Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

RFD for border fence debate

Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:05:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is my RFD for the border fence debate between Subutai and Wylted.

In round 2 Pro argues that the cost of the wall would be really expensive, and the utility of the wall is unclear. He claims walls do not keep out migrants effectively; precedent agrees and shows how ladders, tunnels and other mechanisms can be used to get around the expensive wall. He also says the US benefits from immigrants and so the wall would be a cost, but not have much benefits.

Con provides an example of a wall that he says would not be easy to pass through.

Con says that people crossing the border are getting raped, that the wall would stop terrorism and stop the massive public health risk that immigrants pose. Con says immigrants bring disease and high costs of medical care, plus crime, drugs and guns.

On cost, Con says the costs saved by not having as many immigrants would pay for the cost of the wall. He says the wall is effective and the US govt has an ethical duty to enforce the law.

Pro responds and explains how Wylted's rape contention is not relevant since the border fence would not do much to stop it. On security, Pro says "While a border fence might better police the U.S."s southern border against terrorists, it wouldn"t prevent terrorists from entering the U.S. using other paths and means." He explains that terrorists don't enter the US through the southern border. He says most immigrants overstay their visas and enter the country by plane, not by crossing the southern border.

Pro argued there were logistical problems with the border fence and that immigrants do not drain the healthcare system because they are healthier than white people, but pay taxes and do not receive as many healthcare benefits. Pro argues the border fence already exists and fails to keep out drugs and crime.


On the cost of the wall, Wylted said the wall will pay for itself. Pro explained that the wall Wylted shown was not the same (size and cost) of the one Wylted presented for comparison, so the cost would likely be much higher than COn's estimate. Con dropped this. He said something about Pro using the last round for rebuttal but I think both debaters skirted around the structure. It doesn't seem like a huge deal. Pro wins the point that the wall would be really expensive so the debate is Pro's so far...

Then on utility, Pro says the wall would not keep out immigrants but Con explained why people overstaying their visas is preferable to the wall -the people would have been checked out. Con wins this point so thus far the debate is a tie...

Con never denies the benefits of immigrants that Pro mentions and instead says immigrants bring lots of bad things as well, like rape, and terrorism. I think pro showed how the fence would deter neither rape or terrorism so the debate is still a tie, with slight favoritism toward Pro because Pro proved benefits but Con did not show that a border fence would deter the negative things that immigrants bring... EXCEPT for disease, which Pro pretty much dropped. pro did respond to the health care costs (Wylted did not respond to his rebuttal) but again the debaters cancel each other out. Con showed unscreened immigrants can pose a health risk but Pro explained they were not a burden on cost and might be helpful.

Pro argued there were logistical problems with the border fence on the environment, and COn says they are overstated or do not matter. Slight advantage to Pro on this point. Pro argues the border fence already exists and fails to keep out drugs and crime. Wylted says his wall would be totally different and you can't compare.

Con also says the benefits of immigrants can still be attained through legal immigration. So pro had the burden of proof in this debate but only had a slight advantage over Pro, proving that the wall would be problematic on the environment and also expensive.

Pro did not emphasize the cost enough, and Wylted did not respond to his points on cost in the final round (I think this had to do with debate structure?). Pro showed that the wall would be really expensive, much more expensive than Wylted's estimate, yet Wylted offered many good reasons to justify the cost. Wylted did not argue that point but then again Pro did not push the cost point, so ultimately I cannot award Pro for winning on the cost point when he did not heavily advocate it in his favor. He showed that Con's estimates were wrong and underestimated but did not explain why that was a huge problem that showed the fence would be wrong on balance.

So I don't think pro fulfulled his burden in this debate. He only had .5 argument over Con who proved the wall would have benefits and prevent bad stuff. His strongest argument against Pro was showing that even illegal immigrants who overstay visas and stuff would at least be checked out.
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 5:05:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2016 4:05:49 PM, Udel wrote:

Thanks for the vote! It's really comprehensive, which is much appreciated, given the magnitude of the debate and the debaters involved. I do have two comments, however.

One, the cost argument was never meant to work in isolation. You're right that, given enough benefits, the costs would, even by my estimates, not be high enough to justify not building a fence. However, my arguments that a border fence would not be effective and that Mexican immigrants are beneficial to the U.S., as well as my rebuttals to my opponent's arguments on the benefits of a border fence were meant to give the cost argument the strength it needed.

