combined with immigration reform and gun control will calm the issues. We do not need a fence. A fence is pathetic and irrelevant. It will not do much, if anything.






Granted, there is an issue regarding the drug cartels. But, as always, there are safer alternatives. As you can see, the border fence is disastrous for wildlife. If we removed the fence, one may ask "How do we stop the drug cartels now? With no fence, they will overcome us!" I believe that the drug cartels can be overcome once we improve relations with the country Mexico itself and that we pass comprehensive immigration reform, as the Democrats are trying to do right here at home.





The issue of the drug cartels can also be calmed and reduced by passing gun control laws. Violence will decrease when we enact these policies. We should also encourage the Mexican government to do the same. I will post the link to my Gun Control debate here, in case you need any additional information:




http://www.debate.org...




"The Mexican Drug War is an ongoing armed conflict among rival drug cartels fighting one another for regional control and against the Mexican government forces and civilian vigilante groups. Since 2006, when intervention with the Mexican military began, the government's principal goal has been to put down the drug-related violence."




I oppose the border fence for good reason. For one, the fence has negative effects toward wildlife. Secondly, there are other methods to solving the issues Mexico has. Thirdly, we need diplomacy, alliance, and compromise. We need to pass immigration reform and gun control, assist the Mexican government, and support the victims of drugs. We have an obligation to our ideals. Let's pass immigration reform.







MLA Citations


"Border." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.




"Fence." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;




"Mexican Drug War." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.



Pokemonzr

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for the compliments. "I believe him to be an intelligent, rational individual and therefore I truly look forward to debating him." It warms my heart to hear that, but that will not lower my debate skills. Nice try!

I would also like to begin with defining a few words that I believe will be essential to this debate.

Now, I would like to refute some of my opponents statements.

First off, they said that nations should be at alliance. I disagree because all nations cannot be at alliance. If all nations are allied, then we're living in a perfect, make-shift world with unicorns and pigs that fly. Think of it this way. If there is no war, we won't get anywhere. Let me bring up an example of progress through a war. The Revolutionary War separated the thirteen colonies from England and was the beginning of the United States. Without this war, the United States couldn't have been made, meaning little to no progress would have been made. Therefore, I believe that pro's world of alliance and world peace is impossible and will only make this world worse.

Secondly, I would like to point out something that my opponent stated which is that "the detrimental effect of the border wall on wildlife and the environment in Texas will be significant." However, they never stated how this will impact the environment. Also, they only brought up Texas. What about the other places where the border runs such as California? And screw the Mexicans. He/she doesn't care about the environmental impact in Mexico, only Texas! Therefore, I believe that this point should be rejected due to the lack of examples and lack of attention to other areas.

Also, I do not understand what they mean by "The MLA citation does not work on that specific source." How can an MLA citation "not work"? I believe that this suggests that my opponent does not know how to create one and is using an MLA citation creator online.

My opponent stated that he would like to install a security system and remove the fence. I disagree with this because, the last time I checked, security systems ran along buildings and fences, so how would we build a security system if we have nothing to build it on? Also, obviously my opponent has stated a terrible plan considering he does "not yet know what this system does and how it will operate". Therefore, I believe that we should keep the border fence and that this argument should be rejected.

Another thing my opponent constantly mentions is drug cartel and gun control, and he tries to relate them to each other. They make a complete assumption that "the issue of drug cartels can also be calmed and reduced by passing gun control laws", yet he provides no evidence or further explanation to this already poor assumption. Also, I believe that drug cartels have nothing to do with gun control, and that gun control is completely irrelevant to this entire topic.

In my opponent's conclusion, he states that the fence has negative effects toward wildlife, yet continues to provide backing evidence and further explanation. He also says that there are other methods of solving the issue Mexico has, yet he has not stated any other methods besides his lousy security system. His conclusion is completely useless considering nearly everything he states is not backed by cold hard evidence and good explanations.

Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent has provided an invalid URL in his last citation from Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Therefore, all information that he has used from this fake, unreliable source should be discounted.

Now, I would like to bring up arguments of my own.

Argument 1:
I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border fence because of the money already invested on it. Since we have invested so much money, it is useless to spend more money and not get rid of it. My opponent is not looking at the price tag on his proposals. Just to build the border fence, it has already cost us $2.4 billion! (1) If we take it down, I assume it will cost millions more for the work force to tear it down plus the high tech equipment. Another price tag that he is not looking at is the security system he has proposed. This would cost billions of more dollars, all from the government out of our, the taxpayers, pockets! Therefore, the United States-Mexico border should not be built because it will financially impact the United States more than it already has.

