Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico border

C1: MexicoThere are several "proto-types" of walls that President Trump has purposed. The issue with this is that my opponent has yet to give a purposal which they can properly guard here. Constant reliance on a large amount of border patrol agents would make issues and cause Opperational Costs to skyrocket. Leading to the technological advancements under my plan not only reduces costs, but it drives down costs in the long run through the new adoption of technology which developes from the wall. You'll have to forgive me here as some of the points from this contention and the next will tend to mess together. My opponent has seemed to missunderstand my counterplan. I had stated that "Mexico would contract private US companies to build a border wall. .. " this indicates that Mexico is paying the US companies to build the wall, not Mexico building the wall themselves. I have stated in this debate that Mexico might have some sort of clause in the funding which would require a certain percentage of these workers to be Mexican or other similiar trade-offs. This would show that this actually solves for what my opponent is arguing while stating that it would be cheaper if the companies invested in the American-owned wall, which it will be. I would like to highlight the main difference in the plan is that mine involves private companies while my opponent's plan requires the work to be done on the Federal level. My opponent has yet to bring up evidence to support Federal agency building over the Private Sector. The loans have no effect on the ownership of the wall. Mexico is only acting as a 3rd party in this case. This counter-plan and wall is feasible, as I have previously shown the wall can be done and isn't a myth. My opponent's only complaint is that it doesn't make sense to have more wall, but this defeats my opponent's own plan as he has stated that the wall is made to help deter the free rider issue. This only makes it more secure and solves my opponent's own advantages better than his do. There actually is profit to be made here. This can be seen in a real life example, but for US military fighters, and this production company and the only company that can produce these is Boeing. Many companies would be competing to secure the contracts as they know that in the future, they will be always called upon to fix the wall or have other security implamentations across the country just as Boeing does. This, alone, is the key reason why companies would want to take these contracts. I have already shown why Mexico would want the wall, most of which is covered in my second contention of Hegemony below. C2: HegmonyMy opponent keeps stating in one breath that Mexico doesn't want the wall, but in the next states that they have a need for labor force due to low wages and acknowledges that STEM jobs will help benefit Mexico. These are two contradicting arguments that should be both thrown out of this debate that my opponent makes. My opponent even concedes that they want the work, this itself should be proof enough that they want the work. My opponent states that my wall would have issue with terrian, but still fails to acknowledge the fact that this very argument applies to his own case. If we took his critique of my argument, we'd have to apply it to his as well, defeating his own plan as well. The amount of STEM jobs that would be created out of my plan would be astronaumical as the amount of technology that would be needed for my plan would be grand in amount. This wall isn't too far from the Apollo program. The amount of technology which stems from the amount of security and sensors needed for the wall would actually excede the amount compared to the Apollo program and the amount of steel would be significantly higher, creating more jobs than my opponent's plan, which is another key issue here [1]. With that, I extend my initial argument across the bord here. I didn't go too much into tunnels and simply used them as an example. The amount may be minimal, but there is other issues that arrise out of my opponents arguments. Who knows what may come out of these tunnels as he even concedes there may be drugs or other illegal activites. My opponent concedes and brings up this disadvantage to his own problem here. My opponent has dropped the original argument made here in that building the wall will increase US hegemony world wide helping increase there stance against terrorism, especially ISIS, whether it would be in Syria or homegrown. C3: US DebtI have already covered why the American companies would want to do this and why the Mexican-American company operations isn't exactly to what my opponent thinks due to a misunderstanding. Taxes have been cut and the debt ceiling continues to be raised, but this is an issue that is covered by my own argument. The lowering of taxes, but still the increased spending and higher debt ceilings only encourages this type of spending to send us off the cliff. I have previously shown just why continuous spending is harmful for the US and can lead to a substainal financial collapse. This is an argument that my opponent has yet to counter for the economic collapse. Cutting spending is easier said than done. The recent spending bill shows this as it was signed in for $1.3 trillion and it funds many programs that the GOP opposes such as Planned Parenthood funding and funding Sanctuary Cities [2]. The GOP's reluntance to fund the Sanctuary Cities goes to show just how much of an issue the US would have in terms of fulfilling the paln my opponent brings up. With that I thank you for your time and urge a vote for Con. Sources1. (. http://www.larouchepub.com...) 2. (. https://www.nytimes.com...)