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

Border wall

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,705 times Debate No: 112866
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




I will support a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

1.No ad hominem attacks new arguments in final rebuttals.

Good luck.


Hello passwordstipulationssuck, I would like to thank you for accepting my challenge, and hope that this will be a fun and informative debate.

I accept your conditions, and would also like to wish you luck.

You may start us off in the second round.
Debate Round No. 1


"There's nothing racist or bigoted about having a border wall. You need it, maybe not in every mile along the way, but you have to have an extensive border wall" If you saw the dead bodies out in my district as a result of people coming across the border freely, you'd see the consequences of this. If we're going to be real, if we're going to be honest, we would go ahead an appropriate the money for that border wall. It's absolutely essential."

Officials from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice on Thursday made the case for President Trump's border wall, arguing that the nation would not have to spend money detaining people who illegally crossed the border if a barrier was built.

"If we a had a barrier, a border wall, along the southern border, it is undeniable that more of those offenses will not have to be prosecuted and that we will not have to pay to incarcerate aliens for committing such offenses along the southern border," one senior administration official said in a call to reporters.

The two agencies made the argument as they released the Alien Incarceration Report, which highlights the number of undocumented immigrants held in federal custody.

This year's report found that the Justice Department at the end of the 2017 fiscal year in September held 58,766 individuals who were "known or suspected aliens."

Of the 37,557 individuals the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determined to be aliens, 94 percent of them were in the United States illegally.

"It reveals in our view that our unsecure southern border needs to have a stronger deterrent than what we have right now," said one senior administration official.
The report comes amid the Trump administration"s broader crackdown on illegal immigration, pushed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and sanctioned by President Trump, who desires to fulfill his campaign promise of a wall on the southern border.

"While the administration is working diligently to remove dangerous criminal aliens from our streets, this report highlights the fact that more must be done," said Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

"We will continue to pursue President Trump"s immigration priorities, including securing the border, enhancing interior enforcement, and pursuing a merit-based immigration system, but Congress must act immediately to adopt obvious solutions to strengthen DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and DOJ [Department of Justice] efforts to confront dangerous criminal aliens."

Sessions earlier this year instructed prosecutors to step up their efforts on "criminal immigration enforcement," adding that immigrants who enter the U.S. unlawfully after having already been removed will be "referred for felony prosecution."

"We know based on sentencing data that noncitizens commit a substantially disproportionate number of drug-related offenses, which contributes to our national drug abuse crisis," Sessions said Thursday.

"The simple fact is that any offense committed by a criminal alien is ultimately preventable. One victim is too many. It's time for Congress to enact the president's immigration reform agenda so that we start welcoming the best and brightest while turning away drug dealers, gang members and other criminals."

As we can see, the priority is going to be illegal immigration. We will pursue a merit based immigration system in order to better defend our borders and to secure the interests of U.S. citizens.


Hello passwordstipulationssuck, I apologies if this round seems rushed, or unedited. I was hit by a truck on my way to work, (luckly it only hit the rear of my bike) but being as my bike is my main source of transportation, I had to deal with that as a top priority. So I only have a few hours left as I'm beginning this.

I would like to say though I am quite disappointed by your argument. Which is not to say that it was not well written. But unless if you are Mallory Shelbourne who wrote this same article word for word on the date 12/21/17 04:34 PM EST for the Hill. (with the exception of the first and last paragraph) I was hoping to argue you in this debate, not read something I could get with a google search.

Please copy and paste this into your search engine (I don't think that this computer will let me do a hyperlink) (or I'm to stupid to figure it out)

How ever I shall argue this topic with the information that I have.

First off I would like to wonder where exactly is your district, because what you are describing when you say "If you saw the dead bodies out in my district as a result of people coming across the border freely, you'd see the consequences of this." because if it is the war zone on American soil that you are describing, you could defiantly sell your story to Fox news and join New York Congress man Peter King who said...

"I wish the Democrats would put aside political correctness, [and] realize there is nothing racist or bigoted about having a border wall " you have these good intentions, we"re an Open Society, people come across the border, well, listen, if you saw the dead bodies in my district as a result of people coming across the border freely, you"d see the consequences of this."

Kind of the same as your first paragraph, But I fond that peace shoe horned into a article about ISIS. from the media source known as Town Hall, so I'm sure it had nothing to do with your choice of words for your first paragraph.

If you are in fact living is in a warzone with bodies strewn about do to illegal immigration, (unlike King who was being very over the top with his claims) might I recommend that you use the money from selling your story to Fox, and leave that district, and move to a more peaceful location. We are after all, living in a country that many people want to come to as refugees, so I'm sure that we could find a place for you. Maybe Utah, that place is nice this time of year.

Now I'm not going to say that every thing about the wall is bad, It provides shade, for example, (unless if Trump gets his way and it is see through) It is not my philosophe that anything is truly completely bad, or completely good. But It is my belief that there is many more negatives than their is positives when it comes to this wall.

The first problem with the wall is getting it funded, Trump has clamed that Mexico will pay for it, but getting a country like Mexico, that according to nations online, is deemed a third world country, to pay between (according to Former Republican Speaker of the house Mitch McConnell) about 15 billion Dollars, and according to investopedia. $21.6 Billion Dollars, or according to CNBC 25 Billion Dollars. And according to Politico, it would cost over 2 billion Dollars to maintain it each year... on the Tax payers bill... forever. This would be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in history, Not just American, but History.