And two, like I said in my round three argument, very few criminals in Mexico have criminal records, so conducting background checks would not prevent criminals from coming into the U.S. And I don't think the U.S. checks for disease when accepting temporary visa applications (correct me if I'm wrong, but my opponent didn't provide a source about this).
We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
Posts: 1,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 1:22:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm going to piggy back my RFD for the same on the same thread if you don't mind Udel, just to keep threads down on the same topic.
PRO: Subuti/CON: Wylted

PRO: Anti-wall, states Trump"s wall would cost a 30B to build with 740M in maintenance and 1.4B in staffing annually. CON's claims an Saudi double fence style wall would be 7B and 1.1B in maintenance. PRO disputes CON's estimates with logical extrapolation of existing Israel wall extended across the border of Mexico to be 58B, not including technology. PRO

CON contends that maintenance of the wall would pay for itself and then some due to saving $5B annually in deportation cost, and cites the Yuma section 94% in effectiveness. A new wall would be 100% effective, serve as a deterrent, as well as prevention of another 9/11 which cost 150B; making the wall fiscally justifiable. PRO rebuts the Yuma fence merely has people going around, it's not a deterrent. Yuma slows entrees down for capture; deportation expense will remain the same. Also, a new wall could be breached in the same manner as today. The number of potential terrorist caught is small in number and the southern border is not preferred point of entry especially when considering the 9/11 culprits came in legally on visas. Wrap this with the Crime and Smuggling arguments: PRO, A fence slows people smuggling down and will divert them to alternative destinations, furthermore, the current wall is breached with contraband via, tunnels, ladders and by aerial means. -------PRO's repeated assertion that a fence merely slows people down for easier capture leaves me wanting for an explanation on how this is done, no explanation is given. Considering the potential terrorist numbers caught are low, not a preferred route, along with 9/11 culprits entered legally, the spending as insurance against future terrorism does not have weight. One can assume that because the Yuma wall is effective, an extended wall can at least be equally so, the Yuma wall is short, as PRO points out and states it just alters smugglers routs. A long wall covering less populated areas reduces its efficacy. PRO's rebuttal of diversion of human trafficking to other countries is actually a benefit to CON"s argument when illegal immigration costs are factored. Diversion to other countries alleviates US pressures on deportation, housing, medical cost and disease, but CON fails to seize on this point._Contraband: PRO again uses the breached argument, CON rebuts the Saudi style double fence with tunnel sensors and other preventive measures will counter. ------In light of PRO's rebuttal that the Saudi fence is unfinished and not yet proven, the use of catapults and ultra lights and R1 statements that other famous walls have failed, including the Israeli -Palestinian fence; a US wall's efficacy is questionable. PRO

Rape: CON contends that 80% of women are raped by smugglers and 1800 people die while crossing. A wall would be preventative and would bring women into the country safely. PRO"s rebuttal is rape is occurring in their home country a wall would not alleviate the issue. -----PRO's point has more weight. CON's point on how women would be brought in legally and safely is not explained.

Health Risk and Pressures on Medical Establishment:
CON, Crossing illegals are unimmunized and a health risk to the US pubic as well as place financial pressures on hospitals due to unreimbursed emergency and maternity care. PRO"s rebuttal since 1/2 of immigrants over stay their visa, they too are a health threat; Mexicans put more into the system than take out due to better health. CON's counter rebuttals is concerning visa applicant's health screening, and calls out PROs citation pertaining to second generation immigrants not illegals. CON

Environmental Impact:
PRO contends that there are environmental ramifications to building a wall. CON contends they are overstated and can be overcome.--- I find CON's rebuttal weak. PRO gets the point for this argument, PRO's could have also included that added cost to remediate environmental impacts would significantly added to the cost of building the wall.

PRO, 1/2 of all illegals overstay their visa if the wall were built there would be a greater inclination for criminals to apply, but most are not criminals. CON's rebuttal, visas are for highly skilled individuals, illegals crossing the border are unskilled and cost the system. Visas requires background checks and immunizations. The US has control and can tract those who over stay, this is preferable. PRO asserts that temporary visas are easy to obtain and there's no cap. ------Here PRO"s lack of understanding on how the visa process works or use of appropriate terminology fails (guest worker/agriculture visas are different) CON

Immigration Net Benefit for the Economy
PRO: Immigration has net benefit for the economy; immigration reform makes more sense than a wall. Immigrants contribute to the economy via taxes, starting new business and with purchasing power that in turn creates jobs. CON rebuttal is that PRO's citation does not differentiate between legal and illegals. PRO counter-rebuts that illegals do start business, but at a lesser rate than natives.----- The cost of the wall, the elimination of the net benefit of immigration vs. negative impacts on the health care system, deportation and housing cost being the billions annually; the strength of arguments are a wash. If I chose to look up what 14.7 % of the GDP was in dollars to do a dollars to dollars comparison I might have seen this differently.

PRO won the debate by the skin of his teeth, for the most part based on the amount of terrain a wall needs to cover, precedence of breaches of the current structure, and similar walls past and present not being particularly effective. Con's argument would have been stronger, even in summary, if he tallied up the cost to build and maintain the wall against the approximate 15.8B per annun cost of illegal immigration. The wall would pay for itself within 4 years given the numbers provided. Together with the policing analogy it would have slam dunked the debate. Then again, if PRO made point that initial cost to build at $182pp/$58B, where only 1/2 of illegals are entering, together with using CON's argument against him regarding the visa process. A proposal for a tune up of the visa system with its health & skills screening along with better educated entries, combined with the net benefit of immigration; especially those in a better economic position to contribute, could have weighed more cost effective than building a wall. Great debate, well done on both sides.