The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuals Are An Asset To The Overall Thriving Of The Human Species

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,528 times Debate No: 34918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

The first round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent for generously accepting this debate. I am going to be arguing in favor of the notion that homosexuals are an asset to the overall thriving of the human species.

Population Growth

On average, 360 people are born each day with only 150,000 that die each day[1]. This, on its face, seems like a staggering difference. Also, in 1993 the word population was at 5,535,753,998, however the world population today is roughly 7,066,964,964[2]. This means that in just 20 years the world population has increased by 1,531,210,0966 billion people. Here is a graph which illustrates population growth:

Essentially, the point I am trying to get across is that the population is growing at an alarming pace. I think it is clear that the facts substantiate this quite well indeed.

The Need For Population Control

Stabilisation, or gradual reduction in population is one of the best ways to address the carbon emissions problem. The National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that slowing the population growth rate of a country to 1.5 births per woman from 2 births per woman could result in a 10% drop in greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, and a 33% drop by the end of the century[3]. Also, the lack of land mass on this planet is a huge issue:

“Calculations have been made that any given land mass has a certain carrying capacity, based on its ability to support its inhabitants' needs.” – Colin Feltham[4]

Another crucial aspect here is population growth's relation to poverty . Below are some simple statistics from 1950 - 85[5] showing a correlation between a rising population and the percentage of rising poverty:

Table 4-1
World Population 1950-85: Key Facts

Size and Rates

1950

1960

1970

1980

1985

Total Population (billions)
World 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.4 4.8
More developed regions 0.83 0.94 1.05 1.14 1.17
Less developed regions

1.68

2.07 2.65 3.31 3.66
Annual Growth * (per cent)
World 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7
More developed regions 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.6
Less developed regions 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.0
Urban Population (per cent)
World 29 34 37 40 41
More developed regions 54 67 67 70 72
Less developed regions 17 22 25 29 31

As more human beings are being born, higher percentages of poverty throughout the population. Now, I agree that correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. When we are dealing with consistent correlation of this type however, then it does seem to suggest causation at the very least in context. The more people their are, the less finite resources there are for everybody; and poverty arises. This hypothesis would generally predict such statistics above, and best explains the data.

The most important problem, in my opinion, is the problem of a growing population and finite resources. For example, theEarth Policy Institute showed that grain consumption of the world has far surpassed global production in six of the latest seven years, falling short with regards to the 60 million tonnes that was seen in 2006. Grain production has shown a huge declining trend within the past 20 years[6]. Also, we are losing our oil at an incredible speed:

"The rapid increase in the world’s population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production." - Peter Goodchild[7]

This section above shows a self-evident need for population control on a serious scale. There is no realistic way for human beings to flourish and thrive very much longer without it, as the planet cannot sustain this many people continuously into the future like we would hope. It seems apparent that logic, statistical evidence, and mere common sense can lead any rational agent to this obvious conclusion.

The Homosexual's Role In Population Control

Straight people are the root cause of the population growth problem, and are on a path to leading our society down a path of pollution, poverty, and famine. They have sex, produce children, and those children grow up and do the same in a world that can barely sustain the people that already live in it. Straight sex acts are required for the existence of a society, but not the flourishing of a society once growth gets unreasonable. Our Earth and its contents are finite, so to think we can keep going on like this is fanciful
Homosexuals are crucial to this picture, as they are less likely to have children by copulating with a female and producing offspring. The more homosexual and bisexual people there are having sex, the better grip we will have on population control, and less poverty there will be. It will increase the amount of land we will have to sustain us, and increase the resources in place for us to thrive as a society. With more people being born than dying each day at the hands of straight sex, homosexual acts are a clear benefit when taking population control into account. If everybody on Earth was straight, the problems associated with population growth would be much higher than it is today. It seems very probable that homosexuals may be our savior:

"We preserve the species. We are conservation realized. We provide nature's ... restraint ... on procreative extravagance. We keep human production from becoming ... overproduction ... pollution ... destruction unbridled. We keep the human race from becoming ... an obscene cosmic joke." - G. Roger Denson[8]