The 2nd problem is building the thing. If we where to build it, we would be building it near rivers, through towns, and even having the federal government needing to basically force American citizens out of their privet property, and even force them out of their homes. Which I would consider a federal overreach. and very hypocritical for those who stand for the republican small government philosophy.

The 3rd problem is that it won't be effective, because most illegal immigrants come in legally and overstay their visas, or come in on "vacation" and don't go back. This doesn't even completely include the 40% of them who come in on planes, according to politifact.

The 4th problem is circular flow. For decades immigrants would come into the US, work for a while, and then go home. this was called circular flow. If we make it to where those who came in couldn't leave without guarantied legal trouble, then why would they leave? If I where them I would just stay in the US, where the money is, maybe work till I've earned enough to hire coyotes to smuggle my family to me. And frankly, for those who do that, I think that they have earned enough of the title of hard worker, and have earned the right to stay here, as long as they don't commit, any more crimes. (other than illegally entering the country with the "give me your huddled masses" statue)

I do have a problem with one of the arguments that the Hill provided. It talked a lot about crime being more rampant with the border being open. However the statistics that I have been shown tells about how immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens.

I will give a few more arguments, go more into my existing arguments, and read the argument that you provided a little closer in the next round. As I said, I am running out of time, and wasn't even able to proof read this round, (sorry)

I look foreword to reading what you have to say on the subject next round, and would like to remind you that we are competing on how well we can debate, and present our arguments. Sources are a tool for debate, of not the debate, it's self.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes, you found my source. I forgot to paste in the link but it did have quotation marks so you know it wasn't my words.

Let's skip down to the meat of the arguments. First, let's address the issue of funding. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mexico isn't paying for the wall. But it doesn't really matter. My opponent totes an aggressive estimate of 21.6 billion dollars as if that's actually a lot. It isn't. Especially if you notice that even if your other argument about how illegals get in is true and the wall fails to stop most illegals it would still pay for itself within a decade by cutting the costs necessary to support the illegals according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research for the CIS states that the wall would save taxpayers 64 billion over the course of a decade. So the two billion you stated is largely insignificant. The wall is an investment that would pay for itself very quickly.

Government buys out people for their property all of the time. This wouldn't be a special case and the affected people would be compensated.

I've already addressed the problem with your "the wall wouldn't stop most illegals" argument. We could use the money we save by building the wall to increase immigration enforcement to stop other means of illegal immigration.

For your next point on circular flow, As I previously stated, we would institute a merit based system that would allow in someone who would fit well in the United States, and I would support a pathway to citizenship for people who are already here and are working and not committing crimes. So that solves for the "why would they leave" dilemma.

As for the argument that illegals commit on average fewer crimes that natives, according to the National Review, Using overall native crime rates as a benchmark for immigrant crime treats it as an excuse to let in illegals with higher crime rates than we would normally tolerate. (This also throws a wrench into state-by-state comparisons; some states are much more violent than others, in part owing to different racial demographics, which will make a given group of illegal immigrants look better or worse relative to natives depending on where they live.)

For another, it"s well-known that immigrants in general have low crime rates, possibly because being in a new place induces caution. This effect doesn"t persist in future generations, however. If there"s a similar effect among illegal immigrants " and they have a crime rate similar to natives" despite it " that could spell trouble in future generations if assimilation falters. Indeed there are already some signs that, on numerous metrics, assimilation stalls after the second generation for Mexican Americans.

Essentially, using averages doesn't necessarily show that illegal immigrants have higher or lower crime rates when you adjust for location and population density.


Hello again, passwordstipulationssuck. I am glad to be hearing from you this time, and I must say, that was a well made argument. (now this is what I'm looking for in a debate)

I would like to apologies though. When I made reference to Mitch McConnell, I was listening to a news story about how the speaker of the house Paul Ryan was quitting his position, and put his title to Mr. McConnell, I meant to say that he was the majority leader in the senate.

I would like to thank you for not wasting time with Trump's idea that Mexico will pay for the wall.

I would also like to thank you for giving me reason to do even more research on the wall, and immigration. Because of your argument I had to spend a lot of time researching more and more about the wall, and because of your challenge, I learned so much. Unfortunately for you I just kept finding more and more problems with Trump's plans for border control and immigration.

The sources that I found were very much saying that we would not only be not gaining much of anything with the wall and complete deportations of Undocumented workers, but would be loosing a lot of money and recourses, for something that would be very ineffective, is illegal by multiple Treaties, and harmful to thousands of people living within the U.S., in ways that could lead to people having their homes and lands stolen, or even dying, all for something that could be overcame with a ladder, and some rope. (which was even pointed out by Trump himself)

I'm going to start by using George Bush Jr. He figured that by putting up a 700 mile long fence, that it would help stop undocumented immigrants from entering the US. Now the fence was a fairly small protect, (compared to what is being proposed) so things like pipes and other tools used for getting to the Rio Grande could go through, it was much cheaper than a wall, and was substantially less destructive. It was also a complete waste of resources, and time. It cost the US land, money, and in many cases, it's morality.

