The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Border Fence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 20421
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




I am against a Border Fence.
Opponent requirements:
Must have a legitimate argument supporting a fence built on the border.
Must have good debate sportsmanship.

Round 1- acceptance
Round 2- Main point
Round 3- Rebuttal
Round 4- Etc.

Good Luck!


I gladly accept your challenge and look forward to a good Debate Round :)
Debate Round No. 1


Ok. Here we go.

POINT 1- Money
In this economic time making an investment that doesn't pay back directly is risky. Building a fence will cost money (building a fence around my yard costs a few thousand, how much would a fence that goes on for miles cost to build? Millions, maybe Billions). We do not have this money right now. We have other problems. Also, the fence will need maintenance. The fence will not pay off economically, and therefore, it is not a good idea.

POINT 2- Less Consumers
This might sound crazy, but, immigrants are consumers too. They buy goods. As we all know, buying goods stabilizes the economy. If people don't buy goods, the GDP is shrinks, which leads to other consequences.

POINT 3- What's a fence going to do?
Since immigrants are desperate anyway, what are they going to do? Yes, they WILL climb over the fence. If you make it a shock fence, it will at least double the price. Immigrants have options, they can climb, ram through and damage it, etc. There will still be illegal immigrants in the US, sure there would just be a few less coming in, but there will always be the ones that are here that we cannot find. Anyway, an immigrant can always strike a deal with a drug lord and get smuggled over on a private jet.

POINT 4- If we legalize certain drugs, there would be less of them, because drugs come from Mexico.
If we legalize drugs, then there would be less drugs coming in if a fence was to be built. But the reason for legalizing drugs would be to tax them through the roof, and have even more serious punishment for illegal selling of drugs without paying the tax. That way, we will have more money to take care of the country.

POINT 5- Relations
If you were Mexico, how would you feel if a neighboring country built a fence on the border because your country is notorious for smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants, and your country cannot take care of this problem. You would feel offended, stereotyped, and generally unhappy.

POINT 6- Alternatives
There are alternatives to this expensive, insulting, consumer killing option. We can simply ask Mexico to help us with our problem, and maybe, we can send the money we send to other countries to Mexico instead so they can take care of the problem. We can station more patrol troops there instead of sending them to Iran or Iraq, which is much more costly. We can more strictly enforce illegal immigration with stronger consequences. There is so much more that could be done, we could even do all the alternatives at once, and it will be less expensive, less offensive, and more effective.

Thank you for reading my argument.


Thanks 32no. Here I go.

I'm going to make an opening statement before I proceed.

It is the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens at all times, whether the threats are in our own country or from another country. This observation shows: The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the "back door" that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. [1] So right now the U.S Federal Government is failing its job to protect, here's why:

Point 1: Public Safety
The U.S Federal Government has a job to fulfill which is (as I stated before) to protect its citizens, this obviously includes public protection. These statistics show: A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants…. "Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants." [1]

These statistics clearly show 1) How many gang members there are in the U.S 2) How much violence they are responsible for 3) A large percentage of these gangs are made up of illegal immigrants. If the U.S Federal Government doesn't build a Border Fence then it is not fulfilling its job of protecting its citizens from the public threat of illegal immigrant gangs. The Border Fence can prevent them from coming over or discourage a larger number of them coming over therefore reducing the amount of public danger from illegal immigrant gangs, and protecting its citizens.

Point 2: Jobs
Another job for the U.S Federal Government that falls under protecting its citizens is to ensure that they have jobs where they can work, earn money, and therefore support themselves. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period. It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. [1]

These statistics clearly show how illegal immigrants take jobs that U.S Citizens need. The U.S Federal Government has an obligation to its own citizens first which is why we need to build this Border Fence to ensure that U.S Citizens have a better chance at getting a job. When we build the Border Fence we will have less Illegal Immigrants coming across the Border. This results in less jobs being taken by Illegal Immigrants and give American Citizens a better chance at getting jobs therefore the U.S Federal Government will be upholding its obligation.

