The Instigator
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
astrobry
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Overpopulation: The Truth In Numbers.

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 3 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,242 times Debate No: 36465
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

donald.keller

Con

Resolution: The human population has begun Overpopulation.

Keypoints of this Debate:
Deforestation.
Food Supply.
Global Warming.

Definition:
over"pop"u"la"tion noun
:The condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash(1)
:Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.(2)
:To fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities:(3)

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3) http://dictionary.reference.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will take Con, on the basis that I do not feel we have Overpopulated the Earth.

Pro has BOP and must prove humans have begun Overpopulation.

Rules:
-Fallacies will be called out immediately.
-All claims must be sourced.
-All sources and Images are taken at face-value until proven inaccurate.

Round 1 - Introduction.
Round 2 - Debate
Round 3 - Debate
Round 4 - Conclusion.

-Fair luck, and Plan well.
astrobry

Pro

In 2011, our population reached a record 7 billion (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). This estimate shows that our population is higher now than ever before.
However, this does not make it unsustainable. In fact, our agricultural systems produce, "17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago."(http://www.worldhunger.org...) Yet, people remain malnourished and underfed. (http://www.worldhunger.org...) This brings to question whether or not our population is sustainable in a way that will allow us to maintain our current population, while also maintaining our environments and standards of living.
There are several points I would like to bring up beyond deforestation, climate change, and food supply. These include but are not limited to the drinkable water supply, land, fossil fuels, renewable energy, impacts on global environments, cities, and population statistics. With 9 billion people projected in 2040 ( http://www.census.gov...) and an increasingly uncertain world, it can be posited that we are reaching a point of overpopulation due to numerous factors.
Debate Round No. 1
donald.keller

Con

The Introduction is over. Argument starts now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Deforestation.

Deforestation verb
: To cut down and clear away the trees or forests from.

1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

What defines a problem is that it can't, or isn't, being solved. Is Deforestation really a problem? Well no. Deforestation would be a problem if it weren't being solved, but it is.

The world deforests what amounts to 4.5 billion trees a year (I averaged between 3-6 billion.)(2) According to NASA, there are 400 billion trees in the world.(3) This means that the forest population could last around 88.8 years. That doesn't sound very long, does it?

2) http://understory.ran.org...
3) http://www.npr.org...

Think again. Actual deforestation estimates don't include the number of trees replanted. The US alone plants 1.5 billion trees a year from nurseries alone.(4) This alone increases the forest lifespan to 133.3 years. If the rest of the world planted 1/20th that amount per person, we'd be replanting enough trees to make the forest last 326.5 years. That's a little better.

4) http://forestry.about.com...

How many trees does the world grow, though? Well it's hard to tell. With Europe and (yes, shockingly) China, the number is far from small. This number also does not include the trees regrown in corporate Replacement programs, or volunteer programs. According to the UNEP Billion Trees Program, all the trees grown under the UN program equaled 2 billion in 18 months after launch.(5) If it kept up like that, we would see the program produce 1.33 billion trees a year. Has it kept up with that number? No. It's increased. The UN now plants 1.7 billion trees a year (12 billion total.)(6)

5) http://www.grida.no...
6) http://www.un.org...

Between the UNEP program, and the US Nurseries, we replant 3.2 billion trees. Total number of plants planted would include this amount + all the other Replacement programs. Most companies that deforest have a Replacement Program, obviously they aim to keep their product growing. It also does not account for the trees that grow naturally on their own.

How many trees do we think are grown each year, compared to the number of trees lost? Ask the US, whose forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago (when industry and war led the nation.)(7) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting.

7) http://www.mnn.com...

Food Supply.

If everyone ate around average (2lb a day) than it would take 2,584,400,000 tons to feed them.

That's good, because the world produces up to 4,000,000,000 tons of food.(8)

8) http://www.theguardian.com...

We could feed 11,000,000,000 people. The UN doesn't think we're reach that many by the end of TWO century from now (start of 2300). (9) This is good because you can feed that many people with just the land we are using for farms. Another good thing is that most city and town expansions do not intrude on the farm land we use. Most farmers in the world aren't using up-to-date technology either.

9) http://www.un.org.... 27

The UN's High Estimate is merely an extreme assumption. They stick with the Medium Assumption.

