The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 75263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I spy another person who wants a border fence. I challenge you to debate this as I believe we don't need a border fence.
Round 1 Acceptance
Round 2-4 Arguments and rebuttals
Round 5 Final rebuttals and closing statements
1. If Pro/Con changes the other person's opinion on the border fence, arguments section is automatically won.
2. Maintain appropriate conduct.
3. Forfeiting doesn't mean you lose. It just hurts your chances.
4. Should you be a plagiarist, you lose automatically.


I accept this challenge
Debate Round No. 1


OK now that you accepted prepare yourself! I will go by what MOST people believe should be the border fence.
A ten foot tall, 700 mile long fence going along the U.S. Mexican border.
First of let me state something. How is a fence going to stop illegal immigrants? That is the problem, no matter what, illegals will keep coming. I can think of 5 ways immediately an illegal can cross the border with a fence.
1. Use a ladder.
2. Give a person a leg-up and have them pull you up.
3. Use rope.
4. Tunnel underneath
5. Take a boat around it
Let us also not forget the MASSIVE price tag of all this. As one of my sources says, it would cost an average of 3.9 million for 1 mile of fencing. Do the math. 3,900,000*700=2,730,000,000!
2.73 billion is not cheap in the slightest bit. It could even be more because building a steel fence on poor soil isn't easy. I just don't see why taxpayer's money should be spent on this when it could be used more effectively.
On top of all that it hurts the environment. At the point of the Rio Grande that begins to shape the Texan border there are two choice for the wall there.
1. Put the wall there which ends up making the Rio Grande the Rio Pequeno by cutting of the flow of water.
2. Don't put a wall there which is basically the same as having a flashing neon orange sign saying go this way illegal immigrants.
Animals also have a bit of a problem crossing over a ten foot fence if they can't fly. Plus if a tunnel is dug underneath the fence, that could cause a cave-in causing a few more million dollars of taxpayer's money down the drain.
The fence would also cut right through the Tohono O"odham Native American reservation. Indian land are pretty free from the US and now with a giant fence going through their land will involve in a couple of cases suing the federal government from the natives.

Now my solution.
Have about 3,000 armed soldiers guard the border with transport vehicles including tanks. Meaning over 1 guard per 1/4 mile. They show that if you try to come you will be deported or shot. A few helicopters and transport helicopters patrolling might also be good to paratroop guards to deport them if they happen to see illegals with no guard in that area. They show illegals won't be tolerated.


We need to stop immigrants from entering the country somehow. It seems to be getting worse and worse these days. Immigrants are coming into our country and taking advantage of our welfare and government assistance programs. I'm all for immigrants to come and better themselves in the U.S. I know we have a lot more to offer than most countries. Just come here legally.


1. Using a ladder-Well ladders can be useful to get over the fence but if we build a 20 foot fence then they won't get over that easily because the average height of a ladder is 10-12 feet so lets just say no they can't.

2. Give a person a leg up-Well generally you can hold so much weight so even if they tried that they would lose balance.

3. Using a rope-Well to use a rope you would have to put 1 person on one side and 1 on another so a person would have to climb over the fence to use the rope and with bob wire it would be almost impossible to do because it would cut you.

4. A tunnel-We could build the fence underground to about 20 feet so it would almost be impossible to get through 1. Because it would take many years to build a tunnel 2. While building the tunnel they would suffercate because its to far down.

5. A boat-Since Mexico is a poor country there boats will not make it around the fence unless its a cruise ship and no illegal immigrant wouldn't beable to get a hold of one.

My opponent is talking about pricing well of course its gonna cost alot but its the duty of the president 'To do whatever he/she can to protect the citizens of the United States' so this would be a special curcimstance
Debate Round No. 2


Defending my arguments
1. You said average. There could easily be a ladder a few feet higher. Plus I did what MOST people think the fence would be ten feet high.
2. So does everyone have poor balance? If they planned it they would get two-four strong people. Plus barbed wire can be cut.
3. Once again barbed wire can be cut. There's already enough illegals in America for communication to be done to have one person on both sides.
4. Oh great. Tack on 10 billion. I'm pretty sure Mexicans are smart enough to bring a few oxygen tanks down each time.
5. They aren't THAT poor. A well constructed rowboat could get 1-10 illegals across. With Cubans are getting to Florida in trucks modified to be boats, I'm pretty sure Mexicans could do something similar.

