The Instigator
Harbalalism
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points

People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,420 times Debate No: 9230
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (12)

 

Harbalalism

Pro

The human population of are planet is too high and unsustainable. I believe that for the sake of humanity we must take action. We need to use the government to help drastically reduce this high population. Once a person reaches the age where they are no longer productive to society which is normally when they retire age 55. They should be leave society in a peaceful non painful productive cooperative method. They will leave knowing that they are helping society and putting there duties to society over there self interest.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting such an interesting topic of debate.

My opponent argues that people 55 and older should be 'put to sleep' in other words humanely killed. He states the following reasons.

"The human population of our planet is too high and unsustainable."

As the population of the planet is actually increasing and shows every sign of continuing to increase over the long term I believe it is clear that the world population is not ‘too high' and is certainly not 'unsustainable'.
https://www.cia.gov...
Thus my opponents proposal is negated.

Furthermore as we can see from the above link, only 7.6% of the worlds population is over 65. I do not have figures for the percentage of people aged over 55. But even if I am generous to my opponent and double the percentage for the over 65's then we are still looking at culling approximately a mere 15% of the population.

In the long term the world's population will continue to grow despite the culling of the over 55s. All this measure will do is create a temporary drop in population. The birth rate will still continue to outstrip the natural death rate thus the population will continue to increase thus the measure is unnecessary thus my opponents proposal is negated.

My opponent also argues that,
"a person reaches the age where they are no longer productive to society which is normally when they retire age 55"

I believe this statement contains several errors.

Firstly it is possible to be productive to society outside of conventional employment. In modern society many young parents are both still in full time employment and must either pay out for expensive and potentially incompetent child minders, or rely on their parents.

Secondly the age of retirement in my country (United Kingdom) is 65, and it is not mandatory. Indeed Buster Martin did not retire until aged 97, and later returned to work out of boredom. He was still employed and productive at the age of 100.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

And is still working now at the age of 102
http://en.wikipedia.org...

(Though there is some discrepancy regarding this, he may only be 95 but that still proves my point).

Cher, at the age of 63 is still working, singing live, working on a new album and preparing for a musical.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II at the age of 83 continues to hold at least 21 jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Stephen Hawking is still working at the age of 67, though he does plan to retire soon this is likely due to his non-age related medical condition. Were he to be put to sleep at the age of 55 science would have lost 12 years of his genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sir Alan Sugar at the age of 62 continues to be a highly successful businessman and was recently appointed as an adviser to the UK government.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

These are just a few examples of people who have continued to be productive past their 55th birthday. Thus my opponents proposal is negated.

I would also like to attack the fact that my opponent assumes that a persons value, or right to life should be based on their productivity. If he argues that these retired 55 year olds are a drain on an already over populated planet then logically he should call for the deaths of those deemed medically unfit to work, or those who refuse or are unable to find employment and the early retired?

I believe that I have successfully argued that not only is my opponents proposal to reduce the worlds population totally unnecessary, his stated method will be wholly ineffectual. Thus the motion is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Harbalalism

Pro

Thanks for joining the debate but my opponent is ignorant of the fact that we do not have enough resources to sustain a population over 6 billion people, never the less half a billion. We are destroying the environment 200 species are dying each day. We can not support this society will fall. The society is more important than one futile non laboring non productive petty citizen. Now I must ask the viewers do you believe that society should be sacrificed for the individual. The golden temple of are civilization which was built by all of humanity. Should we so ignorantly sacrifice that for the future of the structure of society and civilization. Now we could use the power and violence of the state and make a government program called universal reduction of human population in society where we could promote friendly ideas like "The Voluntary Human Extinction Act" http://www.vhemt.org.... Now we could do this but I don't want to pay taxes for it and also since the state is not voluntary we must over throw the state (coercive monopoly) and replace more efficient private company's which could reduce the population. Also people over 55 make up 42% of the elderly population. If something is voluntary it should be enforced with consent of the society but not a petty individual.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his reply,

You stated,
"my opponent is ignorant of the fact that we do not have enough resources to sustain a population over 6 billion people, never the less half a billion."