It's important to remember that as population grows, so does farming technology and the number of farmers.

ANOTHER factor... Arable Land.
They believe 10.43% of all land is Arable.(10) Of all that land, they estimate only 37.5% of all Arable land is being used.(11) This means we could increase our population to 266.6% before needing a new way of farming (or better Technology, you have to remember that as time goes by, and number of people one acre can feed increases.) This is assuming we still throw away half our food. If we stopped throwing away so much food, we could increase our population to 514%. Of course some of that land is likely being used... But how much?

10) https://www.cia.gov...
11) http://data.worldbank.org...

No more than 30%. You see, Urbanized areas (Cities, Towns, Villages) take up 3% of Earth's land...(12,13) If all of the Urban Areas was, by some odd chance, on Arable land, it would cover 28.76% of all Arable Land. Leaving 33.74% left open. This means you could still almost double the population (assuming technology doesn't increase and Urbanization growth doesn't take up more Arable land.) Of course it's highly unlikely urban areas take up that much Arable Land. In fact, the 10.43% of the land that's Arable might exclude urban land, but I'm not sure.

12) http://www.livescience.com...
13) http://www.earth.columbia.edu...

To put this into realization for you... Off of open Arable Land, we could hold a population from... (I'm posting the year the UN's High Estimate believe we will reach this number.)

2175 = 18,888,660,000 (if we wasted half of our food still.)
2300 = 36,538,000,000 (if we used all our food by then)

Again, the dates are based on UN High Estimate, and the population is assuming we are using the same technology. It also assumes the same portion of Farmers are using up-to-date technology. Under the UN's actual estimate, we won't reach that number until LONG after 2300, if ever.

Could human's all eat like American's and us still sustain life on Earth? Yes. It'd take us not throwing away half our food, and increasing farming to 140%. Does that seem like a lot? To an extant... But that increase would leave Earth with 47.5% of it's Arable land left. We could still double our population.(14)

Current Food Production = Around 5 bn tons.
Production need to eat like Americans = 7 bn tons.

14) http://www.npr.org...

Of course, not everyone eats like an American, and America's eating problem is fixable. Only when you can't fix the problems, have Human begun to overpopulate.

Global Warming.

Is Global Warming real? Of course! Is it a problem? Not likely. Is it man-made? No.

Temperatures have risen 1.33*F since the start of the 1900's.(15) Many people blame humans because... Well, who else could be causing Global Warming? Nature.

Nature has been, in fact, for over 100's of millions of years (according to science.) In fact, in the past 1 million years, it's been very systematic.(16)

15) https://www2.ucar.edu...;
16) http://www.grida.no...





As you can see, every 100,000 years, extreme heating pulls the world out of an Ice Age. Sometimes it takes only a decade. We already know that the prior Ice Age ended only 11,000 years age. As the chart shows, we are currently in the middle of the Global Warming cycle, in fact, our's appear to have been stopped short, being the coolest of the Warming Cycles. Only recently has it continued spiking up.

Of course, this spike has a reason. CO2 emissions have increased 33% over the last century, and humans are to blame for... 3.6%.(17)

17) http://www.geocraft.com...

Human's responsible for 3.6% of all CO2 emissions. To do the math for you, human's are responsible for 29 gigatons, compared to land emissions of 439, and sea emissions of 338. Well while human's increased CO2 emissions by 3.6%, total emissions have increased 33%, leaving 29.4% of the increase natural.

Of course, with a GWP (Global Warming Potential) multipler of 1, once Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Miscellaneous gases are added in, Carbon Dioxide ends up making up 72.369% of the Greenhouse Effect... If you leave out Water Vapor.

Does Water Vapor really effect Global Warming? Well logically it shouldn't. It only has a GWP of 0.25, but there is so much Water Vapor in the air, that at any given time it makes up 95% of the Greenhouse effect. After adding this gas in, with it's tiny GWP, it has a maasive effect on human's total effect on the Greenhouse Effect.

How much? Human's are responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor (including boiling water, combustion, and nuclear power plants.) After adding this into the total, we get...

GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT
Water Vapor ----- 95.000% --- 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%
Methane ---------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%
Nitrous oxide ----- 0.950% ---- 0.047%
Misc --------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%
Total -------------- 100% ------ 0.278%

A total of 0.28% of the total Greenhouse Effect, with GWP of each gas added in.