Point 3: Economy
This is a BIG issue. To make sure our economy is stable falls under the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens because the country needs money to function. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year. Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits. Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things. The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. Thanks to illegal immigration, California's overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. [1]

These statistics clearly show how 1) These illegal immigrants are more than likely to send money back to Mexico than to spend in the United States and increase our economy. 2) Illegal Immigrants pay almost nothing in taxes and they receive tens of billions of dollars in benefits. 3) Taxpayers pay close to $12,000,000,000 just for Illegal Immigrant children to go to public school, AND as my earlier statistics show that these Illegal Immigrant children are more than likely to end up in gangs. 4) California now has less emergency rooms/hospitals to help U.S Citizens because there were so many Illegal Immigrants that couldn't pay and received health care benefits. 5) Tax Payers spend about 1,600,000,00 a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants. This causes our economy to shrink by a rather large amount and it isn't even going to our own citizens.

Thanks for reading my arguments and I look forward to 32no's rebuttal. :)

Debate Round No. 2


Alright, thank you, Guitar_guru, I will now start my rebuttal of your main point.

Counter to point 1- I completely agree with you on this. Gangs are a problem, and many of them are latino, but these estimations of how many are illegal may be inaccurate. I suggest you look at my these points: 3,5,6. In point 3, I explain how a barbed wire fence will do close to nothing, and any other kind of fences will almost double the cost. In point 5, I explain that this will stain our relationship with Mexico, do you remember the Berlin Wall? How many people has that wall outraged? Exactly, many, this could become Berlin Wall 2, and countries would frown upon us. In point 6, I explain that having a wall is expensive, offensive, and etc. There are many ALTERNATIVES to a wall. There are better alternatives, so why don't we give out a few jobs to people who will find those alternatives to a wall? There is a more peaceful, freindly, and cheaper way to enforce illegal immigration.

Counter to point 2- With jobs comes spending in the community. Spending at the grocery store and etc. is a good thing. These illegals have no intention of returning to Mexico, as they immigrated for the reason of getting out of Mexico. The only Immigrants who would want to leave america are gang members to get more drugs. Now if there is as much illegal immigrants in gangs as you say there are, then who is taking the jobs? The gang members? The gang members don't work out of fear of being tracked by police, they are in the streets as you say. So either there is many gang members who are illegal immigrants, or there are many illegal immigrants "taking" our jobs, the two statments contradict each other.

Counter to point 3- ALTERNATIVES again. Why not pass a law that prohibits health care to illegals? Why not have an automatic deportation law, where any alien found is automatically deported? We need to take steps to stop illegal immigration, and a wall is a drastic measure, it is a huge step, which is inneficient, we need to take small steps untill the goal is reached, this is efficient.

WHAT THIS REBUTTAL SAYS: This rebuttal proves that some of your statements contradict each other, that my points, numbered 3,5,6 and 1 are all points that prove that a fence is an exxaggerated action, that may offend Mexico. A fence will stain relationships with Mexico. A fence will look like a Berlin Wall#2. There is always better ALTERNATIVES.
These include:
-Negotiation with Mexico
-Automatic Deportation act
-Refusing healthcare to any who do not have legal citizenship
-Enforcing the border with U.S. troops from Iraq
-More serious punishment for illegal immigration
-Rewards for illegals that are turned in


-Common Knowledge
-Mental Modeling/simulation
-Opinions of others on my side.


Thanks 32no I will start off refuting my points and then I will rebut my opponents. Here I go.


Point 1- So first he talks about how my estimations may be inaccurate but then fails to state how or why. The statistics I have are from an actual source while all of his arguments are simply from his common knowledge. So then he says to look to points 3, 5, and 6. Lets look first to what he says about his point 3. He says that his point 3 shows how a Border Fence will do close to nothing. 1st I suggest this isn't true because people will be discouraged especially if we have patrols on that fence. 2nd even if you don't buy that then think of it like this, a fence is better than no fence. So now lets visit his point 5. His point 5 is all about staining our relationship with Mexico but 1st This wouldn't stain our relationship with Mexico because we're taking protective measures for our own citizens. We're not doing it based off of "Stereotype" Immigrants come from Mexico all the time and cause trouble just as my earlier statistics clearly show. 2nd Even if you don't buy that, even if building this fence does stain our relationship with Mexico, we need to worry about the safety and well-being of our citizens first. So if building a Border Fence does that then we should Affirm. Also he mentions the Berlin wall but fails to show the resemblance. I don't know much about the Berlin Wall so I can't properly refute it but I propose this Border Fence is more like a symbol of strength like the Great Wall of China. Its meant to defend our citizens from intruders and that in and of itself represents a strong Nation. Now lets visit Point 6. Point 6 is all about alternatives. He proposes that their are alternatives to a wall, but these alternatives aren't nearly as effective as a Border Fence. He doesn't really propose any actual alternatives to point 1.