I think instead of the term ‘ignorant' a more diplomatic and appropriate response may have been along the lines of "my opponent seems unaware", or "my opponent fails to take into account".

That aside I would like to ask him upon what this contention is based? I have already posted links that show that not only is the world's population over 6 billion (it is fact closer to 7 than 6), it is also growing. As we are in fact supporting over six billion people, and supporting more people every single day, in which way can it be argued that we do not have enough resources to support six billion, nor as my opponent adds ‘even half a billion‘.

In the latter case the world's population has been half a billion and higher for the past 400 years and yet we still enjoy a surplus of resources.

Is my opponent seriously arguing that we have been unable to support our population for over 400 years?

My opponent also states that,
"We are destroying the environment 200 species are dying each day"

My opponent has failed to provide evidence for this claim, in any case I feel it is actually irrelevant to the debate unless my opponent can demonstrate that this is linked directly to the size of the global population and that this is actually a problem. Maybe he would like to name a single species that has died during this week and explain how this has impacted mine and his quality of life.

"The society is more important than one futile non labouring non productive petty citizen."

I could equally claim that society should serve the individual, in any case my opponent has ignored the extensive evidence of people remaining productive beyond their 55th birthday. Furthermore my opponent is not actually calling for the cull of non-productive citizens. He is calling for the cull of all citizens over the age of 55 on the basis of the false assumption that they are non-productive.

My opponent states that,
"Now we could use the power and violence of the state and make a government program called universal reduction of human population in society where we could promote friendly ideas like "The Voluntary Human Extinction Act" http://www.vhemt.org....... "

However this spoof site is humorously arguing for the extinction of the human race by refusing to breed. It is not arguing for solving supposed problems of ‘overpopulation' by culling the elderly. By supplying this link my opponent is now arguing against his original premise!

In summary, the burden of proof is upon my opponent to show that the world's population is ‘too high' and is ‘unsustainable'. He must also show that culling those over the age of 55 would significantly reduce the world's population and would maintain it at sustainable levels (which he claims would be below half a million).

Conversely I have shown that the world's population is neither too high, nor unsustainable. The cull would fail to reduce the world's population to the levels my opponent deems acceptable, and as birth rates would continue to outstrip the death rate the world's population would continue to grow. Until my opponent makes his case and offers a rebuttal to my points the case for PRO is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Harbalalism

Pro

Out of the insanity and the birth of tragedy I most destroy this monster of an opponent who blindly and ignorantly assumes that there are less humans then supposed to be. When you look at the world see all of nature which has been destroyed ever since the Industrial Revolution, you see the forest which have been deforested and ecosystems and habitats devastated by the Kapitalists who claim nature is mans property. Property is coercive because when someone owns something which I don't have thats theft and violence of the greatest type. When people own property they exploit people who don't have the property. Look at the Amazon.com, how the Kapitalists cut down the forests, deserts spreading throughout the world and killing species of animals. I conclude that my opponent is dualist.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

With the utmost of respect I feel that my opponent has again valid to substantiate his case or address my counterpoints. Hopefully this will be rectified in rounds 4 and 5.

"Out of the insanity and the birth of tragedy I most destroy this monster of an opponent who blindly and ignorantly assumes that there are less humans then supposed to be."

I do not consider myself monstrous, blind nor ignorant and I do not consider this appropriate language in a debate.
I have not stated that "there are less humans then supposed to be", I have merely point out the facts concerning the population. These facts have been ignored.

"When you look at the world see all of nature which has been destroyed ever since the Industrial Revolution, you see the forest which have been deforested and ecosystems and habitats devastated by the Kapitalists who claim nature is mans property."

The argument is not has man destroyed nature, or has man changed nature.
The argument is, is the world over populated and is the method suggested by my opponent a viable one for solving this problem. The facts clearly show that the world is not over-populated, and that this stated method would not in any case solve any over population.