So while Global Warming is real, it's very natural and very systematic. We are in the Global Warming period of the cycle. With only 0.28% of the total Greenhouse effect, human's are responsible for raising temperatures 0.003*F over the past century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this, I conclude that Human's have not overpopulated the Earth. We are fixing any Deforestation we cause year after year, and has been for awhile. We have plenty of food, and are only responsible for 0.28% of all Global Warming.

I pass it on to Pro.
astrobry

Pro

I will first address the issue of deforestation. My opponent states that we are taking out approximately 4.5 billion trees a year but at the same time replanting many of the trees we cut down. This does not account for the reported contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. According to (3), "it is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year." In this same article, they also state that 30 million acres (121,406 square kilometers, 46,875 square miles) of forest are lost per year to deforestation. That would mean that not all of the forests we slash down are being replaced.
The act of deforestation accounts for up to a third of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide discharge according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) (1). Another source that sites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is (4). It states that approximately 1/4 of world greenhouse gas emissions come from tropical deforestation.
This problem is worldwide. The effects of deforestation are due to not the replanting of the trees, but the removal of them, and in fact they do not contribute a large amount of oxygen to the atmosphere (2). The majority of O2 reserves produced by forests are used up by the creatures that inhabit them (2).
I concede that due to the efforts we put towards reforestation, we help to mitigate the problems we are creating due to deforestation. These efforts only help in that they remove carbon from the atmosphere and mitigate the effects of the deforestation we are already committing. This does not stop us from committing the act of deforestation and it is still a problem that contributes to the effects of climate change (5).
Global warming is the result of a rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century (6). The causes for global warming vary. My opponent states that global warming is a result of nature's contribution to Carbon Emissions and man has made insignificant contributions to the greenhouse effect. However, as (7) states, "the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores." Even though we have taken measure to prevent the increase of greenhouse gases already present within the atmosphere, our contribution cannot be neglected. In (8) the graph shows the pre-1750 topospheric concentration of several gas compounds. It shows that in pre-industrial times many of the chemicals now in our atmosphere are due to man, not nature. These chemicals include many which were not around previous to the pre-1750s.
In (9) a graph of the Glacial-Interglacial Ice Core Data is shown for the past 600,000 years. It shows that within the past 255 years the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 379 ppm. While over the previous 8,000 years and before Industrialization in the 1750s, CO2 had only increased by 20 ppm. This can be shown in (9)(12) as well as the IPCCs fourth report. This almost certainly shows that man has had a significant impact on the increase of Carbon Dioxide emissions as well as other greenhouse gases(8)(10)(11, table 2.1).
Now, my opponent has stated that the effects of mankind on the climate are negligible. The data above shows that this is not the case, and that Industrialization of nations is a direct cause to anthropocentric global warming.
These are just the reasons for why man is one of the causes of global warming. There are also drastic consequences to the planet becoming warmer. These include various changes in weather such as an increasing amount of, "irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the "dust bowl" era and inexorable sea level rise." (13). This is just one of the results of abrupt climate change, as there are others.
One of the problems that we face is pollution, which global warming contributes to (14). Pollution can be defined in this instance as the act of contaminating an environment with harmful or poisonous substances(15)(16)(17). There are many kinds of pollution and some of them are as follows: Air pollution, light pollution, soil contamination, and water pollution.
