A border fence is useless

The nice thing about leaving debate is that one always comes back with new and interesting ideas. So let's play with some new ideas. ======================================== First I'm going to argue a moving target/unstable advocacy abuse story. It has four parts. 1. My interpretation on this is that any given person in debate should start with a stance and have to stick with that stance throughout the entirety of the debate. In this debate the topic says "A border fence is useless"; this is quite literally my opponents position. 2. My second is going to be a violation. My opponent violates the interpretation of fair debate in numerous ways. First he shifts out of the present tense, "fence *is* useless" when he says, "but I think it might be different in 5 years." Secondly my opponent shifts out of his original argument when he says, "Yes, it will keep out a few illegal immigrants." Suddenly his argument has shifted from it *is useless* to it *is relatively useless*. 3. Three is standards that support my interpretation. a. I'd argue that having a stable advocacy that never shifts is the only fair position in a debate round. This allows both sides to argue from a clear position without having a blurry in between ground. b. Additionally I'd argue that having a moving advocacy or being a moving target is infinitely regressive. What I mean by that is simply that it allows one to always make up a new position and never actually respond to the arguments of the opponent. Without having a stationary advocacy my opponent would always be able to simply say his argument was something else in the next round which would always make my last round useless. 4. The 4th argument is why this should be a reason to vote in this debate. a. First I'll argue that my opponent having a non-stable advocacy is highly abusive to me; simply because such an advocacy destroys my ability to debate in this round. The example in this case would be my first round. Suddenly all of my responses don't mean a thing because my opponents position went from "A border fence is useless" to "A border fence will be kind of useless in five years." b. Additionally I'd argue that this is a more important reason to vote than the actual outcome of this debate. This is true because having a stable advocacy and a fair debate is my gateway into this round. If the debate isn't fair and skewed in favor of my opponent then I can never actually access this debate round. Thus I argue that having a fair debate is always going to be a more important reason to vote than the actual outcome of a debate. c. Finally I'd say that voting my opponent down for this reason is beneficial to the debate community as a whole. Such an action would deter my opponent from setting up debates in the future where he didn't have a stable advocacy. Secondarily anyone who judges this debate would additionally be able to see why a non-stable advocacy is problematic. Thus, in this debate round, there is one very justifiable reason to vote Con. ===================================== Additionally, let's focus on the three actual points my opponent has. 1. BORDER FENCES~! First I'll still extend my point from the first speech. It's really suspicious when random ladders are sitting around at the base of fence. At the very least this allows authorities to know where people crossed and lets them have a better chance of finding the illegal immigrants. Secondarily though.... I thought about this some more and I just don't think a ladder would work period. If you climb the ladder to the top of the wall you still have to get down the other side...... Hefting another 50 foot ladder to the top of the wall so that you can get down the other side just wouldn't work. To heavy and lift with one hand while climbing the first ladder. Third..... five "ten foot" lengths of ladder randomly lying around would still be horribly suspicious. Especially so in the middle of a desert. Finally.... fences don't cost all to much. Fences cost less than fixing Mexico at the very least. 2. ATTACK THE ROOT~! This whole contention just isn't responsive to the topic..... "A border fence is useless". Furthermore since I've already proved that border fences are useful I think we can do all of my partners alternatives along with a border fence. Tah dah~! 3. GET MORE LINES~! Still not responsive to the topic what-so-ever. Secondarily we can do more lines while simultaneously up keeping a wall. Finally this point just doesn't make sense..... The 14 year line to get into the United States is a figurative line not a real one. If you go through due process it could take fourteen years to get into the United States. But there are already a multitude of crossings into the United States. You can't make variations of due process that would somehow reduce the wait time 7 years. Anyways, I await your response. Have fun.