azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Your diet of liberal media and opinions prevent you from seeing a complete picture. You don't know what media I follow, so don't be an ass.  I do try my best to stick with media you would accept, since anything consevative doesnt counterbalance your media diet.Except, again, you don't know what media I follow. I intentionally balance conservative and liberal sources. So, again, don't be an ass.Example: You hailed Obama as the deportation king or cheif, actually he deported less than Bush Jr on avg per year!That's just ridiculous. Measure total number of deportations, not something as arbitrary as deporations by year. Obama has deported more than all the presidents of the last century.Like I said before, statistics tell whatever story you want them to.They really don't. That's something people say when they don't feel like investigating statistics. During the Obama adm. they added the count of caught at border returns to the deportatation amt. And skewed the numbers.Actually, as per your source, it was under the Bush administration when that change was implemented."Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records."Now mind you I'm not trying to say you guys should be loving Obama when it comes to immigration. But the "sudden outrage" that has occurred under his administration regarding immigration is simply transparent, due to its noticeable absence under his predecessor.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Yes I do know what media you listen toYou mentioned in a few posts, discrediting info because from a conservative paper. And ones I know to be liberal like politifact you reference. Corrext they changed rhe way it was counted and see how the difference in statisicsSo instead of media being responsible, making a case, they hail Obama as the deporter in cheif, just like you mentioned in one of your arguments
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Yes I do know what media you listen toFactually speaking, you really don't. Again, don't be an ass.You mentioned in a few posts, discrediting info because from a conservative paper. And ones I know to be liberal like politifact you reference.First, I never discredited something simply for being a Conservative paper. Second, I brought up politicalfact because of the dozens of citations to dozens of a-political organizations, not for the content within the article itself (and any supposed liberal slant).Corrext they changed rhe way it was counted and see how the difference in statisicsFirst, it was Bush who did it, not Obama. Second, without the change, the rates are pretty much the same as previous administrations, which still works against this right-wing mantra that Obama is ridiculously soft on immigration.So instead of media being responsible, making a case, they hail Obama as the deporter in cheif, just like you mentioned in one of your arguments"The Media" makes almost no mention of immigration at all because it doesn't get viewers.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Yes I do know what media you listen toYou mentioned in a few posts, discrediting info because from a conservative paper. And ones I know to be liberal like politifact you reference. Correct they changed yhe way it was counted and as you see it makes a big difference in statisicsSo instead of "media and opinion articles" being responsible to tell facts without twisting to steer.Whether to bash or give credit, the data is used to identify Obama as the deporter in cheif in comparison As you mentioned "deporter in cheif or king" in one of your arguments.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

First, almost all of that was a word for word repetition. Second, thr person who said what you were thinking of is another poster, not me.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I never said the Southern Border wall "and was intended in large part to stop terrorists."So I'm not sure why you think I said it.And you say Im repeating myself, yet you say "I have inconsistent justifications for this piecemeal approach."And its not piecemeal, there are different facets that require a different approach. There is not 1 approach that would appropriately handle the different problematic facets of illegal immigration. But stopping more from entering, is 1/2 the battle.http://www.infowars.com/this-stunning-chart-shows-how-trumps-border-wall-will-stop-illegal-immigration/The  Wall, drones, patrolling, cameras, The Southern Border wall is proposed to stop a large # of people who are entering the US illegally  through that 1900 ml entrance point.And there are many types of people coming through the Southern Border, all of which are entering illegally.I hope whoever is in office next will plug this leak or at the very least reduce it from the current illegal aliens entering through the Southern Border every year. Not only does this location provide entrance by the average illegal migrant, but it also is an open invitation to criminals, drug smuglers, and also terrorists (the Southern Border is seen as an easy point of entry)1,825 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border where the Border Patrol cannot prevent or stop an illegal entry. What’s the deal with this border fence?"Fence explained: "First off, it’s not really a fence. Not like you’re thinking. The word “fence” conjures up an image of a single, continuous barrier, like the one that keeps your dog from biting the postman. But the border fence is actually a series of different types of barriers (“post-on-rail steel set in concrete with a mesh option”; “vehicle bollards”; “concrete jersey walls with steel mesh”; and many other variations)."- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