The health effects of air pollution are egregious. Due to the insidious nature of many of the gases we release into the air through fuel consumption, industrial production, non-industrial sources, and transportation (18), we breath these in and they can have lasting health deficits for the living organisms of our planet. The top method in which particles are released into the air is through combustion. What is released in the air after this is not only water and carbon dioxide, but a host of other small particles and gases, include carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide (18)(19). These when breathed in have a wide range of negative health effects on human beings. The effect of particular matter including, " (1) inhibiting and inactivating mucociliary streaming (2) killing or neutralizing alveolar macrophages (3) constricting airways (4) causing vasodilation and excess mucous secretion (5) causing changes in alveolar cell wall structure through abscesses and thickening which causes scar formation (6) traveling to other parts of the body, e.g., blood and heart." (18). The dangers of Carbon Monoxide include poisoning and problems with the cardiovascular system (chronically). It is a result of emissions from fossil fuels and the burning of biomass. The impact of pollution on death is very serious, and strong correlations have been established between air pollution and death. In the Guardian, Professor George Knox wrote, "Correlations with pneumonia deaths were exceptional. High mortality rates were observed in areas with elevated ambient pollution levels. The strongest side effect was an increase in pneumonia deaths." (20). This is just an example of the many problems that can be associated with air pollution.
Light pollution is another form of pollution that is a result of human activity. There are actual documented effects from that of increased lighting concerning its negative effects on animals, including humans. First and foremost, it is a use of energy to keep lights on at night. This is not only a waste of energy, but a misuse of it. When the energy consumption for lighting in the US is about 461 billion kWh in 2011 (21), it is no wonder you can see the lights very easily from the ISS(International Space Station) at night. To mention only the amount of energy we give to lighting would not do this topic justice, as there are adverse effects to lighting up the night sky. Not only does it prevent Astronomers from looking up and seeing the Milky Way, it also can have adverse effects on human and animal health and psychology (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). There is evidence as late as December 2010 for light pollution increasing air pollution. Nitrate radical, which is destroyed by sunlight, is one of the chemicals in our atmosphere that breaks down smog and ozone. Due to the light energy emitted by Los Angeles, there are indications that there is a reduction in the amount of nitrate radical in the sky (28). Light pollution can also affect birds, sea turtles, and even salamanders (29). Light pollution is no joke and it is affecting our world.
Soil contamination is when hazardous substances mix with the naturally occurring soil. It results when these hazardous materials are spilled or directly buried into the soil or move to the soil from a spill. Contaminants in the soil can hurt living organisms by coming into direct contact with the soil. For humans and animals they can also be exposed when they consume plants which have absorbed contaminants from their root (30). An index of all the various contaminants that can inhabit our soil is provided in (31). Many countries have their own criteria for soil contamination and often give values of the contaminants that are acceptable or that require immediate cleanup. For example, in China, soil contamination is a growing concern, and is only recently being addressed (32).
Water Pollution is the result of natural bodies of water being contaminated by chemical, physical, radioactive or pathogenic microbial substances (33). Chemical water pollutants are atoms or molecules that have been distributed into naturally occurring bodies of water. Physical water pollutants are larger particles or physical factors such as temperature change, which can cause a variety of harmful effects (33). Common pathogens in natural water bodies are from untreated sewage and surface runoff from intensive livestock grazing (33).
The problem with our food supply is not that of quantity, but of distribution. We have enough food to feed the world, yet they go unfed. This is a problem with the economic and political systems in place. This is a question of whether or not we can change our habits to fit the needs of the people worldwide. It is estimated that nearly 870 million people, or approximately 1/8 people, are chronically undernourished (34). Due to unequal income distribution and lack of resources, hunger prevails around the world. The World Bank estimated that 1.345 billion people live on $1.25 a day or less (34).
In order to produce food, we need sound agricultural practices. These have gone out the window with modernization. There is a growing concern about the sustainability of the modern food production system 35). "Evidence has accumulated showing that whereas the present capital- and technology-intensive farming systems have been extremely productive and competitive, they also bring a variety of economic, environmental, and social problems." (35). I have more but there is a character limit I will comment with rest. =)
Debate Round No. 2
donald.keller

