Border fence

hello again, thans for the response. Let me basically disprove all of your contentions before I...attack them. "I really don't feel like looking up evidence so basically I'm going to wing it."Not a good thing to say, you tell me and the voters that u have not even spent a second researching the topic, henderig you unknowlagable (is that a word) on the topic. A better word would be uninformed. "The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. "You say it provies "a sense of security". So, that's a placibo. It is only good in medicine, but on a topic like this placibos are bad. I have proven that it is ineffective, therefore not providing security at all. "The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective."No thats not true, my evidence shows opposite and every study that looks at this shows that the border fence is USELESS. How is something that can be penetrated in 1:30-4 minutes be effective?"Keeps illegal people out"I have rendered that innefective therefor it probably doesn't keep many illegals out. And it may keep family's out as the family says "I do not want my 2 year ond daughter on that", but they can boat and go around. Also there are checkpoints thlet you cross for a few hours total and all you have to do is get through that and walk and or drive north. "Also keeps the illegal drugs out"Um it hasn't worked up to now for one thing. Also I have provn it INNEFECTIVE. Sorry for the repitition jez. COclusion to the rebuttals:His whole argument revolves around the fences 'effectiveness' yet he has provided no sources or proof that it is effective. His contentions basically say "it is effective, so it works" But that is not the case. Also usually drops, not refuting my main contentions, is counted as consessions. SO you have just said my whole case is corret without actually saying it. C1: Hurts the enviroment Conchise County, Ariz — Bill Odle lives 385 feet from the border wall that separates Arizona and Mexico — so close he can see it from his straw-bale house. And he’s seen firsthand the environmental degradation the 670-mile fence has inflicted on the surrounding area. [1] SO he's seen the damage. What it has done instead is fragment an already stretched environment and prevent animals from accessing large portions of their habitats, which is pushing some toward extinction. [1] so it makes things go extinct and threatens them. Bill Odle, who lives next to the border wall, says he's seen first-hand its negative environmental impact. [1] The U.S.-Mexico border fence will make life harder on some South Texas farmers, damage valuable wildlife habitat, impair views and generally become an obstacle to border life [2] that = bad eviromental impact. C2: cost Um...I have provedt that it costs a lot. So I needn't expand here. But lets just add one snidbit. Congress recently decided that the best way to protect America was to build a wall. So now taxpayers are paying for a barrier that later this year will extend 670 miles across our southern border. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at nearly $2 billion and an additional $260 million per year just to maintain the fence. [3] C3: ineffective Let's do this again. But while the fence is hundreds of miles long, the border is thousands of miles long, so most of the border will remain unfenced. And even where there is a fence, illegal immigrants determined to get in can get around it. [3] But while the fence is hundreds of miles long, the border is thousands of miles long, so most of the border will remain unfenced. And even where there is a fence, illegal immigrants determined to get in can get around it. [3] So it is easy to penetrate. There's also no evidence that the fence has reduced the number of illegals who cross, eventually. [3] yeah is that enough, I proved it above I just felt the need to add on as your case relied on that belif. C4: hurts people. I needn't prove this either as common sense proves this. When seeking alternate routs some families die in the deserts. Or they fall of the wall when climbing over it hurting themselves. Or when they cut through it the wires hurt them or when digging under it a mishappen occurs. There are many ways people can get hurt while crossing the fences. C5: might make the Mexicans mad: I have proven that hte mexican president dislikes the fence. Also they are the ones that started the hurts the envoriment concept. It may also make other latin america countries mad: The governments of five Central American countries, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Mexico joined forces Jan. 9 against the U.S. plan to build a high security fence along portions of its borders. [4] SO many goverments are against it. It is an intrnational dislike. Conclusion: due to it's costlyness, its effectiveness (none), and its international a enviromental downsides, the order fence is a bad idea. I urgeyou to vote con on this debate. I like quotes right now so I'll finish with one. "The security fence is reversible. Human lives are irreversible."-Silvon Shalom sources: http://pavementpieces.com... [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3] http://www.finalcall.com... [4]