Point 2- Against point 2 he first says that illegal immigrants have no intention of returning to Mexico. We can't just assume this first of all because he gives no real empiric evidence. Then he also missed the point of that argument. I was saying that these immigrants send money they make in the U.S back to Mexico either to rebuild their country, or to bring even more illegal immigrants from their country to the U.S. Then he talks about my statistics from point 1 and point 2, but he totally misunderstands them. If you revisit point 1 it gives statistics on how much of Latino are made up of illegal immigrants. Then the statistic I give in point 2 is how many illegal immigrants are actually taking our jobs. These two do not contradict each other one says that 90% of MS-13 (The most notorious immigrant gang) is made up of illegal immigrants, that there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in gangs, and that a substantial amount of YOUNG illegal immigrants grow up to be in gangs. While the other states that there are 7.7 million illegals (as of 2008) taking jobs from Americans.

Point 3- His only counter to point 3 is his argument on Alternatives, then he states some. The first is to pass a law that prohibits health care to illegals. While that may get rid of the issue there is still the issue of taxation. These illegal immigrants pay no taxes and still receive public benefits (School, police force, etc) the average citizen must now pay taxes for illegal immigrants. Then there is this automatic deportation law. This is in total contradiction of his point 2. His point 2 is about "Less Consumers" And if we affirm then we will have less consumers but presenting this automatic deportation act also causes less consumers, total contradiction. Then he talks about how the wall is drastic and inefficient but its better than these alternatives he presents.

Then at the bottom of the rebuttal he offers more alternatives.

Negotiating with Mexico- This still won't do much justice since during the Negotiations illegals are still crossing the border as well as Mexico can't really stop its citizens from crossing the border just as much as we can't stop them from coming over without this border fence

Automatic Deportation Act-Once again in his point 2 he talks about if we Affirm there would be less consumers but then he presents this as an alternative in the Neg world. So this is in contradiction with his point 2

Refusing Health Care- There is still the issue of public taxation

Enforce the border with U.S Troops- He talks about staining our relations with Mexico but then he presents this as an alternative to the Border Fence. This will still stain our relationship with Mexico because it will seem as though we are even more afraid of these illegals that we need troops to attack at the border rather than a wall just for defense.

More serious punishment- They still caused some kind of damage by already coming over, a wall will better prevent that damage from ever happening

Rewards- Cross apply what I say against more serious punishment.


Point 1- Money
He says that this won't pay off directly and isn't a good investment but I propose that this will pay off because 1) More Americans will get jobs and be able to make money lifting the poverty line. 2) Less taxation U.S citizens for public affairs and costs.

Point 2- Less Consumers
So his point 2 is not only in contradiction in his proposal of an automatic deportation act but it also assumes that the Border Fence WILL be effective in keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S since there will be less consumers.

Point 3- Whats a fence going to do ?
A fence will be more than no fence at all. It will discourage more and more illegals of trying to cross over than no Border Fence at all. He says so himself that less illegal immigrants will be coming in. Once again he concedes in point 2 that a fence will work.

Point 4- Legalize Drugs
Legalizing Drugs won't do any good. 1) It will put the public in even more danger than a Border Fence will. 2) Even we tax them and supposedly make more money we still put citizens at risk which isn't worth it. 3) Just because there are more serious punishment for illegal selling of drugs doesn't mean it will stop. There will still be illegals crossing the border and selling drugs. A border fence is the best way to make sure that the public is safe from crime and drugs.

Point 5- Relations
So once again he talks about how our relations with Mexico will be stained but 1) All of his proposals are still effectively offensive to Mexico and Illegal Immigrants. So basically he recognizes that Illegal Immigrants are a serious issue, and he says a Border Fence isn't a good solution and provides other solutions but these other solutions are still offensive. Either way our relations with Mexico might still be stained, but in the Aff world we have a better chance of protecting its citizens which is VERY important.

So basically the huge points that the voters should definitely look to would be:
1st My opponent recognizes that illegal immigrants are a huge threat but says a Border Fence won't help and then provides alternatives. At the point where I effectively disprove all of these alternatives is reason enough to Aff.

2nd My opponent also argues that the Border Fence will do close to nothing but look back to his point 2 where he says there will be less consumers. This point assumes that the Border Fence will be effective. So at the point where my opponent also concedes that the Border Fence is effective is also reason enough to Aff.