Con

Pro. The Rounds held a 10k limit. This is the highest I could set it, but is the limit none-the-less. It's poor conduct to post well beyond the limit, and into the Comment Section. I will reply to as much as the 10k Limit allows for.

----------------------------------

This does not account for the reported contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. According to (3), "it is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year."

1.5 billion tons of CO2 is only a number, not a statistic. By this, I mean it's meaningless. It equals only 1.5 gigatonnes.

This makes up around 0.178% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere. This number is easily made up for by the current system, where (like in the US) Forests are getting larger, and are growing 42% larger than Harvest.(1)


As we can see in the above image, while cutting down 2 trees make a one time deposit of 1,200 lb of CO2, the 3 tree replacing them will consume at least 12,600+ lbs in their lifespan.(2)

1) http://tinyurl.com...
2) http://tinyurl.com...

Your messurements on the number of forests lost only account for Deforestation, and doesn't take into account forest growth. It's simply a cherry picking.

This can be seen in the US, where '215,200 hectacres are lost each year.'(3) The number's listed never account for regrowth, as again the US's forests are larger today than 100 years ago(2).

3) http://tinyurl.com...

The act of deforestation accounts for up to a third of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide discharge according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)

Your sources is horribly wrong, as is your statistic.

Human's release 29 gigatons of CO2 in the air. Around 3% of total emissions. Deforestation would make up only 5% of total Human Emissions, and again, only 0.178% of all emissions.(4)

4) http://tinyurl.com...

The effects of deforestation are due to not the replanting of the trees, but the removal of them, and in fact they do not contribute a large amount of oxygen to the atmosphere

Oxygen has nothing to do with this...

With forests larger today than 100 years ago, your argument is unwarranted. There are 400 billion trees in the world today,(5) If the US deforests 1 billion trees, and grow 1.5 billion, than after 50 years, the forests will be 25 billion trees larger. While 50 billion trees were removed, 75 billion were regrown. It's in investment profit, and the US's larger forests are a testiment to it's success.

5) http://tinyurl.com...

This does not stop us from committing the act of deforestation.

In total, CO2 make's up a small portion of the Greenhouse Effect, with only a GWP multiplier of 1. Tree Deforestation's 1.5 gigatons of CO2 account for 0.0064%of the total Greenhouse Effect.(6)

6) http://tinyurl.com...

The act of Deforestation is not bad, nor a problem... It's only a problem if we aren't fixing it.


I concede that due to the efforts we put towards reforestation, we help to mitigate the problems we are creating due to deforestation.

case closed.

Global warming is the result of a rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century.

A total increase of 1.3*F.(7) With Human's making up around 0.28% of all the increased Greenhouse Effect, we are responsible for around 0.003*F. The difference in temperature from day to day across the year is larger.

7) http://tinyurl.com...

"the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.

That is irrelevant. Being the largest is as natural as being the smallest. We do in fact know that Nature can reach that high on it's own, therefore saying that it reaching that high makes it man-made is unwarranted. In the Mesozoic period, long before man, it reached 2000-4000 ppm.(8) 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. While this doesn't prove it's not man-made, it does make any claim that it's too big to be naturial unwarrented.

8) http://tinyurl.com...

These chemicals include many which were not around previous to the pre-1750s.

These man-made chemicals like CFCs make up around 0.072% of the total Greenhouse Effect. Equalling 0.00009*f increase.

a graph of the Glacial-Interglacial Ice Core Data is shown for the past 600,000 years. It shows that within the past 255 years the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 379 ppm.

You are bringing up simple numbers, but are not actually debating my argument with them. Increase and Descrease in ppm occurs all the time, naturally. Looking at the chart shown in R2, you will see how naturally the rate at which ppm increases and decreases changes on a regular basis. Just because it started changing 255 years ago does not mean it is man-made.

Now, my opponent has stated that the effects of mankind on the climate are negligible. The data above shows that this is not the case, and that Industrialization of nations is a direct cause to anthropocentric global warming.

The data above shows nothing more than how climate is changing, as it always has. The above data only makes assumptions about human involvement. No hard data specifically links human's to it.

The data only says that climate is changing and human's exist, a case of Post Hoc. Throughout Human's existance, temperature and CO2 have risen and fallen, as is seen in the Roman Warming and Mineon Warming and the Little Ice Age. While they were not as large of an increase as the current, we have been through 3-4 warming periods, one is going to be larger than the others.

These are just the reasons for why man is one of the causes of global warming.

Are only reason's you think... Claiming an assumption to be fact is terrible debating.

One of the problems that we face is pollution, which global warming contributes to.

I will now show you the hard data...


The first chart shows the percent of the Greenhouse Gas (with GWP multiplier added in, and baselines measured) while that second chart shows the percent of each that human's cause.

GWP Multipliers are as follow...

Water Vapor = 0.25
CO2 = 1
Methane = 21
N2O = 310
Misc = Depends.

9) http://tinyurl.com...

The health effects of air pollution are egregious.

People's health today is of far higher quality than any prior year. Despite Obesity, the overall Health of the world is growing year by year. In fact, obesity rates amoung children are dropping(10). Health is not a problem.

10) http://tinyurl.com...

Soil contamination is when hazardous substances mix with the naturally occurring soil.

