Trump's Border Wall Will Do More Harm Than Good

Okay, Let me just set something straight about the nukes going towards Mexico. You said that the source was MSNBC, But did you even look at the source I put? It was TheDailyBeast. Com, Which is a neutral source. It can be slightly left leaning but a lot of right wing people support it because the information is accurate. You should really look at the sources your opponents use when they are debating instead of accusing them of using a source that doesn't fit your own personal views. But all of that is irrelevant because YOUR OWN REPUBLICAN, PRO WALL, PRO NUCLEAR WEAPON, ANTI-IMMIGRATION said this. I found a quote from the foreign policy advisor that Trump was talking to, So if you say this quote is wrong, Than you are disagreeing with Trump's administration, And thus you will be undermining yourself in this debate. Quote: "Three times, [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times. He asked at one point, If we had them, Why can't we use them? " AP News. Com(unbiased source because you care about those so much): "Trump administration officials said Monday they"re crafting a new legislative package aimed at closing immigration "loopholes, " hours after the president called on Republicans in Congress to immediately pass a border bill using the "Nuclear Option if necessary" to muscle it through" They are literally passing a bill to use the "nuclear option" if possible. You can fact check this on the GOP website! So there is still a high chance that Trump will nuke them. It's not propaganda, Its fact. Okay on to the rest of the case. ---"How else will we protect our borders without a wall. Nothing is working right now. Illegals can not climb over walls like they are doing right now if the wall is built. Who cares what a handful of architects say? " ---------You are questioning hundreds of architects who have dedicated their life to building, Structuring, And more than just the fundamentals of building. You seem to think that you know the ins-and outs of architecture because, "Illegals can not climb over walls like they are doing right now if the wall is built. " Q: Why does your opinion about the wall beat the opinion and science of professional architects. A: It doesn't Point proven, Your point fails. ---"The wall is thoughtfully planned out. " ---------Trump randomly threw this idea out during his campaign. How is it planned out. If you think that because they are building prototypes that they are being "thoughtful, " but it really isn't. "Thoughtful, " would be testing public opinion, Listening to other peoples ideas, And finding a way to build it without causing social divisions and sparking outrage. ---"Schools are run by school districts and state lwas(laws). " ---------Are you implying that public schools don't get federal funding. It is basic fact that the federal government pays/helps to pay for public school. Then you say that it is payed for by school districts. Where do you think that school districts get the money? More than 14% come from the federal government, So why can't we add more money into the school system and make the federal government's percentage go from 14% to a higher percentage. Every penny counts. So you are blatantly just wrong about government funding. ---"Not the fed gov. Government health care should be gone. " ---------Wait but I'm confused. A lot of Trump supporters seem to be against Obama Care, But you realize that Trump care still exists. It is still government owned, And it still gives people insurance. While yes, It did cut people off of the previous system, It is still "government health care, " which seems to be something that you are against. So you are disagreeing with your president which falsifies your argument in it's entirety. ---"We should not spend on public things because we already have so much and nothing has changed. " ---------(I copied and pasted your link to the youtube video, But it doesn't work for me). Okay, So here is why I'm confused. So you say that the government should pay for the wall. Okay, So that takes about $23 billion from the federal government. But then you say that public "things" don't work. But after the money for the wall is spent, What do you want the government to spend their money on? There are so many public projects that need funding, But by your logic, "we shouldn't fund any of them because nothing has changed. " I disagree. Public infrastructure, Schools, Social security, Protecting immigrants that seek refuge from their violent countries, And other public programs need funding, Or else they wouldn't be government owned. This argument that you have made makes very little sense, And it should not be considered in the judging of this debate. ---"The rio grande is the edge of the mexico border. It would be bulit on one one side of it, But not across. If a wall was built across it, It would be a damn, And water would flow over it. " ---------As con, You do not have the right in a policy debate (the kind we are in now) to dictate what the policy changes will be. We are debating the PRINCIPLES that have been set by president Trump and his administration, And as Pro, My job is to say the consequences would be of implementing the plan. You do not have the right to decide that it would be built with a damn. You do not have the right to dictate which side of the river the wall will be built on (by the way, This won't work. "Illegals, " as you call them, Would still be able to come in on one side of the river. So both plans of "one side of the river", And "a damn, " have been proven false. Thus the water wars/shortages disadvantage still stands. Now that I have refuted your case, I am going to do a few last things. 1. Challenges 2. Recap 1. Challenges: ---Do you think that the wall is likely to be passed in the near future? ---Do you understand that the wall will not be built for at least 15 years and that immigration will still be an "issue" until then? ---There are eight prototypes bidding to become the model for President Donald Trump's proposed border wall cost between $300000 and $500000 each. This is much more than speculated. How do you expect this to be a reasonable cost? 2. Recap: So basically what we are left with in this debate, Is a bunch of my points standing, And very few standing on your side. What I still have left over on my side is water wars. Your refutation fails because you do not have the right to dictate laws because you cannot in real life. Also you proposed two plans: both proven invalid. I still have my trade war point standing because you never attempted to speak on it, Same with the increased drug deals in Mexico. In case you want to respond to the in your last response, Here is the evidence for each: Trade Wars President Donald Trump"s plans to pay for a Mexican border wall could trigger the global trade war he has long threatened. A House Republican plan he embraced Thursday as a means of paying for the barrier would slap imported goods with a 20 percent tax " a levy aimed at boosting consumption of domestic products that could backfire by angering allies and upending the entire global trading system. Longtime trading partners " not just Mexico " could retaliate, Making American consumers pay more for everything from food to electronics and putting U. S. Companies out of business. The so-called border adjustment tax could trigger cases before the World Trade Organization, Spur other countries to slap levies on American products and put some U. S. Companies at a disadvantage with international competitors. (https://www. Politico. Com. . . ) The resulting hit to the economies of foreign nations that depend on the massive American marketplace to gobble up their goods could prompt those governments to retaliate. And their methods could take myriad forms. They could launch trade enforcement cases at the World Trade Organization " an option that could take years and still not be successful, Given the likelihood that lawmakers would try to write the tax in such a way as to fall within the global trading body"s regulations. Drug Cartels The wall would prevent vital anti-organized crime cooperation and hurt the Mexican economy which drives more people into cartels. It also causes Mexican nationalism which worsens polarization. All of the security benefits of the wall fail: (thehill. Com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/316851-us-gains-little-loses-plenty-by-sticking-it-to-mexico) Mexico stopped cooperating with the U. S. In going after violent criminal groups and drug cartels, The U. S. Would be much worse off. Mexico could retaliate further by giving up efforts to secure its southern border with Central America, Augmenting the flows of migrants and contraband to the north. The U. S. Would then face bigger border security challenges than if it maintains a cooperative security relationship with Mexico without a wall. If U. S. -Mexico relations continued to plummet to an unprecedented degree, Mexico could even stop sharing counterterrorism intelligence. A significantly weakened Mexican economy could further exacerbate the severe criminal violence that has gripped Mexico for over ten years. Fewer remittances and increased unemployment and poverty have the potential of driving many more desperate young Mexican men to joining drug gangs, Or to increased poppy cultivation, Extortion, And other criminal violence. I urge you to respond to both as they are very important and severe claims. Vote for Pro because of recent information, Reliable sources, Logical claims, Bigger impacts, Faster impacts, More destructive impacts. Even if you personally believe the wall is a good idea, I still ultimately think I won on the basic fact that each piece of evidence was followed by a unbiased source. Thank you for a lively debate, It has been one of my most fun ones yet. I hope that you have a great rest of your week. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond after this round, So don't go too hard on me. :-)