G. Roger Denson states my main point very well, and also had this to say:

"With the natural world on the brink of demise largely because of overpopulation, unrestrained homosexuality, as one of a variety of ethical and democratic measures available to us today, offers perhaps the most natural option to be enjoined. What other options are as attractive? We don't want to die young. We don't want to face illness or catastrophe. Many individuals and societies refuse abortion and birth control. Few would condone or submit willingly to the kind of international law imposing a one-child policy like that exercised by China on all nations. And we hardly need to be reminded of the history of racist, eugenicist, and militarist agendas for imposing growth control on unwilling and unknowing populations. So why shouldn't homosexuality be seen as providing a viable option to overpopulation--to the point that the world's nations come to encourage its practice and esteem its benefits? It is, after all, the most harmonious way to control the population--considering all that's required is that we love and support our gay sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, friends, lovers, and selves." - G. Roger Denson[8]

Conclusion

The population is growing to the point where our planet can barely sustain us. This is due to straight sex acts on a massive scale. Homosexual acts cause somewhat of a balance in nature, as homosexuals are way less likely to have the type of intercourse which creates offspring. Homosexuals are a way to sustain our species; so the planet can sustain us. For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude that homosexuals are an asset to the overall thriving of the human species.

I look forward to Con's rebuttal.


Sources

[1] The Human Body Book (DK publishing)
[2] http://www.npg.org...
[3] http://www2.ucar.edu...
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[5] http://www.un-documents.net...
[6] http://www.paulchefurka.ca...
[7] http://www.countercurrents.org...
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

utahjoker

Con

Introduction

I would also like to thank my opponent for posting both an interesting and tough topic. I will be arguing that population growth is not the problem and that homosexuals do not help in the overall thriving of the Human species.

Population Growth

I would like to focus the population Growth for the past 12 years. In the year 2000 the population of the world was 6,082,966,429 and now in 2013 the population of the world is at 7,124,339,094 and growing and by the year 2050 the population will be estimated to be at 9,346,399,468. When you look at the graph below you will see how the climb of the population is:


My opponent alludes to that we need to lower the birth rate so that population can begun to stabilize, but by the next chart the birth rate has actually gone down in the last 12 years.

Birth rate (births/1,000 population)
It doesn't make any sense does it the Birth rate is going down, but the population is increasing. The reason for this is the advancements in medical practice has kept children alive longer. Now days if a preemie child that is given treatment early nearly has a 70% chance for survival while back even 12 years ago the child had a very little chance to live. With the medical treatment diseases don't kill like they used to and people can get medicine fast. Such discoveries like an Once-a-day HIV Pill,Targeted Drug Therapies for Cancer, Hormone Replacement Therapy,Advances in Treating Coronary Heart Disease, having vaccines for diseases and eliminating diseases from existence, etc.
When you look at the death rate as seen here.


Death rate (deaths/1,000 population)




We Don't Need Population Control

The fear should not be about overpopulation it should be for depopulation. Very low fertility is when a birth rate is below 1.5 children per woman. Europe experienced this between 1995-2000 when there birth rate was 1.42. The consequences of these very low levels of procreation are told by U.N. demographer Joseph Charnie when he addressed the Population Association of America on April 2, 2004-"Growing number of countries view their low birth rates with the resulting population decline and ageing to be a serious crisis jeopardizing the basic foundations of the nation and threatening its survival Economic growth and vitality, defense, and pensions and health care for the elderly for example, are all areas of major concern." Europe has had problems with their birth rate and it has hurt their economy and nations strength. Society that have a low growth rate tend to fall and if the idea that homosexuals will lower birth rate will actually hurt human thriving.

Conclusion

Even with lower birth rates population still is increasing. Homosexuality has nothing to do with the thriving and if anything it hurts the thriving by not having children countries can face economic and overall society struggle. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.

Sources

http://www.indexmundi.com...

http://www.indexmundi.com...

http://www.indexmundi.com...

http://www.infoplease.com...

http://www.peopleintheworld.org...

http://ir.stthomas.edu...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

http://dsc.discovery.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent for his response, however he ignored the bulk of my arguments; thus they still stand unscathed. Also, I clicked "submit" by accident and posted my last round without double-checking for errors. I meant to say "360,000 people die each day", not "360 people die each day" for instance. I do apologize for any confusion pertaining to my last round.