3rd We've also established that Government has an obligation to its citizens to protect them and that these illegals are a threat. At the point where my opponents alternatives fail, and he concedes that the Border Fence will work then the Government fulfills its obligation to its citizens.

This Border Fence won't be viewed as another Berlin Wall, rather it will be like the symbolic Great Wall of China protecting its citizens from intruders. For these reasons I urge an Affirmative Ballad.
Debate Round No. 3


32no forfeited this round.


So it seems my opponent has been too busy to post up a new argument for round 4. So I won't make any new arguments since he has no chance to respond to them. Rather I will reiterate major points that voters of this debate round should look to.


The first major reason to Affirm the resolved is because the Neg focuses almost completely on economics. His 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th points are all basically about economy. At the point where I disprove all of those arguments, and prove that by Affirming we make and save more money then we should Affirm.

The second reason to vote Pro is because of the effectiveness debate. He argues that the Border Fence will do close to nothing but his 2nd point assumes the Border Fence is successful. At the point where I prove my 1st voter and my opponent himself proves this voter then we Affirm.

Even if you don't buy either of those two arguments I'm still winning the public safety debate. He doesn't dispute the fact that public safety is an issue. Rather he argues that Neg secures public safety better. He doesn't really do this though, the only way he does this is by saying that the fence is ineffective. Once again his point 2 assumes it does work. So at the point where it does work and it protects the public better then we Affirm. Also the public safety argument is the most important argument in the round because it proves how Government will be fulfilling its obligation , to protect citizens, when we Affirm.

For these reasons I urge an Affirmative Ballad

I would like to thank my opponent 32no for this really great Debate round ! :D Once again vote pro !
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 6 years ago
But thanks for voting :D
Posted by Guitar_Guru 6 years ago
Right and my strategy was waste less space on its going to work because my opponent already conceded that it will work in his point 2. That was the whole point of me pointing it out in my rebuttal against point 2 and in my voters.
Posted by LiberalHoyaLawya 6 years ago
Guitar Guru, all of your Round 2 arguments were reasons the federal government should stop illegal immigration. You took it for granted that building a border fence would accomplish that, but you didn't explain how. To use an analogy, your strategy was the equivalent of arguing in support of the death penalty by focusing all of your attention on why society should keep murderers off of the street (ignoring the obvious alternative of a life-without-parole prison sentence). You were arguing over "ends" in a debate that was primarily about "means," and that was a major oversight.

I did read your rebuttal arguments, and, as I said in my comments below, I gave you credit for "mak[ing] up some ground." It was a close decision, but I still found your opponent's arguments against the fence more persuasive for the reasons I explained earlier.

I tried not to let my personal opinion against a border fence influence my decision, and I think awarding two other categories to you shows I was a fair voter. I hope this feedback addresses your concerns, and helps make you a stronger debater in the future.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 6 years ago
Alright I don't want to sound Bitchy but let me just ask you..

Did you read my opening statement about how government has a job to protect their citizens and the border fence does this ? This shows how all evidence about how it protects citizens is reason enough to vote.

Then I also disproved the alternatives.. And gave reasons as to how the Border Fence is much more effective.. Did you read that part ?
Posted by LiberalHoyaLawya 6 years ago
My vote comment was cut off for some reason, so I'll elaborate here in the comments section.

I gave Pro the "conduct" and "sources" categories, since Con failed to offer any evidence to back his empirical claims and forfeited the final round. I gave the argument category to Con, however, because Pro barely addressed the actual topic of the debate (the desirability of a border fence) in his own arguments. Pro did make up some ground in his rebuttal arguments in Round 3, but ultimately I still agreed with Con: even assuming a border fence is possible to build, there are far cheaper / more effective alternatives to curbing illegal immigration.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 6 years ago
Its all cool man. Thanks you too, it was fun ^.^
Posted by 32no 6 years ago
Oh my, I completely forgot about the fourth round, Voters, please do not penalize me for it, as I recently joined and foolishly picked 4 debates at once. Thank you Guitar_Guru for a good debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by C-L-Fox 6 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 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: the pro is the only one who cited anything and the con forfieted one of his rounds giving him the last two points. there conduct and spelling where tied so the middle two points are tied. pro gets the first two points because i suporrt the border and the pro gave logical reasoning for it and had sportsmanship which, by the rules the con posted, is all the pro had to do
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 6 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited one round.
Vote Placed by LiberalHoyaLawya 6 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Con failed to offer any evidence to back his claims