By setting up the wall, we will be repeating despicable acts, in a much bigger, grandiose way, in a much larger area. And all in a way that hurts us.

By setting up this wall we will be needing to take several thing into consideration, we would need to take geography in to account, things like flood zones would need to be avoided, so we would have to build inland. Not to mention that we would need to stay back away from the Rio Grande, due to the Nov 23, 1970 treaties and other international acts series 7313 Treaty to resolve pending boundary differences and maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado river as international boundary. It says that neither side "may cause obstruction of the normal flow of the river" and putting a wall even close to the river would make a pretty big obstruction to the river.

According to we would loose about 40,920 acres of private land in Texas alone, which would effectively cede the river to Mexico which is a pretty big deal, especially to the border towns, who are in one of the worst deserts in the world. Towns like Brownsville, Mcallen, Los Ebanos, Roma who would loose a large amount of their land as well as access to their main water supply, and that's just south east Texas.

And as for your argument that the Gov would just buy out those who live on the border, well some people won't want to give up their land so easily. And I can only guess that Trump will follow suit with Bush, when he (according to the Guardian, used eminent domain to condemn, and than steal properties from hundreds of people, including the Loop family, who lost 3/4 of their land.

Just to make the fence, the Gov had to waive 36 laws including the endangered species act, the safe drinking water act, most disturbingly the native American graves protection and repatriation act. (which I'll get to in a minute) and the bald and golden eagle protection act.

By making the wall we would be going through the wild life areas, like Las Palomas wild life management area, Bentsen-Rio Grande valley state park, Rama world birding center. As well as putting even more strain on 111 endangered species according to, including animals like the jaguar, gray wolf, and Pygmy owls.

Getting back to the native American graves protection and repatriation act. The fence (which didn't take up much space to build) I believe Ned Norrice Jr. who is a chairman for the Tohono O'odham Nation can describe it best, "Fragments of human remains where found in heavy equipment tracks on the Christian ranch archeological sight, a sight now crossed by barriers and the border road. Imagine a bull dowser in your family graveyard."

And if you think that this is a moot point, now consider this, There are 3 sovereign native American nations that also share a border with Mexico, the Tohono, O'odham, the Kumeyaay, and Kickapoo nations, and they have all pledged to not allow the Guv to divide their lands any more, and are prepared to mount a DAPL like resistance, which will also probably bring more tribes, and American and Mexican citizens from both sides to offer their support, especially after what happened at Standing Rock. and this time they will probably get the support of the Dems, (not just the Greens, like with DAPL) I wonder will Trump take the same approach as his hero Andrew Jackson, (I seriously doubt he looks up to Jackson because of his anti big business views, or his founding of the democratic party, and theirs only one other thing that Jackson was famous for) I just hope that no blood is spilt this time.

I would like to start talking about your point about crime now, I have to say that it has some parts that are kind of a straw man argument, and in other parts (according to my sources) misinformed.

I'll start off with what I claimed was a straw man argument. You said "For another, it's well-known that immigrants in general have low crime rates, possibly because being in a new place induces caution. This effect doesn't persist in future generations, however." You say in your argument that it doesn't persist in future generations. Might I remind you that those future generations are born within the US, raised in the US, and are in fact US citizens same as you and I. I for one do not share in the policy of denying people access for what their decedents might do in the future, or what their ancestors did in the past, or ells we would all be given the death penalty.

You also said "As for the argument that illegals commit on average fewer crimes that natives, according to the National Review, Using overall native crime rates as a benchmark for immigrant crime treats it as an excuse to let in illegals with higher crime rates than we would normally tolerate. (This also throws a wrench into state-by-state comparisons; some states are much more violent than others, in part owing to different racial demographics, which will make a given group of illegal immigrants look better or worse relative to natives depending on where they live.)

Ok first off, what does pointing out that on average the illegals having a very low crime rate have to do with your argument? In fact your own source just confirmed my side's statement that we should not be wasting time and resources hunting them down, while their not committing crimes. But then you backtracked (I think, I had to read it a few times and am still not 100% sure I understand what you where saying) and said, "they have a crime rate similar to natives". Well according to my sources, that's not quite right.

According to Christopher Sabs-Wright of Boston University, who does studies in anti social behaviors particularly in drug use, gambling, and fighting within members of different populations, (which includes undocumented immigrants) said, "The evidence is really compelling that immigrants are involved in these behaviors at a far lower rate than native-born Americans.

And one study published in the journal criminology and public policy in 2008 wrote that there results as "lend no support to the ubiquitous assertion that deportable aliens are a unique threat to public safety."

If we ask Florida state university professor Mears of criminology he'd say most research indicates immigrants actually commit less crimes at a lower rate that native born citizens, and according to the American immigration council, they found that 1.6% of immigrants were incarcerated, while the amount for undocumented immigrants was 1.7% compared to the 3.3% for native born civilians.

