A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

[ Pro's Arguments ] P1: Keeping Central/South Americans and Drugs OutI wrote that drugs would still enter the U.S. illegally despite a border fence (like they currently do) including through the air, by sea, or by being made in the U.S. itself. I also wrote that legalizing drugs would significantly stifle cartel power. Pro dropped my point about legalization (I would legalize all drugs) and says "the wall pays for itself." Pro offers not a shred of evidence or economic data to prove that the wall would pay for itself. Likewise he wrote that "Less drug money means more for the economy" and insinuates that people would spend money on other things instead of drugs if we got rid of drugs via the border fence. This implies that the border fence would be effective in the first place which is presumptious; I've argued that it would not be very effective at inhibiting drugs. Moreover, demand for drugs would probably increase if there were a crack down on supply, making the drug prices higher and addicts have to spend more (addicts would spend any amount). Either way the point about adding more to the economy simply isn't true. - Pro completely dropped my argument about people overstaying visas and work permits - Pro completely dropped my argument about his fence only covering ONE of many U.S. borders- Pro completely dropped my argument about people entering illegally through underground tunnelsP2: Defense- Pro completely dropped my argument that we are not at war with Mexico or any other South American country- Pro completely dropped my argument that most other countries have no walls and yet avoid war/terrorism- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence is probably irrelevant to defense, as these days wars are fought through economic policy, politics, cyber warfare, and of course through biochemical and nuclear warfare P3: Job Creation- Pro completely dropped my argument that the cost to building the wall would off-set any benefits of job creation- Pro completely dropped my argument that tax payers have to foot the bill for government projects and jobs- Pro completely dropped my argument that the tax burden would hinder the economy in other, more useful areas- Pro completely dropped my argument that even if something did create jobs, it doesn't necessarily make it moral or righteous[ Con's Arguments ] P1: CostRefer to the Rebuttal of Pro's P1. Pro offers no analysis proving that building a border fence would be cost beneficial. On the other hand, I've provided a lot of insight that proves it would be detrimental and misspent. P2: World RelationsPro says that the fence would be built for defense purposes, not economics. He also talks about the BRIC countries and says they could help Mexico instead of us (I think that's what he was trying to say...). Even if we do not outwardly help Mexico, my point was that we shouldn't strain a relationship with a bordering neighbor, especially one we have free trade agreements with. I also think having Mexico get into bed with Russia would be a horrible idea but I digress. - Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence would tarnish the United States' reputation- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence fosters and emulates xenophobia, hypocrisy, hostility, tyranny, etc.P3: LogisticsIn response to my point that those who cross an even more difficult border would stay and not return home, Pro wrote, "The ones can cross can stay it would be almost impossible." Okay then. This point is moot.P4: EnvironmentPro's callous response to my point that the fence would destroy the environment (which he does not deny, ergo it's a consideration in my favor) was worded, "No one cares about wild life, ecosystem concerns. We pump so much Carbon into the air and many more non-friendly things. No one care, or care and have the power to stop them." - Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence violates a government treaty with Mexico- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence would affect the way rivers flow into Mexico, impacting populations and property>>>>>>Pro ends his arguments here, and says the rest of my points are just "humanitarian sob stories." <<<<<<<P5: The EconomyAlthough Pro did not respond to P5, he does note in response to P3 (which was completely irrelevant there) that "The Government hires young men for 50$ a hour, with builders, engineers, company workers for supplies, support, and scrutiny. You are looking at a 3 million man job. Giving a somewhat help to the economy. The taxes can go on the 1%."First, paying someone $50 an hour is around a $96,000 per year salary. With 3 million workers at a 96K salary, that's 288 trillion dollars. I have no idea what Pro is talking about or where he is getting this 50 dollar per hour salary figure. He hasn't provided a shred of eocnomic data at all to back up anything he says; I'm pretty sure he's just making stuff up. Regardless, I don't see how this fence helps the economy in any way and Pro hasn't explained how it would. - Pro completely dropped my previous argument that suggests taxing the 1% would inhibit job creation- Pro completely dropped my argument with cited and sourced economic analysis that suggests allowing for amnesty and/or more fluid immigration would provide significant benefits to the American economy. This is not a humanitarian sob story -- this is the economy of the United States we are talking about. This is what makes the world go round: money. It's what gives people influence, power, access to medicine, a more productive society and opportunities for prestige as well as top of the line defense and other amenities. P6: Amnesty and Individual Rights- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence inhibits individual rights- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence inhibits free trade- Pro completely dropped my argument that amnesty would give immigrants protection under the law- Pro compeltely dropped my argument that amnesty would require immigrants to become *tax paying* citizens- Pro completely dropped my argument that this country was founded by a nation of immigrants who defeated other immigrants, then acted hostily toward new immigrants who in turn acted more hostily to the newer immigrants and so on. >>>>>>CONCLUSION <<<<<<<I've negated all of Pro's arguments. He hasn't negated mine, and in fact has specifically dropped TWENTY ONE of my arguments, which I have highlighted via bullet points for Pro and the audience's convenience.