Donald Trump would be a bad president

Thank You for your rebuttals. My opponent has not stated anything for Round 1 so there is nothing for me to refute. As a result, I will refute their rebuttals to mine. It doesn't matter if Mexicans are leaving because not all of the illegal immigrants are Mexican. About half of them are Mexican. As for the numbers dropping, it clearly states in your source that the reason for that happening was the recession in 2008. Consider this-- An exaggerated threat it still a threat. The problem is that this threat CAN be stopped--America just doesn't choose to enforce its existing immigration laws because of the current Obama Administration. I never called Mexicans "aliens." I called illegal immigrants "aliens." If they break the law, and there are no consequences, that offends everyone who follows the law and specifically immigration laws. My opponent criticizes my language as dehumanizing, but it is not by defenition--Alien: "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization."[1] It does not dehumanize them. I agree, I would do the same thing, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to take a huge gamble instead of legally coming to the U.S.. That does not mean I would expect to get citizenship. Remember, A nation with out a border is not a nation and a nation that doesn't enforce its laws is not a nation. If the people are struggling, why don't they fight for rights like we did. As for the Great Wall of China, it simply wasn't along the entire border. The northern tribes could simply just go around it as Pro has mentioned.[2] The wall will be on the border with Mexico. With the Maginot Line, it was only on the border with Germany. The Germans got into France via Belgium.[3]The line wasn't along the entire border. Let's look at an actual wall that ran coast to coast--Hadrian's Wall--in what was known as Brittania at that time. It was built to protect the Romans from the barbarians in the North, and it worked up until the sacking of Rome.[4] It doesn't matter how expensive it will be, Mexico is paying for it. Digging under the wall is going to be hard as well. There is going to be a solid foundation that needs to be penetrated and the USCBP has developed underground motion sensors which are specifically designed to prevent underground tunnels.[5] My opponent seems to forget that the 2nd Amendment also allows the formation of militias,[6]most commonly know as the National Guard. Guns are the basic weapons that are used by these people along with other military supplies. Again, banning these guns stops the National Guard of each state from protecting its citizens. Gun owners along with the National Guard of the states can stop a tyrannical central government. I don't understand what Pro means when saying "But is that necessarily a good thing, when being influenced by someone like himself?" Please clarify next round. The report that you speak of does not factor in the business incentives Trump will create by lowering taxes. It's common sense that lower taxes will increase debt, but Trump's economic plan helps small businesses grow and decreases regulations on them. My opponent gets a source from Quora which is pretty unreliable, but nevertheless, the man probably didn't do an adequate job. If I came and put a wood floor in your house and there are loose boards and holes, I wouldn't give you all of the money. The terms have to be followed. The person claims that suing him will be expensive, well, why not get his friends and get the media? Easy solution right there. Trump would be pressured to do something. Comparing Australia to the United States is an apples to oranges comparison. A report showed that the temporary gun ban in your country had no effect on gun homicide rate. Along with that, the gun control in Washington D.C. actually increased gun homicide rates. Many more facts along with these on this website.[7] Size is a majority. Why do you think a majority of battles are won with the greater number of soldiers? I can give you a clear example how quantity has beat quality in WWII. German Panzer VI Tiger vs Sherman Tank. The Tiger was the most quality tank ever created during that time. However, the shear number of Sherman Tanks created by the Allied Forces became their bane.[8] Sometimes Quantity can be the best Quality. Why would you sell countries brand new jets with brand new parts instead of using them for ourselves first?[9] Reusing parts from jets that were used in the Korean War? Are you serious? It doesn't show efficiency, it shows weakness and stupidity. We are selling brand new jets to other countries, but are using spare parts for our own. Protection of the United States has to come first, and strong military will do just that. If we have a higher military budget, then why are our planes old? My opponent forgets the Air Force and the Army. The Air Forces of China, Russia, and North Korea, are greater than the U.S.[11] A Carrier Strike Force does have power which is a good thing, and that is why there need to be more. It's true that we have 10 right now. But not all of them are deployed at one time! In 2015, only 5 carriers were deployed the the Middle East didn't have a carrier there. [11]The carriers are spread too thin, and reducing that number which the left proposes will only harm us. It's pretty obvious that our Army is smaller than India or China, so why is it getting smaller and smaller? You need the Army to defend the land. They aren't "testing" waters as Pro claims. They are building a military air base in international waters. Iran is circling our boats making dangerous maneuvers. "Test the resolve of the U.S.?" What is that supposed to mean? Are we going to kick them out of there and start WWIII, then that is dumb. The President of Philippines cursed at Obama[12], and China didn't give Obama a red carpet welcoming unlike other World Leaders.[13] Please provide evidence as to how Trump would make America a "laughing stock." Putin complimented Trump, and he complimented him back. He didn't say he would lift sanctions. He said he would look into the situation. Why should be protect a country that doesn't even contribute to the organization? We are in 20 trillion debt, there is no need to spend excess money in protecting other countries for free. Paying an equal share is also part of the NATO deal...That's the exact point. If we aren't there who is going to defend the small countries? It will force them to pay their fair share, making the organization fair. He wouldn't be terrible for NATO, he would just be stronger on NATO countries. By the way, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use. Awaiting your response. I hope to change your viewpoint of Trump. If the debate was Clinton vs Trump, you would have an easy choice. Nice to see an Australian. I'm only 15, and you're from Australia, I'd say it's a pretty fair debate. As always, good luck! Sources: [1]http://www.dictionary.com... [2]http://gbtimes.com... [3]http://www.history.com... [4]http://www.ancient.eu... [5]https://www.cbp.gov... [6]https://www.law.cornell.edu... [7]http://www.dailywire.com... [8]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... [9]http://thediplomat.com... [10]http://www.globalfirepower.com... [11]http://www.military.com... [12]http://www.theatlantic.com... [13]https://www.theguardian.com...