Argument 2:
I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out. In 2012 in the country of Mexico, there were 102,085 homicides in total. (2) Also, in Mexico, in the year of 2011, there were 12,358 drug-related murders in Mexico. (3) Do we want all of these criminals and crimes in our country in addition to the crime rates of the Untied States? I'd say no.

For the reasons I have stated, I believe that the United States-Mexico border fence should not be eliminated as pro suggests.

MLA Citations:
1. Sais, Samantha. "Price Tag for 700 Miles of Border Fencing: High and Hard to Pin down." NBC News. NBC News, June 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://usnews.nbcnews.com...;.

2. Baker, James A. "Baker Institute Blog." Baker Institute Blog. Chron, 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://blog.chron.com...;.

3. Wikipedia Contributors. "Crime in Mexico." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.
Note: This is not unreliable. Information from source from the Reforma Ejecutometro.

I wish my opponent luck, and I believe that this is shaping up to be a great debate!
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Con

Introduction


Before I continue with my rebuttals and my argument continued, I would like to thank my opponent for responding. I would like to remind my opponent that the previous round (round two) was ONLY for main arguments. His rebuttals should have been in this round. He should have the “conduct” points taken away from him in the votes due to him not following the debate structure I implemented. I would also like to apologize that the last MLA citation did not work properly. I do not know what happened and why.



Rebuttals & Arguments Continued

I have plenty of rebuttals. My opponent’s points are largely valid, but it is the question of how you interpret the facts that really matters in this debate. First of all, the border fence should not be there for the reasons I have already stated and I will continue to strengthen my stance by supporting the arguments I have already made and making new arguments. I can rebut your points. I will do so now.


You said that “[you] believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out.” First of all, for the reasons I have stated in my previous argument, we should not keep the fence. Secondly, I have a new point I am going to make: Is a pathetic fence going to stop the drug cartels and illegal immigrants? I say no. A fence - as I have defined in my opening statements - is “usually made of posts and wire or wood”. Below is an image of the United States-Mexico border fence.




Now tell me a drug cartel cannot get through this fence.


Also, drug cartels aren’t the only issue. People who try to leave Mexico and the crime it has wish to immigrate to the United States to start a new life. This debate isn’t only about the border fence. It is also about immigration reform. You said in your opening statement in round one that “we should not assist illegal immigrants because all are criminals since they have illegally come here.” Logically speaking, this is accurate. However, I don’t think you realize why they wish to immigrate. They wish to leave a country filled with crime, drugs, and violence. Can’t we grant them citizenship? Can’t we stop deporting them back to their home nation, one of darkness? Think about it.


Your first argument states:


I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border fence because of the money already invested on it. Since we have invested so much money, it is useless to spend more money and not get rid of it. My opponent is not looking at the price tag on his proposals. Just to build the border fence, it has already cost us $2.4 billion! (1) If we take it down, I assume it will cost millions more for the work force to tear it down plus the high tech equipment. Another price tag that he is not looking at is the security system he has proposed. This would cost billions of more dollars, all from the government out of our, the taxpayers, pockets! Therefore, the United States-Mexico border should not be built because it will financially impact the United States more than it already has.


We have the money. We are the richest nation in the world. We have a GDP of about 17 trillion dollars. However, we need to reduce spending in certain areas, increase spending in other areas, balance the budget, reduce the deficit, and manage our finances correctly. We have the money, but we just need to manage it properly.


Your second argument states:


I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out. In 2012 in the country of Mexico, there were 102,085 homicides in total. (2) Also, in Mexico, in the year of 2011, there were 12,358 drug-related murders in Mexico. (3) Do we want all of these criminals and crimes in our country in addition to the crime rates of the Untied States? I'd say no.



We cannot ignore the crime that has occurred in Mexico. However, I don’t believe you understand that a fence won’t do anything. We need gun control, immigration reform, and above all, diplomacy. A fence may slow a drug cartel, but it won’t stop it. Even with the fence, cartels have already invaded Texas and other bordering states. In Texas, for example, arrests have been made that are linked to the drug cartels in Mexico. A fence won’t do anything. I hope you realize this.



Look at the image above. Two nations you see, separated by a pathetic fence. Does this look beautiful to you? Behind that fence, violent crimes occur. Logically speaking, when we tear the fence down, the cartels will invade us. But no, with immigration reform and gun control, the issues will be resolved. With diplomacy and courage, the problem will be no more.

