United States-Mexico Border Fence

"I believe him to be an intelligent, rational individual and therefore I truly look forward to debating him. " It warms my heart to hear that, but that will not lower my debate skills. Nice try! I would also like to begin with defining a few words that I believe will be essential to this debate. Now, I would like to refute some of my opponents statements. First off, they said that nations should be at alliance. I disagree because all nations cannot be at alliance. If all nations are allied, then we're living in a perfect, make-shift world with unicorns and pigs that fly. Think of it this way. If there is no war, we won't get anywhere. Let me bring up an example of progress through a war. The Revolutionary War separated the thirteen colonies from England and was the beginning of the United States. Without this war, the United States couldn't have been made, meaning little to no progress would have been made. Therefore, I believe that pro's world of alliance and world peace is impossible and will only make this world worse. Secondly, I would like to point out something that my opponent stated which is that "the detrimental effect of the border wall on wildlife and the environment in Texas will be significant. " However, they never stated how this will impact the environment. Also, they only brought up Texas. What about the other places where the border runs such as California? And screw the Mexicans. He/she doesn't care about the environmental impact in Mexico, only Texas! Therefore, I believe that this point should be rejected due to the lack of examples and lack of attention to other areas. Also, I do not understand what they mean by "The MLA citation does not work on that specific source. " How can an MLA citation "not work"? I believe that this suggests that my opponent does not know how to create one and is using an MLA citation creator online. My opponent stated that he would like to install a security system and remove the fence. I disagree with this because, the last time I checked, security systems ran along buildings and fences, so how would we build a security system if we have nothing to build it on? Also, obviously my opponent has stated a terrible plan considering he does "not yet know what this system does and how it will operate". Therefore, I believe that we should keep the border fence and that this argument should be rejected. Another thing my opponent constantly mentions is drug cartel and gun control, and he tries to relate them to each other. They make a complete assumption that "the issue of drug cartels can also be calmed and reduced by passing gun control laws", yet he provides no evidence or further explanation to this already poor assumption. Also, I believe that drug cartels have nothing to do with gun control, and that gun control is completely irrelevant to this entire topic. In my opponent's conclusion, he states that the fence has negative effects toward wildlife, yet continues to provide backing evidence and further explanation. He also says that there are other methods of solving the issue Mexico has, yet he has not stated any other methods besides his lousy security system. His conclusion is completely useless considering nearly everything he states is not backed by cold hard evidence and good explanations. Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent has provided an invalid URL in his last citation from Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Therefore, all information that he has used from this fake, unreliable source should be discounted. Now, I would like to bring up arguments of my own. Argument 1: I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border fence because of the money already invested on it. Since we have invested so much money, it is useless to spend more money and not get rid of it. My opponent is not looking at the price tag on his proposals. Just to build the border fence, it has already cost us $2.4 billion! (1) If we take it down, I assume it will cost millions more for the work force to tear it down plus the high tech equipment. Another price tag that he is not looking at is the security system he has proposed. This would cost billions of more dollars, all from the government out of our, the taxpayers, pockets! Therefore, the United States-Mexico border should not be built because it will financially impact the United States more than it already has. Argument 2: I believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out. In 2012 in the country of Mexico, there were 102,085 homicides in total. (2) Also, in Mexico, in the year of 2011, there were 12,358 drug-related murders in Mexico. (3) Do we want all of these criminals and crimes in our country in addition to the crime rates of the Untied States? I'd say no. For the reasons I have stated, I believe that the United States-Mexico border fence should not be eliminated as pro suggests. MLA Citations: 1. Sais, Samantha. "Price Tag for 700 Miles of Border Fencing: High and Hard to Pin down. " NBC News. NBC News, June 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...;. 2. Baker, James A. "Baker Institute Blog. " Baker Institute Blog. Chron, 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <. http://blog.chron.com...;. 3. Wikipedia Contributors. "Crime in Mexico. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <. http://en.wikipedia.org...;. Note: This is not unreliable. Information from source from the Reforma Ejecutometro.