United States-Mexico Border Fence

One thing that he has mentioned in his conclusion is that he has "shown greater skill than me". This is not a fair statement. From my point of view, it seems as though my opponent is narcissistic, and, quite frankly, a bit of a jerk. Here are some statements that he has made to support my claim: "I acknowledge that I myself am a fourteen year-old, but I have shown greater skill in this than he has. " "He should have the 'conduct' points taken away from him in the votes due to him not following the debate structure I implemented. " Voters, you can also scrounge through the debate and find many other quotes from my opponent that support my case. Onto my refuting. This was one of my opponent's refutations: "You said that "[you] believe that we should keep the United States-Mexico border because of the crime in Mexico that it can potentially keep out. " First of all, for the reasons I have stated in my previous argument, we should not keep the fence. Secondly, I have a new point I am going to make: Is a pathetic fence going to stop the drug cartels and illegal immigrants? I say no. A fence - as I have defined in my opening statements - is "usually made of posts and wire or wood". Below is an image of the United States-Mexico border fence. I strongly disagree with this because a source I have found states that it does work and that it is "secure enough" to keep out crime from Mexico. (1) Secondly, I would like to point out that my opponent has many propositions to get rid of the United States-Mexico border fence, but has no decent plan. He states that "I would propose an innovative security system. I do not yet know what this system does and how it will operate, but I assure you that we need it. " This is a lousy plan, considering he has no idea what type of security system, or the millions, or even billions, of dollars it would cost the United States! Therefore, I believe that my opponent has stated an invalid refutation to my argument about crime in Mexico due to his lousy plan and false statement about the security of it. My opponent also stated, in response to my money argument, that "We have the money. We are the richest nation in the world. We have a GDP of about 17 trillion dollars. However, we need to reduce spending in certain areas, increase spending in other areas, balance the budget, reduce the deficit, and manage our finances correctly. We have the money, but we just need to manage it properly. " There are two reasons that I disagree with this refutation. First of all, I see no source stated anywhere in this. How do you know we're the richest nation in the world, without a source? How do I know that I can trust you? Secondly, I disagree with this point because money does not grow off of trees, especially government money. So where does government money grow? In taxpayers' pockets! Why would taxpayers (all of you) want to fund uselessly taking down the already effective border fence and putting in a lousy, expensive security system that my opponent doesn't even know the slightest details about yet? Therefore, I believe that, yet again, my opponent has brought up an invalid refutation do to no source stated and, once again, his failure to think about the price tag even further, going into taxpayers' pockets. My opponent next stated the following in response to my crime argument: "We cannot ignore the crime that has occurred in Mexico. However, I don"t believe you understand that a fence won"t do anything. We need gun control, immigration reform, and above all, diplomacy. A fence may slow a drug cartel, but it won"t stop it. Even with the fence, cartels have already invaded Texas and other bordering states. In Texas, for example, arrests have been made that are linked to the drug cartels in Mexico. A fence won"t do anything. I hope you realize this. " Before I further refute this, I would like to define gun control. According to dictionary. com, gun control is defined as "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms. " Gun control is completely irrelevant to this topic, and my opponent has failed to even make the slightest connection between gun control and this topic. Secondly, he keeps bringing up the fact that a fence won't do anything, but his lousy security system won't either! I would also like to point out that he is completely ignoring my refutation in the first round in response to his diplomacy point. "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. " Since he is completely ignoring this refutation by me, a large sum of his argument that I am refuting right now is irrelevant since it has already been refuted and he has failed to confront my refutation, yet still brings it up. "Look at this beautiful flag; the banner of red, white, and blue. We are the country of liberty and justice for all, forged upon the principles of egalitarianism, diplomacy, and harmony. " This is what my opponent brought up at the end of round three. Yet, the USA, I believe, was founded on liberty and justice for all, all citizens. Liberty and justice is not provided for illegal immigrants. I believe that I have won this debate, even though I have stated in Round 5 that I have lost, but i will not be narcissistic, like my opponent, and let the voters ultimately decide the winners.