Population Growth

My opponent here says that birth rates have been on a decline within the past 12 years. This is a red herring[1] logical fallacy, as it has no bearing on the resolution we are discussing. Even if birth rates have been on the decline, that would not mean that homosexuality does not help to aid the population growth problem. For example, if I have money problems, but my money is actually starting to increase, does that mean that an extra $1000.00 is not an asset, or does not help? Of course not. Even if the problem is starting to be solved, that extra money is still an asset. Similarly, even if birth rates are decreasing; homosexuality is still an asset because it aids in the decrease of the overall population. This section from Con does absolutely nothing to undermine my argument. I am not arguing that homosexuals are essential to the overall thriving of the human species, just that they are an asset. An extra good player on my Chess team is an asset, but we can do well without him, so he is not essential. Regardless, lets take a look at my opponent's first chart here:



You will notice that way more people are being born than are dying. Thus, even if birth rates are decreasing, the population itself is still growing at a staggering rate. Therefore, this section from Con is rather trivial.

"Despite lower expected fertility rates, [the world population] is likely to reach 9.1 billion by 2050, with most of the increase taking place in developing countries..."[2]

The point the above quote is trying to get across, is even with a decrease in birth rates, population growth is still out of control.

We Definitely Do Need Population Control

My opponent completely ignored all my arguments in favor of the need for population control. Con never addressed the statistical evidence that population growth causes the percentage of poverty around the globe to rise. He never addressed my evidence that food and oil companies cannot keep up with the global population growth, and that our finite resources are being lost at a staggering rate. Con never addressed my evidence that population control is the best way to lower Co2 emissions, and did not object to my claims about finite habitable land. Con just pretended like my arguments did not even exist, and presented a lackluster case against the notion that we need population control. He quotes one person who seems to disagrees with me, but he did not post any statistical evidence to back up his claims. Lets delve into the arguments for the need for population control a little further shall we?

Fossil Fuels

Oil is a finite resource that our entire economy depends on[3]. Con probably just wants people to forget about this, however this problem will not go away unless action is taken. We are losing way too much of our oil at the hands of the growing population:

Population and Oil


People are being killed in the middle east over oil. I do not believe people should die over oil. The human species cannot thrive with wars over finite resources. This scarcity problem is largely due the population growth problem. This seems to suggest that it is fanciful to view population control as anything less than needed. People are going to extreme measures to obtain this precious substance, when we do not have to fight over oil. All we need to do is keep the population down. Also, Petroleum is declining at an average yearly rate of between 2% and 6%, maybe nearer to 4%[4]

Food and Water

Famine and shortage of water is going to be a huge problem in our future, as there are too many people to feed the world already. It is also commonly known that overpopulation is the cause of famine in many counties[5], and that population growth and famine are inherently linked[6]. These are irrefutable facts. Here is an illustrative chart regarding population and carrying capacity:



Also, take Ethiopia. It is quite known that they have a famine problem, and it is also known that population growth is the culprit[7]. I am sincerely baffled as to how Con cannot argue with a straight face that we do not need population control. Additionally, there is a clear correlation here with regards to population growth and water shortages:



Pollution

Areas with the most people have the most pollution[8]. Pollution harms human beings, and hinders the flourishing and thriving of our species[9]. This further demonstrates the need for population control on a massive scale.

Conclusion

Con mentioned a birth rate decrease, but not a population decrease; thus his argument with regards to my "Population Growth" section is a red herring. My opponent does not contest the fact that the population is growing at an alarming rate. Against the need for population control Con provided no case, and no statistical evidence. He simply quoted a man who disagrees with me. I provided overwhelming evidence in favor of the need for population control. My opponent also did not contest the fact the if population control is needed, that homosexuals would be an asset. Due to the fact that I sufficiently supported my case, and Con had a rather weak rebuttal; it is safe to say that the resolution has been affirmed.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Sources

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://www.un.org...
[3] http://unfccc.int...
[4] http://bravenewworld.in...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.jonathonporritt.com...
[7] http://www.straight.com...
[8] http://www.jstor.org...
[9] http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com...