I'm running out of space, so I'll try to keep my final argument for this round brief. (I do still have more) You said that we would save money with the wall and keeping undocumented Immigrants out, you quoted that it would save the taxpayer 34 billion over the curse of a decade, and I found that Fox news said that, Now I personally don't trust Fox as a source, and see them as CNN with more sexual harassment lawsuits. My source The Pew research center estimated that that their was at least 11 million immigrants in 2014, or 3.5% of the population, they make up 5% of the labor force with 8 million in the working age, also sighted the National Bureau of economic research, which said that the loss of all of the undocumented workers would cost the US economy 500 billion a year.

And according to a report by City University of New York, their researchers claimed that the US GDP could decrease by 2.6% or 434 billion a year

Ryan Edwards who works at CUNY claims "It is unlikely that the employers would just accept that they could pay US civilians and a more likely scenario is that they would simply shrink their workforce." And that doesn't include the businesses that would go out of business if we rounded up all of the undocumented workers, farther hurting our economy.

I have a few more points to bring up, and to build up some of my existing points. But I am out of room. I can't wait to see what you have for me next, until next time.-DIT
Debate Round No. 3


Let's start with the problem of scaling the wall. The Associated Press wrote that U.S. Special Forces attempted to find a way to go over (or through) prototypes of the wall using climbing tools and jackhammers. They managed to find a size (30 ft.) that even special forces couldn't get over. Let me tell you, If U.S. Spec. forces can't get over the wall, your average illegal can't either. A Customs and Border Protection report on the issue found that using a steel mesh lined with smooth concrete surfaces would not only be less expensive that a complete concrete wall, but would help to deter climbing as well. Brandon Judd, who heads the union representing border agents, said the recommended height and steel-concrete design make sense. He said people have been able to scale the smaller border walls, which were not put to same degree of testing before construction.

"Not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet," said Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "I just don't see it happening."

The Bush border fence isn't even in the same ballpark as the border wall I've proposed here. the fence was flimsy, small, and ineffective. The wall if built to the specifications outlined by my previous card would be far more effective.

As for needing to stay away from the Rio Grande, yes, I know that building the wall to obstruct the river would be morally and legally wrong. However, we don't need to. Building the full scale wall and leaving an opening across the Rio Grande and Colorado River would make use of Bottle necking. Think of it this way. In Medieval times, when you built a castle or keep, you also built a moat or variation thereof, usually with a drawbridge. This made it so when an invader tried to take the keep they had to attack you in one place which made it much easier to defend. In the same way, if we built the wall and left more lightly defended sections of fence or open space we would keep border patrol stationed there and it would be much easier to catch the illegals trying to cross there.

As for the secession of the Rio Grande to Mexico, Obviously, it would be built on the U.S. side because building it on Mexico's side would constitute an invasion which isn't going to happen. It would have to be built on the US side of the river, which is US territory, but it does not at all follow that the US will "lose the Rio Grande". The wall would not create a new border, the border would still be the Rio Grande, along with all the riparian rights that come with it. Situations like that, where the actual physical barrier is constructed some distance from the actual border due to natural topography are quite common, the world over. If needed, access to the actual water could be easily accomplished via guarded access gates.

The government would buy them out, and second, Texas turned red in the 2016 election. This is what they voted for. They aren't stupid, they knew that some land right on the border would be lost but they voted for Trump anyway.

Then-Secretary John Kelly says in regard to the environmental laws.

"While the waiver eliminates DHS"s obligation to comply with various laws with respect to covered projects, the department remains committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects," it said. "DHS has been coordinating and consulting " and intends to continue doing so " with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible."

In short, the specifics of these laws would have made it impossible to break ground on the wall but the government still plans to take any measure possible to protect important historical or environmental areas. As for the tribes, we could build more of the access gates to allow natives access to the other side of their lands while still protecting our border from the drug traffickers that like to cross near their lands.

As for your next point on crime. You say that it isn't right to penalize illegals for what their descendants may do. However according to my sources (which I actually cite.) The illegal immigrant crime rate will rise above native levels in the future. and since the U.S. has zero obligation to any potential immigrant much less those that can't be bothered to follow our immigration laws, we are completely justified in looking to the future and analyzing the data available which supports my case as was stated by the CIS.

The problem with the next study you bring up is that it lumps illegals in with legal immigrants which are two very separate demographics. Also if you want to be technical, there's a 100% crime rate amongst illegals as they are definitionally criminals by virtue of breaking immigration laws.

When you lump in all immigrants ranging those from the legal immigrant from the UK to the illegal immigrant you are going to water down the statistic. This isn't how averages work.

I didn't find that figure from fox news. I already cited my source.

The wall doesn't have to do with mass deportation. We would, once again, pursue a merit-based system. And I've already stated that I would support a pathway to citizenship for those that are here, following our laws, and working. I don't have to defend a position I don't support.



Because my 2nd round was so rushed, and my 3rd round was so filled to the brim, with literally 0 characters remaining, with new information I would like to go back and talk about some of the points that I was unable to talk about before now.

I would like to first start with round 3, and will be discrediting your source the Center for Immigration Studies, now just to let you know, I don't just discredit sources because they are on the liberals side, or the conservative side. They must show that they are willing to intentionally falsify their information, have proven their incompetence, and or have a clear conflict of interest contributing to bias reporting, such as fanatical, racial, and the like.