Look at this beautiful flag; the banner of red, white, and blue. We are the country of liberty and justice for all, forged upon the principles of egalitarianism, diplomacy, and harmony. Don’t you think we have an obligation to our ideals? Don't you think we should pass immigration reform and properly deal with the drug cartels? I say we should. We have an obligation to ensure that this world remains peaceful. We aren't doing enough. Let's start now. I support the movement. Do you?


MLA Citations


"37 Arrested in Austin after Months-long Drug Cartel Investigation." KVUE Kvue.com. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.kvue.com...;.



"Police: Central Texas Busts Have Ties to Zetas Drug Cartel." KVUE Kvue.com. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.kvue.com...;.


"The New Global Economy."CNNMoney. Cable News Network. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://money.cnn.com...;.
Pokemonzr

Pro

Pokemonzr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Con

My opponent forfeits. I am deeply disappointed.
Pokemonzr

Pro

I sincerely apologize for my forfeit. I have been so busy these past few days, and next thing I know it, I get an email from Debate.org saying that I forfeited the debate! Once again, I apologize for that.

I would like to now just say some things I guess.

This is what my opponent stated:
"I would like to remind my opponent that the previous round (round two) was ONLY for main arguments. His rebuttals should have been in this round. He should have the "conduct" points taken away from him in the votes due to him not following the debate structure I implemented. I would also like to apologize that the last MLA citation did not work properly. I do not know what happened and why."

Firstly, I believe that it is wrong to accuse me of something, then on top of that say that I should have conduct points taken away. The voters decide this, not my opponent.

Secondly, I apologize for including refutations in my main arguments. Where I'm from, we do it a bit differently. The first and second speaker provide refutations and emphasize our team's arguments, and third speaker, known as rebuttal, basically looks over the whole debate and points out meaningful things. So, I believe that conduct points should not be taken away since I am new to debate.org and still have to adjust to the debating style.

Thirdly, I believe that my opponent is wrong because, as he indicated, the second round is for main arguments. According to dictionary.com, an argument is defined as "a discussion involving differing points of view; debate". What I did was provide a discussion, provide arguments and a debate, by refuting my opponent's points.

I would finally like to point out that my opponent is using extremely large and obnoxious fonts for his titles, and is centering his text which, as the commenters have pointed out, is extremely hard to read.

Since I apparently did the second round wrong, I will not provide any further refutations to try and make up for it. Instead, I will repeat my own points.

Argument 1:
I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border fence because of the money already invested on it. Since we have invested so much money, it is useless to spend more money and not get rid of it. My opponent is not looking at the price tag on his proposals. Just to build the border fence, it has already cost us $2.4 billion! (1) If we take it down, I assume it will cost millions more for the work force to tear it down plus the high tech equipment. Another price tag that he is not looking at is the security system he has proposed. This would cost billions of more dollars, all from the government out of our, the taxpayers, pockets! Therefore, the United States-Mexico border should not be built because it will financially impact the United States more than it already has.

Argument 2:
I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out. In 2012 in the country of Mexico, there were 102,085 homicides in total. (2) Also, in Mexico, in the year of 2011, there were 12,358 drug-related murders in Mexico. (3) Do we want all of these criminals and crimes in our country in addition to the crime rates of the Untied States? I'd say no.

MLA Citations:
1. Sais, Samantha. "Price Tag for 700 Miles of Border Fencing: High and Hard to Pin down." NBC News. NBC News, June 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://usnews.nbcnews.com......;.

2. Baker, James A. "Baker Institute Blog." Baker Institute Blog. Chron, 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://blog.chron.com......;.

3. Wikipedia Contributors. "Crime in Mexico." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org......;.
Note: This is not unreliable. Information from source from the Reforma Ejecutometro.

Even though I know I have lost this debate, I will persevere and make it to the end. I would like to thank my opponent for being a strong opponent as I have learned a lot so far. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Con

Conclusion
Now that I am aware my opponent is new to the site, I first would like to welcome him to Debate.org. The two arguments he has presented contain quite many statistics. However, I interpret them differently than he does. I managed to refute each argument and I have strengthened mine with additional facts. My opponent, for a new debater and thirteen year-old, performed magnificently. I acknowledge that I myself am a fourteen year-old, but I have shown greater skill in this than he has. That does not mean he has no skill. He is a great debater, quite frankly, but on this specific topic he did not perform as strongly. I wish him good luck in the Debate.org community and, perhaps, I will debate him soon again.