I never said the Southern Border wall "and was intended in large part to stop terrorists."So I'm not sure why you think I said it.You on Trump's proposed wall: "And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally!"That's a direct quote.And you say Im repeating myself, yet you say "I have inconsistent justifications for this piecemeal approach."Those aren't mutually exclusive.And its not piecemeal, there are different facets that require a different approach.Again, those aren't mutually exclusive. But stopping more from entering, is 1/2 the battle.http://www.infowars.com/this-stunning-chart-shows-how-trumps-border-wall-will-stop-illegal-immigration/The  Wall, drones, patrolling, cameras,You are really providing a link to a conspiracy website that regularly posts articles about the New World Order and FEMA camps? Complete lack of any and all credibility aside, your link goes to this article "THE ‘JERSEY GIRLS’ SUPPORT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH". An article about some small-time New Jersey group supporting 9/11 Trutherism doesn't support your case.The Southern Border wall is proposed to stop a large # of people who are entering the US illegally through that 1900 ml entrance point.And there are many types of people coming through the Southern Border, all of which are entering illegally.Christ I am sick of this repetition. I am well aware of its intent, but the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not that particular goal is effectively and efficiently met using the method mentioned.I hope whoever is in office next will plug this leak or at the very least reduce it from the current illegal aliens entering through the Southern Border every year.And what cost is that worth? What is the price tag that would finally push it over the edge of practicality? Or do you not care about the cost at all?Not only does this location provide entrance by the average illegal migrant, but it also is an open invitation to criminals, drug smuglers, and also terrorists (the Southern Border is seen as an easy point of entry)First, the evidence of terrorists crossing the border is minimal (if not non existent). Second, the crime and smuggling can be addressed in different and more efficient ways.As for the end of your post, I don't understand the point of it. I'm well aware that the fences that currently exist are, for the most part, shoddy and ineffective. Though it does make me question the efficacy of Trump's proposal, considering how the people who put up those fences made plenty of lofty claims as well.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

It does little to nothing to enforce that. Over half of all immigrants are coming through on legal visas and then overstaying. All the wall will do is further increase those numbers, and lead to different (illegal) paths into this country whilst costing tens of trillions of dollars. 1/2 are here with expired visas, but still 48,000 come illegally through the Southern Border. If they close it up, thats correct they will have to find another way if the are determined. Right now the perception all through South America, they believe if they can make it in, we are suckers, and Obama wjll let them in. Obama has sent a great message, of ease to them. Most if had to find another way they wouldnt.The Southern border is easy to them, if it were hard, 48,000 per year wouldnt be able to do it.So even though the trip is dangerous, the ease is still there, and its worth the danger of their trip.And people who came legally once, would likely come legally again. Most likely they have more money to work with, since they had time here.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

1/2 are here with expired visas, but still 48,000 come illegally through the Southern Border. If they close it up, thats correct they will have to find another way if the are determined.Right now the perception all through South America, they believe if they can make it in, we are suckers, and Obama wjll let them in.Obama has sent a great message, of ease to them.Most if had to find another way they wouldnt.How has he done that? By spreading propaganda run by the state through South American countries, through popular music and film, that the way is deadly? Or by deporting a record number of illegal immigrants? Or by targeting people who knowingly employee illegal immigrants, decreasing the appeal for future immigrants? And what evidence do you have that these people, who are risking their lives for something better, would suddenly stop coming?The Southern border is easy to them, if it were hard, 48,000 per year wouldnt be able to do it.Right, it's not like we are in the midst of watching tens of thousands of people die every year whilst immigrating to other nations....Oh wait, we are.So even though the trip is dangerous, the ease is still there, and its worth the danger of their trip.The wall wouldn't change that, considering the quality of their lives.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

You - Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.Me - I still havnt seen TRILLION as an estimate anywhere.And I never said millions, I said billions.You. - So stop calling for more wasteful spending.Me - How is spending 1ce - 25 to 43 BILLION "wasteful spending?"if illigal immigration, mostly from the Southern Border, 113 BILLION per year? Spend 1 time to build - 25 - 43 BILLION vs the 113 BILLION EVERY YEAR?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

You - Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.Me - I still havnt seen TRILLION as an estimate anywhere.And I never said millions, I said billions.You. - So stop calling for more wasteful spending.Me - How is spending 1ce - 25 to 43 BILLION "wasteful spending?"if illigal immigration, mostly from the Southern Border, 113 BILLION per year? Spend 1 time to build - 25 - 43 BILLION vs the 113 BILLION EVERY YEAR?Because your numbers aren't correct. That 113 Billion is for the total cost of all illegal immigrants in this country, and the wall would not be a one time cost due to maintenance and costs of manning. On top of that, it would stop less than half of FUTURE costs of illegal immigration due to the fact that it would be addressing less than half of incoming illegal immigrants.So the entire point is to try to estimate what the total cost of the wall is compared to the total amount of money saved (remember illegal immigration has both a cost AND a benefit, so when you keep repeating the 113 billion without addressing the economic benefit, you are essentially lying) and determining if it is a practical solution.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not even saying it isn't needed or justified. But what I DO want to point out is eventually, for whatever reason, it will indeed come down just like the Berlin wall did. And do we really want to be THAT nation - the one that put up a wall which a half century later gets demolished and lambasted for ever having existed? Walls are built out of fear. Are we a scared nation? Are we more scared than the Mexicans who indeed did not build their own wall in case any of us want to go in there? And in fact, is the risk of influx from Mexico even as great as the risk of terrorists for example coming in through the enormous US/Canada border for which no wall is proposed?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem. That being said, people always find ways around things. There is no way to predict how many it would stop.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem.How so? This is a proposed policy based on a proposed economic cost. We can determine an estimated cost of the wall, and an estimated cost of illegal immigration, then determine if the wall is a practical solution.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Do you have reports detailing the amount in comparison of both borders?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Ive never even heard a concern about the Northern border. Canadians arent interested in sneaking into our countryMexicans are!
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Ive never even heard a concern about the Northern border. Canadians arent interested in sneaking into our countryMexicans are!Terrorism is the concern of the Northern border, not massive illegal immigragion.These are 2 separate issues. 1 is a low level approach like make a break for it, closer to a kid skipping school. The brain power is that level, then you have drug cartel, higher level, more coordinated. Both detremental to American society.You have a concern of terrorism, northern border. You use homeland security, gather intelligence And train out border control and you work with theirs. Both are problems, with different issues, and different answers.But to say putting a wall there to stop the MASSIVE entrance of emmigrants from entering illegally, is racial, if we dont address the different problems and issues is a politically correct confinement of reasoning skills.And its the biggest culteral disaster facing us today within our country!
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

This is an excert from attached link. The northern border is nearly 4,000 miles of often wide-open space that differs from the southern border as much as a jungle differs from an ice floe. It’s a region stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, touching 13 states (not including Alaska), 12 national parks and forests, four Indian reservations, 18 international bridges and four of the five Great Lakes. The border is demarcated by thousands of small monuments established and maintained by a binational commission.Similarly, the enforcement picture at the U.S.-Canada juncture bears only a passing resemblance to the way the Border Patrol operates down south. Because the physical landscape at the northern divide is rugged in many places, about 1,000 agents patrol it – compared to nearly 10,000 at the southern border.Many people see those numbers as evidence the northern border is poorly guarded – especially since it’s twice as long as the southern border, and that’s not including Alaska. But Giuliano said the opposite is true.Near Canada, geography works to the Border Patrol’s advantage, he said. There are some locations where the wilderness is virtually impassable. Those limitations mean the Border Patrol is able to do more with less."All you have to do is look at the north Cascades ... to realize I just don’t need people standing shoulder-to-shoulder watching that border," Giuliano said.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Since even Trump admitted that Mexicans could just use ladders to get to the top and a rope to come down on the American side, it is ridiculous to build this wall.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

You just argue everything, your so negative. If it slows them down, and border controls catches more and alot less come in illegally, thats the bonus. I tried to keep it simple for you.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