I am afraid that CIS, is not a very reliable source, according to, (Sothern Poverty Law Center) "But the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks. Its executive director last fall posted an item on the conservative National Review Online (which brings that source of yours into question) website about Washington Mutual, a bank that had earlier issued a press release about its inclusion on a list of "Business Diversity Elites" compiled by Hispanic Business magazine. Over a copy of the bank's press release, the CIS leader posted a headline " "Cause and Effect?" " that suggested a link between the bank's opening its ranks to Latinos and its subsequent collapse."

The founder of the Center has even been linked to nearly all major white supremacist groups as well as being a major advocate for the forced sterilization of "undesirables"

So I wouldn't trust their statistic that say the wall will save us anything, Much less as you called it, "an investment that would pay for itself very quickly." And if the National Review is willing to publish from such an unreliable source, than maybe they aren't so reliable themselves. Especially when the author of your NR story admitted "I"m a journalism major, so my math is always suspect " and there was some outright guesswork involved."

You said, "As I previously stated, we would institute a merit based system that would allow in someone who would fit well in the United States." Who would decide who would fit well into a country as diverse, in every meaning of the word, as ours? Trump? Well that would be great news for Norwegians that want to move in. Which leads us to wonder, who would we allow in, in this "merit" based system that Trump has suggested, because before you give him this power, you should really take a good look at his record, even before his presidency. It doesn't matter what you want or support, what matters is whether you support the person who is making the decisions and what he wants. And he has made it clear that he want's them all out. (except for dreamers, in which he has been using them as political hostages against the Dems)

Let's move on to this round. You started by talking about the Special force, attempting to get over the prototypes of the wall, and you had a pretty good source this time. honestly I can't fully prove it's accuracy or inaccuracy, however, I will point out, that because the wall's level of testing and structural is at this point, not available for the public, we can only go by what the 2 sources that the AP used, and they not only are employees of the "your fired", and "Democrats are treasonous because they didn't clap for me" guy, but they also leave us in the dark, about what the testing really entailed. (because, why would you scale the wall, which is the only way they, mentioned) when you could climb it with a latter?)

And what did Mr. Judd mean when he said, not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet? I would want to attempt it for fun, much less if I needed to go somewhere so importantly that I would be willing to dangerously attempt to cross one of the most militarized borders between 2 non at war nations in the world. Who have armed guards who have proven that some of them are willing to shoot with little provocation.

To your point about how to build the wall, Trump might build the wall the way you have said, but he hasn't given us any information supporting your idea, and even if he did, those would be the places that the drug mules. and those attempting to sneak into the country would avoid at all cost. "fight the enemy where they aren't" Sun Tzu. You must remember, those who are trying to get in, aren't attacking, which is what the middle age walls where for, large armies. They are on a stealth mission, which means taking time to go through the tough locations.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last round, (my apologies) when I said, that we would be effectively, seceding the Rio Grand, what I was saying is that a giant barrier would get in the way of the US's ability to get at the water, and if Trump follows precedent (which is what most people in politics do) with George Bush's fence, than no one would be permitted to cross the wall, effectively loosing that land for the public. I wasn't saying that we would be moving the official border, I was saying that it would be much more difficult to use the river, and it would leave the border towns without running water for a while, while they live in the desert. It would be worse than Flint, Unless if their are enough access gates to let every pipe that leads to the river through, which is thousands.

On top of that the US, couldn't risk letting the building of the wall pollute the river as construction of one of the world's biggest infrastructure projects would most likely would, as well as mess with the fish. Plus we don't wish to provoke Mexico, all would mean that they would need to build the wall inland, away from the river, and border, which would cut into the towns, protected environmental areas, and Native American lands. In which if you look at the demographics of the districts on the border, they overwhelmingly where opposed to Trump, with only 7 border districts voting for him. I agree with you by the way, they aren't stupid.

You failed to explain what you think Trump would do to those who refuse to give up their privet lands. Many won't give up their homes. (some in which the wall would have to go right through, especially when taking towns into consideration)

Your quote by John Kelly basically said, that they knew about the damage but if you remember what Ned Norrice Jr. said, you would see that they didn't care that much, about the damage they where doing. And with Trump assigning Mr. Pruitt as EPA director, (if your not aware, he has basically spent his professional life trying to fight the EPA and hates what it stands for) we can be pretty certain that they won't get involved in trying to limit, what I mentioned before, is a massive project, that would destroy Native American artifacts (including religious) (just like with what happened with DAPL) and prevent many animals, including the 111 endangered ones from being able to get to the river, and possibly going into human settlements out of desperation.

You mentioned Access gates, for the reservations, but you failed to account for the fact that we would be building something that they don't want, and that the gates would be guarded by Americans. For the natives who have sovereignty over the land, this could easily be considered invasion, Especially if the Guardian's reports are true, and they already deal with harassment from the BP. And being hunted by armed Americans, might be something that they can empathies with.

I believe that I already refuted your sources earlier in this round, and would like to bring up how you said "When you lump in all immigrants ranging those from the legal immigrant from the UK to the illegal immigrant you are going to water down the statistic" The source as I stated with my official percentages, was from the non partisan American Immigration Council. And they (as their name suggest) use American statistics on both Illegal and legal immigrants. Not the UK

Unforchantly We come again to the fact that Trump has been committing mass deportations, and is unlikely to care about what you specially would support for those who are here, following the laws, and working. He deports them ether way. Which is a shame, because as I sighted before, they help our economy by nearly 100 Billion a year. Or how many businesses we would loose. (like another recession) Which I note you didn't try to refute. And I didn't even mention the increased price of many goods, and services.

