A fence should not be built around U.S borders, anywhere

1. Pro presented morality as the value of this debate. So, a border fence should not be built anywhere on US borders because it is immoral. His reasoning as to why his value stands is separatism. By nullifying his claims regarding the border fence and separatism, I have effectively argued against his value of MORALITY as well, since separatism is the only criterion he has offered to support the value. The belief OF separation and the belief IN separation are two different things. The belief OF separation (the agreed upon definition of separatism) states that one believes separation exists, not that one believes IN it. Separation between groups has existed since the beginning of humanity. It has nothing to do with borders, fences, or border fences; separatism has existed before all of these things. It is illogical to conclude that a border fence would create this separation (because the separation is inherent and already there), or assume that NOT building a border fence would stop or limit separatism. Just because we see ourselves different from others does not mean that we will devalue them and/or start a war. In fact, even if we conclude that separatism was the belief IN separation based on things such as culture, my point is still upheld - people in the US can believe that our laws and values are greater than others, yet we have not isolated ourselves from other countries, nor have we gone to war over these ideals. So I have proved that it was not separatism itself that has led to war, but rather the specific factors that I have provided (eg. militarism, imperialism, etc.). 2. I contested that I own this land just as much as Pocahontas did. Pro responded with this snarky comment - "Pocahontas didn't own this land; refer to 'proverb' in R1. GAME OVER." First, the GAME OVER was completely unnecessary and somewhat abusive to the formality and mutual respect of this debate. Second, if Pocahontas (Native Americans) didn't own this land, then what was the purpose of including them in the debate at all? Third, why should Pro's obscure proverb, rooted in opinion, even matter? I have provided FACTS to prove my side. If Americans do not own the land within US borders, what gives us the right to issue property taxes? If we do not have the right to build a border fence because this land is not ours to build on, then how/why can we morally build other things? Pro did not respond to my point "the USA (tax payers) not only pay to live on this land, but we, as Americans, also protect it, secure it, and are held responsible for what happens within it. That makes this land very much ours." To continue/elaborate on a previous point, the false logic put forth by Pro essentially agrees that I have every right to move into Pro's house if I so choose; the space in which he lives should be communal regardless of whether or not he owns/pays for it, since the land that it's built on really does not belong to him or anyone in the first place. 3. A) The value for this round is morality, so we should be discussing the way things should be (regarding ownership) - not how they are. In other words, Pro is saying that people should NOT be able to own land/property. How is that moral? He has not included any reasoning to support why we shouldn't. B) "If we actually owned this place we wouldn't have to pay CONTINUOUSLY for it." We don't. We pay for its protection and safety (military), and services that protect the rights of citizens (government), not the land itself. Ex: you can buy a TV and own it. But in order for that TV to work, you must pay for the electricity to power it, and sometimes the cable that you may be watching. This analogy speaks volumes against his argument. C) "Legality does not link to morality." Not all of our laws have been moral, but to say that they have no link is a blatant lie. Murder is against the law for no other reason than because people believe that it is immoral; this can be said about countless other laws, such as theft or assault. Laws DO have to do with THIS DEBATE. 4. "The resolution doesn't specify timeframe, therefore anything she says that applies specifically to our current situation doesn't attack the principle of a wall itself and therefore the points won't matter." This is ridiculous. Pro can't just claim that my points don't matter. Not only is this abusive, but my opponent is also wrong. The resolution does in fact specify a time frame - the word "should" indicates the future. Therefore in terms of the future, the only evidence we have to draw a conclusion on must be based on what we know in the present. And presently, our country faces all of the problems that I have included in my contentions, therefore not only do they matter, but they are of utmost importance in terms of this debate. Tax payers are being charged tens of millions of dollars due to the influx of illegal immigrants. To say that money has nothing to do with morality is false; one can note people "mooching" off of others without contributing is in fact immoral, because it places an unfair burden onto some. I wrote, "They [former immigrant ancestors] were not given any hand-outs, so why should illegal immigrants from today have that privilege?" His response was, "Just because we didn't get it doesn't mean others shouldn't get it." So Pro is advocating for free hand-outs to illegal immigrants at tax payer's expense... however he doesn't include why this should be so. Illegal immigrants are hired to work for less than is mandated by federal law via the Minium Wage. His simple response is "Minimum wage is nontopical." Clearly I spent time noting why minimum wage does in fact have to do with the debate (it relates to illegal work/retribution - something a border fence would essentially police/minimize), I deem it fairly topical and to dismiss it without any reasoning should only mean that this point among many others goes to me. I mentioned the War on Drugs - he says "How bout let's not have wars?" Um, what? How does that relate to the resolution? And he calls ME nontopical? He claims I have not shown how a border fence would diminish illegal drugs. That is untrue; I mentioned that this fence would make it harder for illegal drugs to be SMUGGLED IN, and in my description of what a border fence would entail, I included how. Pro says "Do we even have borders with Afghanistan?" Uh, seriously? Obviously a terrorist can enter a lesser developed country like Mexico and enter the US with more ease than from coming in directly through us. These terrorists are armed with the weapons I was discussing in terms of keeping them out of this country. So his link regarding US weapons output is really irrelevant, as is most of his rebuttal. Finally Pro claims that my facts regarding why we should build a border fence are irrelevant, including my description of what a border fence would entail and WHY IT IS THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION. He says this has nothing to do with HIS value criterion, so it's irrelevant. That makes absolutely no sense. He is saying that I am not able to present my own argument in a debate, and instead only discuss his. Pro is CLEARLY mistaken, and has failed to respond to any of my points regarding those matters. So, I have won all of them. So from my opponent's arguments, we can gather that he advocates for absolutely no separation whatsoever between the US and every other country (afterall, we are separated from Canada and Mexico by a "freakin line" and supposedly the US economy doesn't exist because only a global economy does... lol). If you agree with him, then feel free to only accept the arguments presented in this debate based on separatism. If you disagree, then consider all of my points, and you will see how Pro has been clearly defeated despite my unavoidable missed round.