I would like to point however that I live in the country that started the industrial revolution, in a particularly densely populated county, I can see trees from my house. About ten minutes away (walking) is a wooded national park, about twenty minutes in another direction is a forest. I regularly see field mice, rabbits foxes and badgers.

I do not deny that man has greatly impacted nature, but it is still there, and food production is at an all time high. I regard that nature is man's property, it would be nice if we took greater care, but it will still be there when the population hits 7 billion, or indeed 17 billion.

"Property is coercive because when someone owns something which I don't have thats theft and violence of the greatest type. "

This comment appears to make no sense in the context of the debate, and I would ask my opponent to clarify it.

"I conclude that my opponent is dualist."

You should debate the subject of the debate not the perceived nature of the debater, for all you know I am playing devils advocate. In any case I fail to understand the accusation.

I would caution my opponent that the burden of proof is upon them, to win the debate they must show that the worlds population is too high, unsustainable, and that the culling of the over 55's would be an effective solution.
Debate Round No. 3
Harbalalism

Pro

Silence SLAVE!!! I Am your GoD YOu worship ME ONLy ME!!!YOu peasent i DEFY U!!!! MY REASON and Logic are supurb and unquestioned I am your athority. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Have you no sense of who to worship I think NOT I defy logic reason thinking debating. Do no question my athority.NOw silence slave and listen to my every comand (Remember peasents get whiped on tuesdays and saturdays) You will call me emporer Joe !!!
Silence do not question what I say or what i do.Now I I will do such things which I yet know not, but they shall be the terror of the world. You are slave I am GOD do I make that clear? DO I dont what! slave you are less than a worthless ant to be crushed by my mighty power!
Parasites are classified based on their interactions with their hosts and on their life cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
NOW SLAVE I will tell you a short story called ratzels and Gretzels:

One day RAtzels and Gretzels vhere walking through them tropical jungles to hunt polar bears eating zebras in the parking lot.They Found a house made out of dollar bills. "Hmm it looks tasty says ratzels and gretzels" The evil Kapitalistick entrepreneur said " comes in little hampsters um i mean childs rats" So RAtzles and gretzles walk into the industrial factory and are eaten by the banking dogs. The walls we filled with walls with mold knifes hit the workers in the faces or something well um ya so like well maybe!! um what was them saying what the oh ya.So Ratzles and gretzles dead courpes roll down the hill into the money pot.But ratzles wakes up and throws the ring into the boiling pot and sauron ( i mean the entrepeneur) so ya they go home to their slave comunes XDXDXDXD
THE END
MOral of them storys: DONT HAVE CHILDREN THEY STUPID LIKE RATZLES AND GRETZLES

we can end the humans populoatiuon through breeding
Now here are my links to my evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent upon whom falls the burden of proof, has failed to make his case, failed to address a single counterargument, and now clearly no longer takes the debate seriously.

I am dissapointed that he has refused to participate in this this debate.

I restate my previous points.
Debate Round No. 4
Harbalalism

Pro

China has devastated there environment and the land is turning to desert my sick minded opponent would let society die so that he can justify his CON position. He does not understand the affects of over-population on the environment. All his claims where lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
We must save the earth rather then to let the environmentalists ravage against the Earth for there cult of personality of global industrialization and dominance! They are the will to power even the teeth they bite with they stole everything they have stolen! ....
.....
.....
..
.

I thank my opponent for finally realizing that this debate was supposed to be nonsense and no one would advocate such a cruel and awful position. This debate was my first debate so I just wanted to screw off and test peoples reactions, to see how people would respond and I am amazed that there are actually very good debaters on this site who take this seriously, who are much better than I. I am sorry if I had annoyed and left the people watching this debate into a state of mental insanity.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

To summarise the debate,

Pro, upon whom rests the burden of proof made the following arguments (which I have paraphrased).
1: The human population of the planet is too high/unsustainable.
2: Those aged over 55 are no longer productive.
3: Killing the 'surplus' over 55 years olds would solve the world's alleged 'overpopulation'.

