An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth
Debate Rounds (3)
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 http://www.un.org...
I negate the resolution: "An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth"
BETTER WAYS 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.
Rascal forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.