The Instigator
Bertie
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
000ike
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Charity is bad for the population problem

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,624 times Debate No: 17942
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Bertie

Pro

How many people have been saved over the past 30 years from the billions of $s used in aid? Chinas 1 child policy has spared the earth of 400 million people and while I am not convinced the aid amount is that large, its not totally inconceivable and it will surely reach that figure in the near future.
In my eyes, the world is not sustainable in a scenario where human rights are put before the health of the human race or indeed our planet as a whole. I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts and it can only end in catastrophe.
000ike

Con

I'd like to welcome my opponent to DDO,and wish him goodluck, on what should be an interesting debate.


C1. Charity does not interfere with the inevitable decline in the human population

"I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts"

A purely natural control of population works under birth and death. Unless people are not dying (which is impossible), the population will always behave according to the tendencies of population dynamics. Meaning: There will be a sharp increase and peak in population, a decline, and a stabilization.

If anything, charity, and allowing more people to live will hasten our global gravitation to human population stabilization. It will accomplish this by making us reach the Earth's carrying capacity faster.

Point: Charity is not bad for our population, rather, it assists our population.


C2. There is no such thing as a population "problem"

I am assuming that my opponent views the human race's imminent over-population as something that is a problem and should be prevented. This is logically unsound. Every animal population, including us humans, must go through a. population increase b. population decline and c. population stabilization. The issues with living conditions that may arise due to population exponential growth, the scarcity of food and water, will be the driving force returning the human population to a period of decline due to increased deaths (of starvation and lack of resources).

The concern (due to misconceptions) that many have taken when thinking about the future of the human global population is unnecessary. We may think of ways to counter the future depletion of resources, but trying to prevent natural population growth is not the answer.

Point: Charity cannot be bad for the population problem, if the population is not a problem to begin with.


"The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that:

    • the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century

    • reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then

    • perhaps declining in the waning years of this century." (1)



Sources


1. http://users.rcn.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Bertie

Pro

Thanks for taking up the challenge 000ike

C1. Charity does not interfere with the inevitable decline in the human population

I agree that charity will aid in increasing the worlds population to 9.3 billion or "carrying capacity" but I believe that we have already passed a sustainable carrying capacity and so more drastic measures are in order.
You cant look at individual environmental factors in isolation which I will discuss further in response to C2.
Taking charity as it stands today out of the equation will slow the rate of population growth so we may never reach the 9.3 billion mark. We may use up all our resources to sustain these people before we get to that mark and would you not prefer to have 8.5 billion people in trouble rather than 9.3?

Point: Charity is helping to overburden the earth in a shorter time frame than if it wasn't around

C2. There is no such thing as a population "problem"

The human race has been trying to prevent a decline in population for time immemorial but have just gotten much better at it over the past 200 years. Why then, should we not try to prevent the growth in population in a direct attempt to stem the flow?
As mentioned earlier, attempting to let things carry on as is will merely compound the issues we will inevitably experience so we should take action now. Natural resources aren't easily replaced in the short term so we have to take care of what we have now. The population problem is at the heart of all this but tackling environmental, resource and the standard people issues like contraception and contraceptive education is not enough. We are hamstrung by our humanitarian nature in that it forces us to look after those in need. We should forget about those that cant fend for themselves for the greater good of the planet and the human race.
The money saved in the current aid structures could be used in research on alternate fuel, alternate food source/agriculture or education on family planning or indeed contraception itself. We could also aid people that are able to sustain themselves to make the bottom line of living standards better rather than wasting precious resource on keeping people barely alive.

Point: There is a population problem and it is at the root of all out environmental issues.
000ike

Con

my opponent has contradicted himself. between round 1 and round 2.

Round 1: " feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts"

Round 2: "Taking charity as it stands today out of the equation will slow the rate of population growth so we may never reach the 9.3 billion mark"

The notion of preventing the human population's natural climax is contradictory to his previous point of letting nature take its course. First Pro states that we must not stifle nature, then the argument he provides directly stifles the will of nature.


If we do not peak, we will not decline

My opponent has made it clear that he does not want the human population to take its natural course and reach climax. He proceeds to ask me if I would prefer an 8.5 billion population to a 9.3. My answer is, I prefer a 6 billion population to a 9.3. When the human population peaks and the Earth does not have enough resources to accommodate so many people, there will be mass starvation and a period of sharply increased deaths. That will force the human population into decline.


Natural decline

"The human race has been trying to prevent a decline in population for time immemorial but have just gotten much better at it over the past 200 years"

No Source. Why would we deliberately let children and adults suffer to regain an 8.3 billion population, which is, as you implied, still above the Earth's carrying capacity? Giving charity will not affect natures course. We WILL reach the population and climax, and eventually we WILL decline as I explained in the last round.

The addition of charity is a moral virtue, and its removal:

a. WILL NOT stop the eventual climax in population (that will happen no matter what)

b. WILL NOT prevent population decline (that too will happen no matter what)

Therefore Charity is not bad for the population "problem".
Debate Round No. 2
Bertie

Pro

There is no contradiction from round 1 to 2. In 1 I say that charity is affecting natures efforts to control population and in 2 I say charity is speeding up population growth the same argument from different sides.
The human population will climax, of course but charity will make that climax higher and quicker and will have detrimental affects on the planet.