This doesn't even include the taxes they pay, or how much they contribute to Social Security funds. Which would increase if Trump would let them become legal, rather than decreasing the amount of people who can be accepted.

We would be increasing enforcers, while illegal immigration is decreasing, (CBP) and the majority of people trying to come in now, are refugees, running for their and their families life's, and would be more than happy to contribute to the country that saved them. We turn down a lot of refuges, and they become illegal to survive. Some of them, who we have turned down even would help against the cartels.

Trumps plan on how to man the Wall is a bad Idea to, with the massive increase of border agents, even after what happened last time.

And I haven't even mentioned how a wall won't stop cartels from sending drugs over the border by means of sling shot, tunnels, or even passing it through the steel poles that makes the wall see through, effectively making it a relay race.

You also didn't mention how trump is going to deal with the attempts to stop him by way of DAPL stile resistance. (with good legal positioning)

And yes I did just shoe horn a bunch of arguments in because I am out of space again. (what can I say, their is a lot of problems with this wall)

I would also like to say, when I called out Trumps racism, I called only him out, not the entire party.-DIT
Debate Round No. 4


For your points against the CIS, your ad hominem attacks have zero weight in this regard. we aren't interpreting data points here, we're looking at rock solid math. if you run the numbers given to us by the institute for defense analyses and the census beureau we find that although after running the numbers myself and adjusting for additional variables it will take longer, the wall will pay for itself, especially if we increase funding to other aspects of border security.

We would not give president trump the power. We would set up protocols enforced by any of the agencies involved with immigration with a few boxes to check. Education level, skill set, among other things. We would make exceptions for other circumstances like if they come from a country with little to no education available, we could give them probationary status for a period of years so they could get a job and be a benefit to the U.S. If they don't, then they don't get to stay.

I don't think that we should give unilateral authority to the President in that regard for a number of reasons. It's impractical, there are to many immigrants for the President to decide who has the necessary meritorious qualities, and that would expand the power of the President over immigration which he has no business directly overseeing.

My opponent admits that they can't disprove my special forces argument and falls back on argumentum ad hominem attacks on both the AP sources and the President. the Associated Press as you admitted is a good source and would likely not publish these sources if they were inaccurate or untrustworthy. I also doubt that the AP would give these sources any benefit of the doubt since the AP is a left wing source. I was able to find no source that states that border patrol has a habit of shooting illegals without provocation. The only case I could find was one where the defendant was acquitted because of the testimony that the illegal had tried to attack the agent with a rock. But even if that's not true and he did murder that person, one time does not prove a pattern.

The point of my fort example was to show that we could force them to go through at certain places where we'll be waiting for them. your average illegal isn't a ninja or super spy. the vast majority of them if we tightly control those weak spots won't make it through.

I already stated that we could provide access to water via guarded access gates or by subterranean pipes. This really is a non-issue. As for cutting through private property, Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. everyone needs to make sacrifices sometimes for the good of the nation. If people refuse they would be in violation of the law and we would respond accordingly. Again, they would be compensated.

As for Natives, the way you speak of their reservations, it sounds like they're massive. they aren't it would be a simple matter to move the boundary of the reservation the minuscule distance that would be the width of the wall. Only the Kickapoo would pose a challenge that would need to be addressed. We could refine the access gate idea by moving the reservations just a short distance from the wall so that the gate would be on American territory and the natives would have zero authority to stop us from guarding the gate.

You are still lumping in legal immigrants with illegals which is taking to very different demographics and manipulating the data. When I make my arguments I isolate the illegals since I have no concern with legal immigration.

I don't care what Trump's position on mass deportations are. I don't have to defend his ideas or his policies except for the border wall. In this debate, my only burden is to show that the border wall is a good idea, not mass deportations.

The option is open for illegals to not pay taxes for one, and for another, I've already stated that if you are working verifiably, meaning you're paying taxes, you get to stay. regardless of what Trump may have to say on the issue.

Are you talking about Syrian refugees? because that isn't relevant and that term refugee has legal implications that don't apply to illegal mexican immigrants. So a border wall is irrelevant in regard to refugees.

In order to stop people from passing illicit substances through, we would make my proposed steel mesh lined with smooth concrete which would make the openings too small to fit any significant amount of drugs through. I'm also not opposed to some drug legalization to reduce the power of the cartels by making safer sources but that's a debate for another day.

If natives decide to pose a challenge, they will need to have actual backing. you suggest the Dems but with them out of power and wanting DACA reinstated I wouldn't count on their support. They would be allowed to move a very short distance out of the way or they can stay and accept that there will be a wall on their land. Since the only objection they have is not letting their land be split, if their land isn't split they won't have a problem.

To conclude my final point, the wall is a necessary action to curtail illegal immigration, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer for illegals welfare benefits, and to prevent future increased crime rates which can be mathematically predicted to happen using existing data and trends.


