The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 9232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1).

My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities.

This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that the majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem.

Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does.

I look forward to being challenged.

(1) Page 3


I thank my opponent for the debate, and wish him good luck.

I negate the resolution: "An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth"


1) Mass genocide
-Mass genocide would kill lots of people, thus curbing population growth. Killing millions and millions of people would surely curb the population better than non interventionism.

2) World War
-A World War would work even better in curbing the population, because all countries in the world would be involved. Tens of millions dieing around the world would surely curb the population better than non interventionism.

3) Nuke stuff
-Nuke yourself, nuke others, hell, nuke the moon. Either way, it kills millions of people. And is most definetely a better way at curbing population growth than non interventionism.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1



Debate Round No. 2


Rascal forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by carolinemwitt 7 years ago
are there any modern-day malthus advocates?
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Conduct: CON - Pro quit.
Arguments: CON - Clearly.
Sources: PRO - Pro used one, Con used none.
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
This was an unfortunate way this debate turned. I am disappointed, Nags - no offense, mind you.

Rascal; if you wish to have a real debate over this, then feel free to set it up again; I'll probably accept.
Posted by shakti 8 years ago
Very interesting subject...hmmm
Posted by shakti 8 years ago
the link is not working
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Change the voting period to a week or so, and I'll take this.
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
This is interesting, and I can think up an argument right away to counter it, but I'll give it some time before I accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24