Thank you.
Pokemonzr

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the "warm welcome".

One thing that he has mentioned in his conclusion is that he has "shown greater skill than me". This is not a fair statement. From my point of view, it seems as though my opponent is narcissistic, and, quite frankly, a bit of a jerk. Here are some statements that he has made to support my claim:

"I acknowledge that I myself am a fourteen year-old, but I have shown greater skill in this than he has."

"He should have the 'conduct' points taken away from him in the votes due to him not following the debate structure I implemented."

Voters, you can also scrounge through the debate and find many other quotes from my opponent that support my case.

Onto my refuting.

This was one of my opponent's refutations:
"You said that "[you] believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out." First of all, for the reasons I have stated in my previous argument, we should not keep the fence. Secondly, I have a new point I am going to make: Is a pathetic fence going to stop the drug cartels and illegal immigrants? I say no. A fence - as I have defined in my opening statements - is "usually made of posts and wire or wood". Below is an image of the United States-Mexico border fence. I strongly disagree with this because a source I have found states that it does work and that it is "secure enough" to keep out crime from Mexico. (1) Secondly, I would like to point out that my opponent has many propositions to get rid of the United States-Mexico border fence, but has no decent plan. He states that "I would propose an innovative security system. I do not yet know what this system does and how it will operate, but I assure you that we need it." This is a lousy plan, considering he has no idea what type of security system, or the millions, or even billions, of dollars it would cost the United States! Therefore, I believe that my opponent has stated an invalid refutation to my argument about crime in Mexico due to his lousy plan and false statement about the security of it.

My opponent also stated, in response to my money argument, that "We have the money. We are the richest nation in the world. We have a GDP of about 17 trillion dollars. However, we need to reduce spending in certain areas, increase spending in other areas, balance the budget, reduce the deficit, and manage our finances correctly. We have the money, but we just need to manage it properly." There are two reasons that I disagree with this refutation. First of all, I see no source stated anywhere in this. How do you know we're the richest nation in the world, without a source? How do I know that I can trust you? Secondly, I disagree with this point because money does not grow off of trees, especially government money. So where does government money grow? In taxpayers' pockets! Why would taxpayers (all of you) want to fund uselessly taking down the already effective border fence and putting in a lousy, expensive security system that my opponent doesn't even know the slightest details about yet? Therefore, I believe that, yet again, my opponent has brought up an invalid refutation do to no source stated and, once again, his failure to think about the price tag even further, going into taxpayers' pockets.

My opponent next stated the following in response to my crime argument: "We cannot ignore the crime that has occurred in Mexico. However, I don"t believe you understand that a fence won"t do anything. We need gun control, immigration reform, and above all, diplomacy. A fence may slow a drug cartel, but it won"t stop it. Even with the fence, cartels have already invaded Texas and other bordering states. In Texas, for example, arrests have been made that are linked to the drug cartels in Mexico. A fence won"t do anything. I hope you realize this." Before I further refute this, I would like to define gun control. According to dictionary.com, gun control is defined as "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." Gun control is completely irrelevant to this topic, and my opponent has failed to even make the slightest connection between gun control and this topic. Secondly, he keeps bringing up the fact that a fence won't do anything, but his lousy security system won't either! I would also like to point out that he is completely ignoring my refutation in the first round in response to his diplomacy point. "First off, they said that nations should be at alliance. I disagree because all nations cannot be at alliance. If all nations are allied, then we're living in a perfect, make-shift world with unicorns and pigs that fly. Think of it this way. If there is no war, we won't get anywhere. Let me bring up an example of progress through a war. The Revolutionary War separated the thirteen colonies from England and was the beginning of the United States. Without this war, the United States couldn't have been made, meaning little to no progress would have been made. Therefore, I believe that pro's world of alliance and world peace is impossible and will only make this world worse." Since he is completely ignoring this refutation by me, a large sum of his argument that I am refuting right now is irrelevant since it has already been refuted and he has failed to confront my refutation, yet still brings it up.

"Look at this beautiful flag; the banner of red, white, and blue. We are the country of liberty and justice for all, forged upon the principles of egalitarianism, diplomacy, and harmony." This is what my opponent brought up at the end of round three. Yet, the USA, I believe, was founded on liberty and justice for all, all citizens. Liberty and justice is not provided for illegal immigrants.