Hello I would like to take this chance and thank you again for this debate. I have had a great time, and hope you have as well

I wouldn't consider my pointing out that your source, the CIS is a bias source as a ad hominem attack nor was I breaching the rules that we established in the beginning of this debate. I was simply pointing out that according to the Sothern Poverty Law Center, they have been accused of falsifying data. (the definition of bias) And was pointing out that much of your argument hinged on a source that is known for trying to make up data to match their opinion, and not their opinion to match the data. If I didn't say why I believed that your source was biased, I wouldn't sound very intelligent

It would sound like "I believe that an organization with a name like Center for Immigration Studies, is a source that's math should be questioned." See, I had to say why I believed their information to be suspect

Because of their philosophy, they, as the SPLC accuses them, are known to give faulty data. It goes against the quote that you have on your own page for this site, a quote that I believe you want to follow "Facts don't care about your feelings"-Ben Shapiro. Listening to such blaintently bias sources is beneath the intelligence that you so clearly have shown me that you posses.(you've had me on the edge of my seat though out this entire debate. I've lost sleep researching all my known credible sources to use)

It is as my old science teacher would always say, "Those who add their opinion to science are bias and should be discredited immediately"

To farther argue the CIS source I will point out that they tried (as you did) to use the census bureau, for their argument. I don't see this as a logical way of doing things. Why would someone who is trying to hide, give information to the people who are trying to catch them... in a non mandatory survey

Seriously, despite what the CIS said on their site (I did check it out) about their education, I know many of them still know about how they where brutally kicked out after they where promised Green cards in exchange for keeping the US manufacturing, and economy up while all the US men where fighting in WW2. (people died when being transported by the Gov during the deportations of operation Wetback" So they know not to revile themselves in such a stupid way

For your next argument, You claimed that we would not be given Trump the power, But you are forgetting that all undocumented immigrates that are trying to get in, (whether they are refugees, wanting to make a better life, or came here legally but that statues is in question) (or they are one of the US citizens sent there because they didn't feel the need to have proof of their citizenship on hand when ICE got a hold of them. (it's happened) have to go through the executive branch, not the Judicial (even Immigration courts) and the executive branch is headed by Trump. This in turn, gives him power over how things go. The biggest thing standing in his way right now, is the fact that the judicial branch has been checking his power, by saying that his proposed actions involving foreign born people as unconstitutional. (The biggest and most well known example of this is the Muslim Ban) And I believe this would be the main thing, stopping him from just having the people under him from putting a C on the pages of those he wouldn't want(Not relevant to this debate, but you should look it up)

For your next argument, yes I did admit I couldn't disprove your AP source, But what I was trying to do was point out that Trump has power over all (both) of their sources, and that his literal catchphrase is your fired. And him leaking that the special forces where not able to get over the wall, could easily be what is known as security theater. (the trying to make a system look more secure than it is) And I had to point out that the special forces would be able to get higher up the wall than what they where given credit for, simply by climbing a ladder, without even combing into direct contact with the wall

I also just wanted to point out that I don't care if a source is left or right, I care about factual content (note my pointing out earlier in the debate that I don't see CNN as a credible source

As for my statement about the border patrol The last time the US increased the agency's ranks in a massive way, the patrol had no choice but to try to go into a huge recruitment campaign that ended up bringing in many people who just shouldn't be in law enforcement. This is mainly because they where hiring people who didn't understand, or care about the humanitarian aspect of the job

According to Politico, corruption and excessive force skyrocketed. and misconduct became such a problem that the BP issued a memo about the fact that their agents were averaging 2 alcoholic arrest per week, and that's only a few of their run-ins with the law. since 2005, 77 of their agents were arrested or indicted for corruption. According to the former head of Internal Affairs for US Customs and Border Protection, when talking about one of these agents, "He is part of a raid of corruption that exceeded that of any other federal law enforcement agency"

The reason why I'm saying all this is because if you let people in to man the wall in another mass hiring, we would be making the same mistake all over again, and that could have lethal consequences. According to the CBP, Use of force review, "Too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness with regard to the use of deadly force." and one source had that rate at around 25% of cases that resulted in the shooting of someone.(which is a pattern)

We can't man the border with another hiring surge, the border is already one of the most secure and militarized borders between 2 nation at peace

Moving on, I was saying that the average person trying to cross the border would take their time, to get past the wall, and not fall for an obvious trap like those weak spots

I believe I already pointed out the problem with the pipes. But here we go again. The pipes would be destroyed and would need to be entirely replaced. This means that the towns would have no running water, and no access to the river for the public

I would like to point out again that most of the border districts were against Trump, and that shows that not everyone is ready to embrace that they need to give up their lands for their country. After all, have you listened to country music before? Half of them are about taking pride in where your from. And now the government is going to force them to surrender those places where they come from, were their family has lived for generations. Many of them won't give up without a fight. Despite the compensation that the Guv might offer

You claim that you don't care, or have to defend Trump's ideas about anything but the border, but might I remind you, that it is important to my side of the argument, because earlier on you said that this is how we would save money spent on the wall. I needed to disprove that claim so then I could continue to point out that the wall is an huge cost to the tax payer