I do not want a natural course to climax, rather I feel we need to act now in order to slow the growth, investing funds that keep people alive into making other people's lives better.
There is no need to wait for mass starvation and death, it can all start right now. Rather embrace that things will get tough and work towards the greater good now. There is a chance we will buy time and come up with answers to our problems if we do but if we allow the tipping point to come sooner, we have no chance at all. At the moment we are still in control of our own destiny, lets keep it that way.

Acting tough is the way forward and changing the way charity is provided currently can be the first of many tough decisions that will be needed to right whats wrong.
000ike

Con

1. "There is no contradiction from round 1 to 2. In 1 I say that charity is affecting natures efforts to control population and in 2 I say charity is speeding up population growth the same argument from different sides.
The human population will climax, of course but charity will make that climax higher and quicker and will have detrimental affects on the planet."

Simply stating that there is no contradiction does not actually conclude that there is no contradiction. I think I did a good job of explaining why a contradiction exists in the last round, so I extend that argument to the 3rd.


2. "I do not want a natural course to climax, rather I feel we need to act now in order to slow the growth, investing funds that keep people alive into making other people's lives better."

Pro's wants are irrelevant. He will need to explain why not letting nature take its course would be a good thing......which AGAIN, he said would be a bad thing in round one. "feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts"


3. "There is no need to wait for mass starvation and death, it can all start right now. Rather embrace that things will get tough and work towards the greater good now. "

My opponent conceded that climax of population and hence, mass starvation is inevitable. So his call for action now by removing charity, will not stop the population increase. I would like to remind Pro of his resolution "charity is bad for the population problem". He has to prove HOW charity is bad for the population "problem" AND prove that the population is a problem. He has addressed neither burden. His point here of quickening the pace, and embracing the inevitable by allowing more people to die is irrelevant to the resolution. This does not explain why charity is BAD for the population problem.

In fact, I even previously proved that charity is GOOD for the population by helping us reach population climax faster.You cannot skip over climax and force decline like my opponent asserts.
Debate Round No. 3
Bertie

Pro

To answer your points

1.I maintain there is no contradiction, I merely explain that we needn't reach the 9.3 billion mark you stated as the earths carrying capacity.

"reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then"

2.Con, you mention my wants in Round 2 and I was referring to this in my argument

"My opponent has made it clear that he does not want the human population to take its natural course and reach climax"

My argument is that nature is being knocked back in its effort to control the increase, not decrease the population. The human race need to step in to help via stopping to use charity in the way it is today.

3.The population could climax today if there was some unforeseen environmental disaster. My call is to stop charity to slow the increase so we might not ever need to get to the climax that Con refers to in Round 1.

The size of the population directly results in

•The depletion and dispersal of natural resources
•Increasing pollution
•Extinction of plant and animal species
•Global warming

This planet cannot continuously sustain all the humans that currently reside on it. All these people are continuously consuming resources and exuding pollution and in order to be completely sufficient there would need to be under 2 billion inhabitants. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Point: There is a population problem.

As Con conceded in round 1, charity helps to extend this population problem via enabling people that might otherwise have died to live thus increasing the amount of people on the planet and extending the population problem

"If anything, charity, and allowing more people to live will hasten our global gravitation to human population stabilization. It will accomplish this by making us reach the Earth's carrying capacity faster. "

Point: Charity is detrimental to the population problem.
000ike

Con

My opponent refuses to acknoledge my argument, instead, he repeats the same factually unsound rebutal.

Let me reestablish the concept of the human population.

"The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that:




      • the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century







      • reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then







      • perhaps declining in the waning years of this century." (1)




1. The above quote is natures course.

2. The above quote REQUIRES that the human population reach climax before declining.

3. My opponent does not want the population to reach climax, he wants it to decline right away.

4 Ergo, my opponent does not want nature to take its course.

5. "I feel that mother nature is fighting back, trying to control the worlds population but we keep on knocking her efforts" So, at the same time, my opponent thinks we should let nature take its course.



***Numbers 4 and 5 are the contradiction. A contradiction is a self-refutation.***



1. My opponent thinks that charity is bad for the population problem

2. "A problem is an obstacle, impediment, difficulty or challenge, or any situation that invites resolution"(2)

3. The population will naturally decline eventually, so the population is not an obstacle, impediment, difficulty, challenge, and does not invite a resolution from Humans.

4. Ergo, there is NO population "problem"

5. Charity cannot be bad for the population problem if the population is not a problem


Resolution Negated.



1. Something is good for another thing when it strengthens, facilitates and supports it.

2. The goal of a population is to reach stabilization.

3. An increase in people must be achieved FIRST before reaching stabilization in accordance with population dynamics.

4. Charity helps increase the number of living people, hence reaching the goal faster.

5. Charity strengthens, facilitates, and supports the human population.

6. Charity is good for the population.


Resolution Negated ...Again


Note that I took 2 different approaches to negating the resolution. My opponent would have to disprove BOTH to win the argument because refuting only one leaves the other standing.



Sources

1. http://users.rcn.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Bertie

Pro

Bertie forfeited this round.
000ike

Con

Well, thats a shame. I extend the arguments from round 4 to the 5th. Charity is good for our population, and the population is not a problem.


Vote CON Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
Bertie000ikeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering bozotheclown
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Bertie000ikeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Bertie000ikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Good topic. Pro had the burden of proof and made far too many unsupported assertions. Both sides needed more references, but Pro's lack meant he couldn't meet the burden of proof. Forfeit lost conduct.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
Bertie000ikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit, better sources. Pro wasn't able to make a cohesive argument and con handled that well.