I believe that I have won this debate, even though I have stated in Round 5 that I have lost, but i will not be narcissistic, like my opponent, and let the voters ultimately decide the winners. I wish my opponent luck, and hope that many votes roll my way.
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I am very busy. I apologize.
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
Still have not heard back from Con, I believe it is same to assume that no further argument can be made at this time.
Posted by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
Both of you are very young, and i really appreciate the level of debate prowess both of you inhibits. Most people of your age would simply just troll, which is very annoying.
Posted by SONOFGOD2013 3 years ago
SONOFGOD2013
No fence. I'm was born and part of my life I was raised there so I think there shouldn't be any fence.
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
I posted that a day ago, according to the timestamp. How does your statement make any sense in the slightest if you found the time to comment today with random 2 sentence posts instead of backing up your argument. Really?
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I will respond to the points via message. However, that will be later. I must do some other things. I have to prioritize.
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
So why haven't you responded to the points I've made yet? Are you not able to justify your cause because I've already put you in your place?
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I have done more research than my opponent in this debate. I am NOT being stubborn.
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
Strange that you haven't even responded to the key points I've made in my last comment, and just 'hope that Washington can get something done in 2014'.

Can you actually do you research and stop being so damn stubborn, WilliamsP?
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I hope that Washington can get something done in 2014.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
WilliamsPPokemonzrTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Con had done a lousy job of supporting their arguments in regards to potential changes to be made on the fence, without anything to back it up on what could be a good resolution. Pro has pointed out these cases, even though a few issues have occured in the debate where it was forfeit and a claim of loss. Great job to you two, and I still stand on my beliefs that we should continue to have the border but have some level of higher protection measures be installed to keep these people out. Also Con, I am not sure if you went into further detail on it, but why should we assist illegal immigrants and grant them opportunity for citizenship?
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
WilliamsPPokemonzrTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit and for overlooking the rules which was clearly outlined(REBUT R2), the use of semantics in justifying the conduct point did not help Pro's case whatsoever, So conduct points to Con. I had to award S&G to Con because Pro made 1)Punctuation errors and 2)Arguments 1's closure link was a concession(I had to reread it to understand that it isnt) and 3)Mumbo Jumbo Format(particularly last round).So for the confusion, S&G to Con.Basically, Pro wants more elaboration of Con's case and used this mentality as his rebuttals. Con's failure to provide depth turns into a weakness,one which ran throughout the debate. Furthurmore, Con ignored Pro's point on Revolutionary Wars. Pro adequatly proved, that Con's plan, one which is somewhat imaginary as he did not point out how or what(E.g type of security system) was deeply simplistic without any elaboration. Even in Con's ecological argument was not adequatly supported with proper evidence and elaboration. So arguments go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
WilliamsPPokemonzrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I looked at this debate two times. The first time I briefly skimmed through it, and off the bat I decided Con should get a conduct point because Pro forfeited a ROUND. After more thoroughly going over this debate, I still stand by this conclusion. Both debaters made great arguments (though there was a few within the debate I disagreed with, such as Pro's assertion that war is useful and that it advances civilizations; some nations have been at constant war for centuries and they've gotten nowhere because of it). However, after reviewing arguments I came to the conclusion that both were right. The fence DOES hurt wildlife and and our lack of strong gun control policies here in the US DOES contribute to drug war violence inside Mexico and on our border. But Pro did show that it was necessary to have a border fence, too, considering the issues the United States faces. In the final analysis I awarded points for most convincing arguments to both debaters!
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPPokemonzrTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The two debaters both had great conduct, for they were polite. However, Pro forfeited, giving Con the conduct points. As for spelling and grammar, they both did very well and are tied for that. When it comes to reliable sources, it seems Con had better sources in my opinion. Also, he could not use MLA format for a certain source. MLA is a format and any website works for it. Finally, when it comes to who made more convincing arguments, the decision was tough. Con used too much emotion in his arguments, while Pro copied and pasted the same argument into a different round. Because of this, the points for this are tied.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
WilliamsPPokemonzrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very close debate, and in the end I couldn't decide on arguments. I felt that Con's argument about wildlife was his strongest point, but that it was never really established with evidence, and also he had some ideas about open immigration that were very interesting but could have come together more strongly to support the resolution. Like Pro, I find the statement that MLA sourcing doesn't "work" difficult to understand. It's not a computer program, but a citation style. It always works. And these were Con's rules, so that's why I took sources off. Conduct for the forfeit, which was one of the rules in round 1. Otherwise, thank you. It was fun to read.