New argument: What if a Mexican(s) smuggle dynamite to blow a hole in the wall and go through it for an hour until America rushed soldiers to guard it while being repaired? Another 50 million down the drain.

With what your adding which is not what most agree for what the fence should be, would add it to 20-25 billion dollars.


I want my opponent to answer these questions before I continue.

What if ISIS migrates to Mexico?

What about American jobs?

What about all the marijuana and cocaine that they bring into our country?

What about children's safety living by the borders with gangs coming in?

Do you realize if we send troops to the borders with out a fence they could be kill?
Debate Round No. 3


Let me answer those question before I ask my own.
1. What if ISIS migrates to Mexico?- They'll blow up the fence if there is one there and kill some Mexicans.

2. What about American jobs?- Look at India, 1/3 the size of the US with 3 times the population and they seem to be in pretty good shape for jobs. Also as I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop all illegals from coming, it's like remove all the mines in western Sahara, there are just so many that you will miss a few even with today's technology.

3. What about all the marijuana and cocaine they bring into our country?-Mexico's president is trying to resolve those drugs while he is in office now. As for those still in America, that's the governments job from stopping what is already in America.

4.What about the children's safety living by the border with gangs coming in?-Get a more competent and a larger police department for any American border towns. Until then have a few soldiers or the national guard there making sure the towns are safe.

5. Do you realize if we send troops to the border without a fence they could be killed?- Let me answer that question with a question. How exactly will a fence will stop soldiers from dying? No matter where a soldier or person is, they always have a chance at dying. If ISIS comes they will still kill soldiers with or without the fence.

Now my questions.
1. If the illegals are taking American's jobs, how come India is doing so well with much more of a population and being much smaller than both America, Mexico, and probably the rest of North America COMBINED?

2. What if an American wants to take a trip to Mexico by land and there is a massive fence in the way when he is pretty close to the border by land?

3. What if American businesses want to expand to Mexico like they did with India? What if land is most cost effective and now there is a huge fence in the way?

4. Do you really want the Rio Grande turn into the Rio Pequeno because either the river is going to shrink with a border fence or going make the fence useless with a big hole in there?

5. What sturdy material do you propose the fence should be?


brad1999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Final statement: Vote Con!


Sorry to forfeit I was busy with finals in school so continuing this I will answer my opponents questions now
1. Well India has a different currency different jobs so it had a different economy Asia is very different then North America.

2. Then they will have to take the trip by air so we can be safer on who comes in our country.

3. Then there is a alternative airplane we will have to find a way to expand our business to Mexico.

4. Well no but everything has to come to a end sometime or later.

5. Steel a fence that no can climb over from.

Final statement: I wanna thank my opponent for a great debate. We need to keep our country safe from drugges,terrorist and other harmful people.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lee001 3 years ago
Remind me to vote on this when its voting
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 3 years ago
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: Forfeits by Pro, conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Lee001 3 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF from Pro, so Con gets better conduct. Reliable sources go to Con since has the only one who actually used them.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the fourth round of this debate, which is generally considered a severe breach of the standard norms of conduct in any debate setting. Thus, I penalize the affirmative/proposition for this misconduct of forfeiture. Con graciously forwarded their refutation and contentions to the next round, and, thus, waived their opportunity to properly rebut Pro's next statement as Pro was unable to present such a statement and presented it in the final round, where Con was unable to refute it. This breach of standard maxims of conduct is penalized, and I award the opposition for graciously extending their arguments to the next round and bouncing the debate back to Pro to equalize the rounds. The conduct point is with Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.