A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

Thank you for your response, Pro. The short nature of it allowed me to copy your entire argument and refute it point by point. Pro's arguments are in quotation marks. "I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds." So, essentially, all my points up until now have been dropped for the time being. That"s okay, Pro only has two of those rounds left, lest one wants to ignore the "no last round" provision to make this like the original debate. "The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone..." Only point relevant to the debate: A wall helps with defense. Currently still refuted. As for "adding on to the wall," adding on what? If it"s a really good wall, then how much defense is needed to man the walls properly; tunneling can be used, artillery can be used, grappling devices can be used along all points of the fence, not to mention air-power and naval support. That is of course if such groups would have gone Pro's border route anyways; if the southern countries were to ban together and attack, the Panama isthmus would be the first priority, followed by any shore east or west of the wall that is less defended. The wall, framed in these purely defensive arguments, doesn"t account for the most likely means that a south-american coalition could conceivably win with traditional forces. "We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense." You don"t stop drug cartels with a wall, and you seem to have U.N. nations going to war with U.N. member states; am I missing something here? "The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives." So, because tunnels are useless now, they can never be useful once the cartels want to have another avenue for smuggling? And they are not useless; they are used now in greater degrees of sturdiness, etc. for smuggling drugs [1]. The wall will eventually be passed over. Further, while the costs of tunneling are prohibitive now, they are more favorable if a wall is built; in such tunnels, depots for water could be maintained. In truth, a real invasion force would set itself up from a cornerstone tunnel system. "Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers." So now we are going with a resolution of 15 more borders? They have the same problem, and unless Pro (the one with the Burden of Proof) will state otherwise, having fourteen gates all at the border will be more burdensome to maintain than it will be for all the people that profit from bypassing them. "We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore." First, since Pro is not in danger of using his character maximum; I request that a little more clarity be used in the fomentation of arguments. Second, happy government"s does not equal peace; 7 tyrannies constantly at war with their own people but not each other is still 7 states involved in great degrees of violence. A wall, in this case, keeps people from escaping tyranny; this argument of the wall bringing peace is odd. It ignores completely all views of international relations existing today; the realist vision would have power games being the ultimate decider, making the cost of a wall a big detriment in keeping power with the other States. The liberal vision encourages free trade; a wall will make trading more difficult. "Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively." Most of the big crashes following the U.S. housing bust occurred because of the tie to the U.S. dollar; a tie to Chinese currency may well help to stabilize the world in the face of a U.S. recession, especially when considering that the U.S. may well bankrupt itself from the creation of this very wall. "Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall." However the Isthmus of Panama is taken, the U.S. navy is divided, troops across the ocean have difficulty being moved back home, and the U.S. land offensive into South America is greatly hindered by the wall before the jungle environment comes to the South"s reprieve and preferred place of engaging the enemy. It is so good that the U.S. nearly bankrupted itself building this wall. "Thank you" And thank you, Pro. I look forward to a refutation of points I have made outside of defense. [1]