The Instigator
holdontothedeck
Pro (for)
Tied
1 Points
The Contender
Ryuumarq
Con (against)
Tied
1 Points

Is genocide acceptable today based on the issue of overpopulation (and terrible human beings)

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 72978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

holdontothedeck

Pro

When answering this question think about the fact that ever since humans stepped foot on to this planet, over 300 animals have gone extinct, we have caused major cases of pollution, and we have been extremely successful at mistreating our own species (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc).
Also, with 7 billion people on this planet we could kill 70 million and it would not harm us.
70 million is 1% of 7 billion after all.
Ryuumarq

Con

Regarding over 300 animals have gone extinct can you give me some sources regarding that? And do you ever heard of "survival of the fittest"? While it is true pollution, discrimination is cause by certain human, that does not mean that all human cause that. Lets say that A murder B, A did not put on trial but instead C (relative of A). So you saying it is fine to execute C just because C is relative of A? You see, we cannot just point a finger to overall of human population just because certain people do wrong. Instead we should punish those who do it instead. Regarding overpopulation, we have another alternative right? Im pretty sure we have the technologies to make colony on moon or Mars, or even Dyson sphere if we put all of our effort to that.
Debate Round No. 1
holdontothedeck

Pro

holdontothedeck forfeited this round.
Ryuumarq

Con

Since pro forfeited this round (and been inactive for over 3 days) I'll be fair and just let the arguments ends there and let the voters vote to whom they judge whose statement deserve their vote. If pro somehow manage to argue on round 3, I'll do my best to refute pro argument.
Debate Round No. 2
holdontothedeck

Pro

holdontothedeck forfeited this round.
Ryuumarq

Con

My conclusion is that genocide is not acceptable. There are always another way to deal with overpopulation (and terrible human beings). Besides, you dont want to kill your grandma while she is drinking her evening tea right?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by harry5101 2 years ago
harry5101
Genocide? Acceptable? So you really think killing humans is acceptable? This debate makes me sick.
Posted by NNEye 2 years ago
NNEye
Overpopulation is not an issue. Greed is the issue.
Posted by pixelmagic 2 years ago
pixelmagic
I agree. You should be the first to go.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
holdontothedeckRyuumarqTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither opponent provided any evidence to back up their points. Pro then forfeited subsequent rounds and declined to refute Con. Pro's argument is also faulty, as he / she does not seem to know the definition of genocide.