Population Control

3 reasons justify my argument:

1. Populations Affect Voting In a Significant Way


Populations are each culture's wants. Although, individuals might vary, a specific culture generally votes for one thing as proven by the fact that over 48% of voters vote by cultural values. If certain cultures are too large, smaller minorities will be ignored. This is intolerance in an unfair voting system.

2. Uncontrolled Growth


Thomas Malthus showed that as populations rose without control, competition rises among people. Eventually, we will face immense competition (as the future of today's society) where there will be those starving and dying because of oversized populations.

3. Government Funds


As populations rise, the government has to divide less funds to each person. Therefore, if sizes are limited, there will be more financial support for each person, thus giving a country with higher intellectual levels.


Sources:
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Population control the wrong answer.

1) Democracy is opinions

Every voter in a Democracy should vote based upon their own opinions. A greater population is actually more beneficial due to the different cultures that will be represented. My opponent seems to be prejudice towards specific races by indicating that minorities won't be represented, which is not true because they will also have children. In addition, intolerance is the decision of a person to not tolerate, which is unrelated to voting.

2) You can't change human nature

Population increase are cased by natural progression and response to the economic situation which poor and underdeveloped countries undergo. Try to inject population control and you go against human nature, you bring with it a whole basket of other problems such as war and social unrest. (ex. china: tiny.cc/ogjgdw)

3) Taxes

Government funds come from people, more people equals more funds, resulting in minimal difference.

tiny.cc/rcjgdw
tiny.cc/fdjgdw
tiny.cc/3jjgdw

R1: Pro, has disregarded my statement on that Democracy is based upon opinions; which means that people will vote based upon heritage and their own beliefs. The whole purpose of voting its self is so that individuals who satisfy the needs of others will be represented. According to Pro's arguments, more than 50% do not vote based upon heritage, which means that they will vote for those which will benefit them. Pro seems to misunderstand the concept of voting and Democracy in general.
R2: Of course population control is controlling nature. Preventing people from reproducing in fear of conflicting with law is not only immoral but problematic. A person should have rights, especially in their own body. By allowing government control over human life, it is basically giving the government complete power over what one can do daily.
R3: Success comes in numbers. More children will likely result in more people working as adults, therefore, pay more taxes.

tiny.cc/9ddhdw
tiny.cc/4fdhdw
tiny.cc/epdhdw

As a summary, I would like to conclude the following facts:


1) Rerebuttal 1: 48% vote based on heritage is huge! It's almost an entire half of a population, similar to having 50 million people vote for something out of 100 million which is nevertheless a disproportionate voting system and further supports my 1st and 2nd argument.

2) Rerebuttal 2: "Immorality" is subjective. In addition, Con's new argument that people should have full rights to their body implys prostitution, drugs, and other illegal acts and shows what leads from his argument.

3) Rebuttal 3: The children stated by Con will never reach proper education levels as working adults if they can't survive admist high competition. Therefore, not enough money will come in with a country full of poor people struggling for survival. This supports my Argument 3

I have defended my stance, rebutted all of Con's arguments and fulfilled the BOP. Con has brought up new arguments near the end of the debate which is poor conduct.

Vote Pro!