*Chart Source* - http://www.paulchefurka.ca...
utahjoker

Con

Introduction

I would thank my opponent as well.

We Don't Need population Control

1. Like I stated before when a population is decreasing the country faces many problems. Like lower employment and a bad economy.

2. Co2 has been proven not to get the world hotter, but instead it cools the Earth because it bounces the Co2 back into the atmosphere. The largest green house gas is water vapor, no one can stop water vapor unless you want to stop volcanoes and the evaporation cycle. Also the world goes through a cycle of warming and cooling has evident here-



3. If the fear is lack of energy by oil than the world must adampt. Around the world people are becoming less dependement on fossil fuel and turning to green energy. Like solar, wind, water, and nuclear power that countries already have adopted and other countres will when the fossil fuel go down.

4.The problem is not food stortages it is the way we spread it out. We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people, but the problem is not supply it is how the food is getting around. So homosexuals have nothing to do with this.

5. Homosexuals have nothing to do with birth rate. The birth's have not changed the thing that has changed is the children being born out of wedlock. That has increased by 17% since 1970. What homosexuals acutally do is that they adopt these children and actually help the populaiton growth. Because a child that is fatherless is more likly to commit sucide also they are more likely to get married and have children. If homosexuals raise childen than the fatherless is taken out causing less death from inflicted injury.

6. If we want population control than homosexuality won't help in this. Countries fear depopulation than overpopulaiton, becasue we have the resources for 10 billion people, but we can't survive with less.

Sources

http://www.resistthetyranny.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://listverse.com...
http://blogs.reuters.com...
http://www.geocraft.com...
http://www.photius.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent for his response, however I am getting the feeling that he is not taking this debate very seriously.

We Definitely Do Need Population Control

Poverty

"1. Like I stated before when a population is decreasing the country faces many problems. Like lower employment and a bad economy." - Pro

My opponent did state this, but backed it up with nothing. Thus, it can be disregarded. I provided statistical evidence and facts proving the need for population control. He completely ignored the notion that the more people there are, the higher percentage of poverty arises. I will show this chart[1] again:

Table 4-1
World Population 1950-85: Key Facts

Size and Rates

1950

1960

1970

1980

1985

Total Population (billions)
World 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.4 4.8
More developed regions 0.83 0.94 1.05 1.14 1.17
Less developed regions

1.68

2.07 2.65 3.31 3.66
Annual Growth * (per cent)
World 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7
More developed regions 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.6
Less developed regions 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.0
Urban Population (per cent)
World 29 34 37 40 41
More developed regions 54 67 67 70 72
Less developed regions 17 22 25 29 31


Co2 emissions

"2. Co2 has been proven not to get the world hotter... " - Pro

The above is false, and virtually every climate change scientists agrees with me.

Graph: Rise in global temperature

"It is the major greenhouse gas produced by humans, which is having the single greatest effect on climate change."[2]

I think my opponent just simply needs to get his facts straight. The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to Co2[3]. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human actions like deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. We have increased Co2 concentration by 1/3 since the Industrial Revolution started. This is the most crucial long-lived "forcing" of climate change[3].

Here is another chart showing how temperature rises in correlation with Co2 rising:



"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth." - Andrew Lacis[4]

Andrew Lacis did not just commit a bare assertion, but science proves his statement. My opponent talks about a "bouncing" effect but without non-condensing greenhouse gases, clouds and the vapor of water would not be ale to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect[4].

It seems as if my opponent is simply mistaken. It has been proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that human beings and Co2 are the reason for the temperature rising. This is the general consensus in climate change science, and it is bascked up by an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence.

Fossil Fuels

My opponent says that because of free energy, oil will not be that important. However, this just seems like fantasy in the short term. The US and other major nations still rely on oil, and will for many decades to come. Therefore, as long as this is the case, we need the population down so we can all thrive. Saying that we can solve the oil problem just by getting free-energy universally is a cop out, as its easier said than done. Our economy is too dependant on oil at this point to take my opponent's objection here seriously (at least in the short term). Regardless, I mentioned other finite resources and fossil fuels that my opponent just ignored.