I will summarise my objections to each point.
1: Stating that the population is too high is a purely subjective statement with no value, too high for what? It is also clear that the population is clearly being sustained, as the global population is continuing to rise. This counterargument was never addressed. As a result it was conceded. As there is no overpopulation crisis there is no need to cull any section of society therefore the Pro position is completely negated.

2: I presented clear examples of those aged over 55 who continued to lead highly productive lives, the most persuasive of these would be Stephen Hawking, an eminent scientist at the age of 67. This evidence was not even acknowledged by my opponent. As a result it was conceded. As we can see that the some over 55's are productive, there is no rational reason to kill off all over 55's. My opponents argument is negated.

3: I suggested to my opponent that we assume the over 55's comprised approximately 15% of the worlds population. This speculation was not challenged by my opponent. My opponent stated that "we do not have enough resources to sustain a population over 6 billion people, never the less half a billion". I pointed out that,
a) reducing the worlds population by 15% would not reduce it to what my opponent would consider sustainable.
(6 billion, reduced by 15% leaves you with a population of over 5 billion).
b) this measure having no effect on the birth rate would not in the long term reduce or maintain the population at the levels desired by my opponent.
These points were not acknowledged, therefore they were conceded.

We can therefore conclude that the world is not overpopulated, that the over 55's do not comprise a non-productive demographic, that culling them would not solve the non-existent over population crisis.

My opponent has consistently failed, indeed refused to defend his position, or address any counterarguments. Indeed he has argued against his own position by declaring that there should be a cessation of breeding to solve the problems of 'overpopulation' (or indeed to solve the problems of having a population what so ever). Finally he has admitted he was simply here to 'screw off'.

Naturally I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
Maybe people under the age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction. They are the ones reproducing like jackrabbits...
Posted by Julius_Caesar 5 years ago
Julius_Caesar
harbalalism, i cant wait till your 55 and they kill you. Thats a brilliant idea, shorten the lifespan of the human race nearly in half. I hope you die soon, we dont need ppl this stupid
Posted by SirAntonyP 5 years ago
SirAntonyP
Government policies of working people to death by raising the retirement age, war and keeping poor countries poor are the population control already in action.
Posted by Lifeisgood 5 years ago
Lifeisgood
Grammar+Arg+Conduct=Con.

Sources=Pro.
"Silence SLAVE!!! I Am your GoD YOu worship ME ONLy ME!!!YOu peasent i DEFY U!!!! MY REASON and Logic are supurb and unquestioned I am your athority. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Unrefutable.
Posted by theCall 5 years ago
theCall
Furthermore, 55 is not an age of ending reproduce, male can reproduce even when they're 90, remember that.
Posted by theCall 5 years ago
theCall
Harbalalism, human are not animals, human are not on the world just because to reproduce, hunting and live like animals, scientifically saying that we're more superior than animals, by doing that, you obviously taking the hand of nature out and play God with human's lives, which had been done by Hitler, killing disabilities because he thought they were useless eater.

Einstein, Newton, and lots of workers, scientists had worked passed their 55, wihout them we won't be able to know more like this.

Through your debate, Harbalalism, I believe you're not different from a Nazi, if don't want to say you ARE a Nazi.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
I did wonder where those two points came from, you are of course correct, maybe I did not fully address the issue of pizza!
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
I was going to dump all my votes onto con for his superior arguments (and everything else) but the pizza citation in round 4 by pro was just too well played. Well done, pro. You have a bright future on DDO.
Posted by comoncents 5 years ago
comoncents
the person starting this was trying to be funny right...

i mean.. i am laughing... but it was meant as a joke first... right
Posted by Mike_BSU 5 years ago
Mike_BSU
Due to the fact that Herbalism basically admitted that he had no intention of winning this debate, I'd have to strongly urge the Con vote. It makes me sick that anyone would take this site so lightly.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 12 records.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
HarbalalismCerebral_NarcissistTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by comoncents 5 years ago
comoncents
HarbalalismCerebral_NarcissistTied
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