Both Government and Large Companies use tactics for fixing soil and keeping land usable. This isn't an issue.

and is only recently being addressed

Therefore it's not a problem. Overpopulation implies we have grown to the point where we can not fix our negative influence.

This also applies to Global Warming. If Global Warming is completely man-made, than it still doesn't prove we have begun Overpopulating because Global Warming is easily fixed.

This also Applies to Water Population.

The Pro must prove we have, without a doubt, begun Overpopulation and can no longer fix our negative influence. If we can fix our influence, than we haven't begun Overpopulating, we've just become wasteful.

The problem with our food supply is not that of quantity, but of distribution.

This does not imply Overpopulation. It implies we don't like sharing... If the World can no longer feed everyone, we have begun overpopulating it... It can still feed us... At most, it can feed over 36 billion people.

The Resolution is that we have begun Overpopulation, not that we've became a greedy culture.

It is estimated that nearly 870 million people, or approximately 1/8 people, are chronically undernourished

The Pro, like so many, through around numbers, but not data. Is 870 million bad? Yes, but the number isn't relevant, the percent is.

Since 1990, the population has increased by 1.8 billion, the number of hungry has decreased by 130 million.(11,12)

The percent of hungry has decreased greatly over time, a sign that we are becoming a better species, not that we are overpopulating.

11) http://tinyurl.com...
12) http://tinyurl.com...

The rest of the Pro's argument falls into the prior statements.

The World Bank estimated that 1.345 billion people live on $1.25 a day or less (34).

This is irrelevant to Overpopulation. The Pro is only bringing up typical social issues, not Overpopulation issues. The Mideval Times saw a tiny population around 200 million, and they had far worse unemployeement and pay. Same in the Roman Period.

Social Issue =/= Overpopulation.

=========================================================================

The average person eats 2 lbs of food a day.

It'll take half the food we are already producing to feed everyone adaquately. This is only a portion of what we can produce.

The Pro has spent over 10,000 characters listing off fixable problems, miusreprented numbers, and irrelevant issues. Unemployeement, Low pay, Underfed... These are social issues, and they have been decreasing for centuries. While population increases, quality of life (food, paycheck, etc...) increase, and social issues (hunger, unemployeement, poor wealth) have decreased over time.

With this, I conclude that not only have we not Overpopulating the world, but that we are growing as a civilization able to grow much, much bigger.

I pass it on to Pro.
astrobry

Pro

astrobry forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
astrobry

Pro

astrobry forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
That's what I said... I was called a baby for it <.<
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
and that is my opinion too..
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I wish when people did that, their accounts would automatically forfeit remaining debate rounds.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
lol
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Well, that answers your question (elsewhere) of what to do about this.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Soo... Astro has deleted his account.. :/
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
@Pro
Everything over the character limit has to be ignored. It didn't happen. You can't continue your post in the comments, and the attempt to get past the character limit is an attempt to cheat. It will cost you conduct points.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Was redirected from here:

http://www.debate.org...

1) Didn't know there was a 10k character limit now.

2) Yeah, everything in the comments section pertaining to arguments is simply invalid. If that means that PRO got chopped off mid-stream, so be it. Those character limits are there for a reason. Unless there was an agreement beforehand, he has to fit sources in there too.

3) I'd probably score conduct and sources to CON if I end up scoring and reading this...and given how that massive wall of text looks, S&G as well...given I even bother reading this.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
R2 of pro's argument looks massively copy/pasted. The key indicator I usually use to identify such, is when an argument points to citations that are not there.

This is not to say it is copy/pasted, this is feedback to improve future arguments.

I suspect pro is trying to make a point about over-population, through making things not fit in the limited space. However smart such is, it will not help when voting starts, as voters are required to only vote on the content of the argument rounds; outright dismissing all overflow.
Posted by astrobry 3 years ago
astrobry
I see no reason why it would be illegal. You have 2 days and 23 hours to respond to my argument which I had the same amount of time to build. Good luck! :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
donald.kellerastrobryTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff also means freezed fries...but yeah...presentation by con was better, Arguments went unopposed, resources were more and adequate on Con's side...
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
donald.kellerastrobryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF does not mean french fries; it means Freedom Fries! ALSO good effort from both parties; pro do not get discouraged, we all made early mistakes, and continue to make mistakes. Usually everyone forgets within a week.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
donald.kellerastrobryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF also means French Fries.