Food and Water

My opponent completely ignored my evidence that the food and water supply cannot catch up to population growth. This alone shows a need for population control. Since homosexuals help the problem by not reproducing nearly as as often as straight people, they are an asset (even if only a small asset).

Homosexuals

My opponent says that homosexuals have nothing to do with the birth rate. This is obviously false, as homosexuals cannot produce children together naturally. Also, adopting children does not aid in population growth, as they are adopting children instead of having children. This means, homosexuality aids in population control, not population growth. If they were straight, they would have just reproduced instead of adopting a child that already exists.

"Homosexual men marry much less frequently and have far fewer children than their unambiguously heterosexual counterparts." - E. O. Wilson[5]

Conclusion

I have shown that population control is needed. Even if it is not needed (which it is), at the very least I showed that it would help many of our problems with regards to the flourishing and thriving of human beings. If it can help, then homosexuals can help because they have fewer children than straight people and stabilise the birth rate more. This means that even if they are only a little asset, they are still an asset. My opponent's objections seem to consist of mostly misinformation, and ignoring much of my argument. Therefore, the resolution seems to have been affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://www.un-documents.net...
[2] http://climate.nasa.gov...
[3] http://www.climatechoices.org.uk...
[4] http://joecrubaugh.com...
[5] http://www.nasa.gov...
[6] http://www.probe.org...
utahjoker

Con

1. I did state that decreasing population gives countries problems like lower and employment and a bad economy. I backed it up by a statement by U.N. demographer Joseph Charnie that the statement is in my first round sources (http://ir.stthomas.edu... page 18). This man does population statics and the cause and effect.

2. 98% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor. The hotter the temperature more water vapor is formed causing the Earth to get hotter. That is the main reason for Global Warming when the temperatures rise the water vapor increases. Co2 has a double affect it bounces radiation away from the Earth, but also keeps some of it. But water vapor is what makes it hotter like humidity in an area even if the temperature isn't very high if the humidity is the area feels hot.

3. The United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Even though a lot of it is not obtainable yet it will be when we improve our technology. The United States has already made strides in improving green energy. While the United States is not ready to go completely off of fossil fuels it still has over 100 years of oil from Saudi Arabia and even more years from our own resources. These resources can be sold around the world helping in a global fashion.

4. I have a source that shows that the world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people. That means even by 250 when the population is supposed to be 9 billion we could feed the world.

5. While Homosexuals can't have children there are still straight people. In the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. That still leaves 99% of household able and are having children. Even though the birth rate has gone down the amount hasn't. With more people able to have children thanks to sperm donators even when a person is unable to have children naturally thanks to medical advancements they can have children.

Homosexuals don't change anything. My opponent shows all of the supposed dangers of an overpopulated world, but doesn't show how much homosexuals would change the number. Because it won't people will still have children and the population will increase whether people are homosexual or not.

sources
http://ir.stthomas.edu...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.gallup.com...
http://blogs.reuters.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.geocraft.com...
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Sh*t, nobody voted. Ah well, it was a good debate anyway.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
So more people are born than die, even if the birthrate has slowed down: population growth is still happening at a staggering rate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You are right, I messed up twice there. I meant:

On average, 360,000 people are born each day with only 150,000 that die each day[1]
Posted by AlbinoBunny 3 years ago
AlbinoBunny
Then how many are born?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Also, read my introduction to the round directly after that round:

"Also, I clicked 'submit' by accident and posted my last round without double-checking for errors. I meant to say '360,000 people die each day', not '360 people die each day' for instance."
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
@AlbinoBunny

Why don't you try reading 5 posts down from your post ;)
Posted by AlbinoBunny 3 years ago
AlbinoBunny
"360 people are born each day with only 150,000 that die each day"

Hmmm...
Posted by YvonneV 3 years ago
YvonneV
Homosexuals play no role in overpopulation.... for the previous 2000 years it has been religion slaughtering them as they found them.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Thanks for the debate, I thought it was fun!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Lol, I would have accepted knowing you would have said that!"

We can debate the topic after I am done here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.