You just argue everything, your so negative.You know you are on a debate website, right?If it slows them down, and border controls catches more and alot less come in illegally, thats the bonus.Is that bonus worth the tens of trillions of dollars, and if so, why?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Yes its worth it, it will cut down illegal alliens significantly.It should have been done a long time ago. Now it needs to be done!.It is a huge issue, and it needs to stop. It will stop more than a few.It would make a significant impact against illegal entering into the USA. And it's one thing to debate, its another thing to be contrary, The purpose of debate isn't to argue for the sake of being contrary, or just arguing for arguments sake.Debates are to become more studied about your points of view, and to disect your views to strengthen, or add balance, or adjust, or change your view.Being open to that. To be challenged. And to possibly understand anothers point of view. Maybe even adjust your own point of view. If your negative and contrary, and everything is an argument, no matter how little or insignificant the point is like what I have seen with the above poster, and the reaction he/she gets regarding his arguments. The posts Ive seen so far from him, he appears to just mostly be someone looking for a fight. Not looking to have a debate.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Yes its worth it, it will cut down illegal alliens significantly.It should have been done a long time ago. Now it needs to be done!."Significantly" is about under 25%, and that's an incredibly liberal estimate. For tens of trillions of dollars, that is simply impractical.It would make a significant impact against illegal entering into the USA.And it's one thing to debate, its another thing to be contrary,The purpose of debate isn't to argue for the sake of being contrary, or just arguing for arguments sake.Debates are to become more studied about your points of view, and to disect your views to strengthen, or add balance, or adjust, or change your view.Being open to that. To be challenged. And to possibly understand anothers point of view. Maybe even adjust your own point of view.Aside from how shockingly condescending that is, everything I've done here qualifies as debating. If I am "contrary", that's because I do not agree with you.If your negative and contrary, and everything is an argument, no matter how little or insignificant the point is like what I have seen with the above poster, and the reaction he/she gets regarding his arguments. The posts Ive seen so far from him, he appears to just mostly be someone looking for a fight. Not looking to have a debate.Why are you trying to talk to me about a different poster?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Do you think illegal alliens should ne allowed to come in, and we should not stop them?How, by what method would you like to stop illegals from entering?Or do you think its better to leave it the way it is?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Do you think illegal alliens should ne allowed to come in, and we should not stop them?My opinion on it is conflicted, personally. On one hand our economy largely relies on them for keeping produce prices down and for low-paying service positions. On the other hand, the existence of a criminal element alongside legitimate immigrants is undeniable. Personally, I'd rather start with the criminal element, which is the most damaging aspect, then move on from there.How, by what method would you like to stop illegals from entering?At first, by making it less appealing to come here. For the criminal element, that would be drug legalization. If one is determined to stop migrant workers as well, it would be increasing visa checks for employers, particularly in (but not limited to) border states, and possibly increasing penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Not necessarily something I want, but it would be substantially cheaper than building a wall and it would ultimately have close to the same deterring effect.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Bonus? That isn't a bonus. That's the job of the wall. You really want to build a wall that won't actually keep the illegals out? How much are you willing to spend to only slow them down?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The wall will keep them out. Nothing is failproof. But, doing nothing guarentees failure. We have had extreme failure in this area. Some illegals may climb over, its doubtful that a signicant amt of people could climb the wall easily, without being caught, and thrown back.Its ridiculous to allow the massive number of illegals to enter, year after year after year, the way it has.Do you think illegal alliens should ne allowed to come in, and we should not stop them?How, by what method would you like to stop illegals from entering?Or do you think its better to leave it the way it is?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Now you are switching your position to the wall keeping them out. Great.How much would you pay?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Part of my comment was sarcastic. I didn't change my position.Even if some still get in, it will significantly reduce the amt of people coming in illegally that has been and is currently coming in to our country through that way. And that is worth every penny, where lots of other Government spending needs to be altered significantly!It comes down to cost vs value, and we as a government and a people need to make some priority choices in spending.And this one IS a priority.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

How is it worth every penny if it costs tens of trillions more than it saves (according to the CBO)?After all, the entire point of this debate is to incite a cost benefit analysis of the wall, and the CBO's figures have the economic impact of immigration neutral, if not positive overall, while the wall would cost tens of trillions (and more trillions in time with maintenance). A cost benefit analysis, based purely on the fiscal practicality of it, demonstrates that this wall is not a practical solution to illegal immigration.