The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Population Checks should be implemented

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: 6/10/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 359 times Debate No: 76407
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Although many may think of the affirmative side as sickly in mind, population checks should be implemented in order to assure the existence of the future generations of the human race and other animals. The human growth can be modeled as a extremely rapid exponential growth that has not stopped for decades. If the human race continues to grow at this rate, then Thomas Malthus may eventually prove right. In fact, one could possibly relate the human race to a virus and the earth as the host. Global warming can be referred to as a fever used to combat the virus. The only thing needed is a cold(such as an cosmic object, disease,war, etc.) in order to limit the virus's numbers. However, if the virus doesn't die then the host will die, ultimately inducing the death of the virus unless it spreads. If the host survives, then the virus will has eventually been lessened or even killed. Either way the virus ends up dying.


I accept your challenge and will argue against your proposal of population checks

First, I would like to point out the flaw in the case of the affirmative side. In his opening argument, 'Pro' likens earth to a host and its human inhabitants as a disease. Quoting from his argument: ' If the host survives, then the virus will has eventually been lessened or even killed. Either way the virus ends up dying.' Through this statement it is revealed that the affirmative side believes that the human population (A.K.A 'The Virus') will die whether the earth survives or not. By killing off the human population, what does earth become? An empty planet with no inhabitants, it loses its purpose.

I argue that our population should not be thoughtlessly 'killed off' for the earth's benefit. I ask the affirmative, how do you suppose to implement this? Do you honestly believe that governments of developed countries will pass such an inhumane proposition? I highly doubt this!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.
First of all I'd like to point out that the use of such inhumane techniques would be used to simply benefit future generations. Wouldn't you limit a respectable amount of the population so that future generations would survive? Also killing is not the only way of implementing population checks. Another way of potentially implementing population checks would be by introducing a bacteria that renders the reproductive systems of 1/2 of the human population sterile.
Second of all I'd like to state that the human population would die of natural factors such as global warming and its immediate effects. It would be more beneficial to limit the human population rather than to risk the extinction of the human race.
Finally I'd like to clarify your doubt upon the approval of the foreign governments. Fear would probably be the dominant force behind implementing such drastic measures. In this case, it would mean their population or the world.
Thanks once again.


Thank you for notifying me of my misassumptions in the previous argument.
If you were to conduct population checks where certain members of the human race were rendered infertile, what would give you this right? I doubt that half the world would agree to this. If they were, they wouldn't be having children so frequently now.
Also, there is no benefit in sacrificing or downright violating the rights of the current population in the interest of future generations. Even if you were to half the human population, whether of natural causes or not, the damage has already been done. There isn't a way to fix the ozone layer while still having humans inhabit the earth. There isn't a way to bring back extinct species. Limiting the population would only take a step backwards and halt the many advancements we are making as a human race. Many leaders in history who we now consider lucrative or plain mad thought that what they were doing would benefit the human race but look what happened....
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mfigurski80 2 years ago
Or we could use another metaphor: Anti-human views held by people like you are the disease and the population is the host. The views and opinions slowly pervade through their carriers (the virus(you)), infecting society, slowly luring all of humanity to self-destruction and suicide.
Or we could be slightly more optimistic by acknowleding the fact that our planet has several thousands of years worth of resources left!

Thomas Malthus cannot be right, as he predicted the end of resources somewhere in the 1800's.

And how does any of this tie into population checks? Are you tring to exterminate population, or just check on them? You know, humanity will grow with checks or without.
No votes have been placed for this debate.