As for your argument about the Natives, you are suggesting that we just ignore the reservation's will, and move their borders, because they are weaker than us. These are sovereign nations, who will have the backing of many other tribes, and citizens from the US, Mexico, as well as having a strong argument for the courts. We would be breaking so many treaties and violating their rights, not to mention that this could be used as an excuse to put sanctions on us. Plus this is a civil rights case, this is were the dems shine brightest, and they may not have much power right now, but they do have money, people, and resources

Unlike with DAPL the infrastructure project would be going through their lands, not just threatening their water supply. So they have a huge advantage in the courts, and so in turn, the judicial branch would have to cheek the powers of either other branch that might try this method

You have clamed again that I am lumping documented immigrants with undocumented immigrants, But have failed note, that I gave numbers for both, 1.6% for immigrants, 1.7% for undocumented, and 3.3% of native born civilians. You also failed to give a reliable source that said that they have a high crime rate, where as mine was a university professor of criminology

According to the Institute on taxation and economic policy, Illegal immigrants pay 11 billion a year in taxes, (property, income, employer deductions... and so on and so forth

I am not talking about Syrian refugees, I am referring to refugees from south, central America, as well as those fleeing the cartels in Mexico. They get have been getting turned down a lot since Trump got power

You still haven't made a point against cartels getting drugs passed the wall by way of slingshot or tunnel

You have failed to prove that the wall is worth the price we'd pay. You failed show how we could come up ahead with the lose of 100 Billon dollars a year and all the land we'd loose. You failed to give a reliable source to show how the undocumented immigrants increase our crime rate in a way that would justify the price of the wall, you failed to give a reasonable answer about how to deal with those who don't wish to loose THEIR land, And you failed to prove that the wall would make us safer. You also failed in proving any of my sources wrong

The arguments that you have given have the US, reinvading the Native's lands, having the federal guv forcing it's own civilians to leave their homes, loosing multiple businesses, and setting the US into what could become another recession, while militarizing the border(even more) all for a wall, that's security is in question. (and the recession part would happen mainly if the wall is effective)

I understand your views, but I don't believe that that is what we want the US to become-DIT
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: ConserativeDemocrat// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con makes a pretty important point that Pro skips over: That 40% of illegal immigrants come in via plane, and a large chunk of the other 60% come in via ways as to which a wall would be ineffective. This alone makes me vote Con, as they showed that a wall would be pointless. Sources: Pro uses CIS as a source, which is a heavily biased source that is widely considered to be a hate group, and has been criticized for having inaccurate studies and misleading data. Con is right to object to the usage of them as a source, and the usage of them makes me give the sources point to Con. And a message to both Pro and Con, it would be very helpful to voters if you organize your arguments better. It was hard for me to read this round as there was no rich text or formatting.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides in the debate. While the voter does specifically assess a source from Pro and an argument from Con, they do need to assess actual arguments presented by Pro in the debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
You're welcome.
Posted by DeepInThought 3 years ago
Thank you for the vote dsjpk5, I will try to give more convincing arguments in the future.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Pro made a good point when he mentioned (in round one) that we'd spend less detaining illegals if a wall was blocking entry. Con counters by saying the wall will cost $21billion, but Pro comes back and shows the wall would save taxpayers $64 billion, "over the course of a decade". It was this economic argument I found compelling. I didn't find Con's argument concerning citizens losing property by the wall compelling considering Pro pointed out the government could pay them for their property.
Posted by DeepInThought 3 years ago
Thank you ConserativeDemocrat, for the vote, and I'll make sure to watch out next time for making my arguments easier to understand.
Posted by DeepInThought 3 years ago
Thank you Leaning for your vote, and pointing out where I can ask potential voters to vote.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
I feel Pro is less convincing because the wall he is arguing for only has one purpose but many, many flaws as described by Con. For Pro to be successful he would have to make a near certain case that all of these negative side effects of the wall can be overcome or are worth it for the sole purpose of the wall in keeping out dangerous illegal immigrants. If my vote is wrong in some fashion, I'd appreciate you telling me so I can improve. If you feel I gyped you, it was not my intent, if you want to ask more people to vote I'll call out to them with you. And if whoever truly makes the best argument the additional votes should conclude that true.
Posted by DeepInThought 3 years ago
I would be happy to listen to your opinion. thankyou.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Oh yes, finally a debate i could read with a interest. I wont read it yet although i will in the next couple 9f days. Just commenting here so i could come back to it.

If you two want i might give my opinion on it after I'm done reading it. Voting on it idk yet....
Posted by DeepInThought 3 years ago
Sorry, another 0 characters remaining.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better argument I feel by pointing out the many negative side effects of the wall as well as casting doubt on how effective it would be at it's original purpose. Pro makes some points in his arguments that the legal citizens of illegal citizens may be prone to crime due to environment and that a merit system would be a more satisfactory way of accepting citizens to the USA. Pro is able to argue successfully that the borders would not be changed as well that we could mitigate the environmental damage. But Pro fails to argue successfully against Cons argument on how Native Americans as well as USA citizens rights would be damaged if the government forced the issue of the wall. Pro also notes that money could be saved if the wall keeps out illegals we would have to find and evict. Pro offers and example that the wall will be difficult to overcome, but Con is able to argue that bored people and cartels can still find ways. CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.