The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
miketheman1200
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Population is a Concern

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 6 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 42624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

First round is for acceptance only. By accepting this debate, you agree to the title and definitions in the first round.

Round 1) Acceptance
Round 2) Arguments only
Round 3) Rebuttals only
Round 4) Polishing up only

By "population is a concern," I mean the EARTH's population of humans is a problem. This concern could vary from the smallest concern to the biggest concern. Population in the present or future may be stated, population in the past may be used as examples to prove points.
EX: The U.S population has risen from 90 million in the 1900's to 300 million today.
NOT OKAY: We have gotten through a population scare so we'll be fine, thus your point is disproven.

Upon agreeing, you also agree to these terms and rules:

Forfeit in any round will be treated as a full 7-point vote for the opposing side (the person who did not forfeit)
Swearing will result in a loss of a conduct point.
Personal attacks will result in a loss of a conduct point.
Plagiarism will result in a loss of sources (misused sources), arguments, and conduct.
Changing the terms agreed upon will result in a loss of conduct point and possibly arguments.
Not following the outline of the rounds will be treated as a loss of a conduct point.

The resolution I will meet is the population is indeed a concern to any extent.

Good luck to any who accepts.
miketheman1200

Con

I regrettably accept. Didn't really pay attention and got caught in your "to any extent trap". But hey lets do it.
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. Here is the definition of concern we will be following:

Concern: to make (someone) worried : to cause concern for (someone)

In the comments, my opponent said this:

"Population as a broad subject is not a concern. But you may have well as already won if you just need to prove that population has concerned people before. Guess I fell for this trap. Ill give it my best."

We both agree that if I prove that population is a concern to someone, I win. It wasn't really a trap, but rather what I believe. That being said, on to the arguments!

Humans are concerned by population:
Upon the fact that my opponent and I agree with the same terms, I will start out by showing you that at least one person is concerned by the population problem. On our very own site, an opionion question asked if any think that overpopulation is a global crisis. [2]. 81% responded by saying yes, and explaining why it concerns them. Therefoe, my point that at least one human is concerned by population is proved. This is a rather weak starting point, but it actually does prove what the resolution says. I will now go on to say why humans should be concerned by this, rather than who is concerned by this.

Why we should be concerned:
For this standpoint, I will turn to environmental issues. As we all know, most things in life are limited. And recources and environment are one of them. Without trees or food or water, the human race, nor any other animal, would ever be able to survive. The human race is slowly depriving our planet of natural resources. We are putting a ton of carbon dioxide out there, and it is only going to get worse as the population increases. Studies show that the carbon levels have risen 32% from 1750 to today, with 60% taking place in the 1960's-current time [3]. Carbon makes the air very unhealthy and almost unbreathable.
As for resources, it is freakin' scary. The U.S contributes to almost 40% of all resource depletions. If everyone lived like a normal American, we would need FIVE EARTHS [4] to support the population. And since we are trying to give people better homes to live in, the amount of people living like an American will go up by a lot. Also, there are 310 million people in the U.S compared to just 90 million a century ago [5]. That is about a 3.2x increase over a century and is probably only going to get higher. So there is why you should be concerned.

The future looks bleak...
In the future, the population will rise. Projections about the population in the future are mind-boggiling. In 2050, we will have about 9 BILLION people occupying the earth [6]. In just 35 years, our population will rise about two billion people. We are already pushing Earth past its tipping point. Furthermore, the U.N projects above 10 billion people in 2062 [8]. Here's a chart to further understand the population growth [G1]:


Please note that this graph was taken in 2000, so there are more than 5.8 billion people on the planet today.
Sorry for the short arguments. Your turn!

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.seattlepi.com...
[4] http://www.ecoliteracy.org...
[5] http://www.multpl.com...
[6] http://www.un.org...
[7] http://www.wired.com...
[8] http://www.worldometers.info...

Graphs:
[G1] http://www.ldolphin.org...
miketheman1200

Con

I may as well have fun.

This is why overpopulation is not a cause for concern. The futility of life. Life is with out meaning, it is futile, and population growth is not a concern because it wont matter when we are gone.

We will not remember having this debate when we are dead. How could population growth possibly concern you?

There are people now concerned about population, everyone who is concerned about population now will be dead, therefore population will not be a concern/is not a concern.

I hope this helped.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

This debate seems to have sunk, as you did not post any main arguments. I will still answer your question though.

I am concerned about the population because it will affect me during my life span. I still have a good 60 years to go, and I will witness about 11 billion people. I don't want to live in a world where everything is smushed together and there are very limited recourses. If I was older, like 70, it would not concern me.

I am also concerned for the children, who will have to suffer due to the population rise. I can be concerned about other things than myself and the population growth.

True, we will not remember having this debate when we are dead, but it still concerns me not because of the reasons above.

People in the future will also be concerned about the population, so when we die, concern will still be going on.
miketheman1200

Con

I did make main arguments. They fundamentally prove that population is not a concern. In fact nothing is really a concern. Something can be concerning but it inevitably is not a concern because we are all limited in existence. I think the only thing that would be a concern is if something as infinite as the universe were going to end. But alas we are talking about population. Something entirely subjective to an individuals own thoughts about it and because an individual who may be concerned is limited in existence and will one day be gone, there is no real concern.

Pro claims that people in the future will be concerned but fails to recognize that in the next billion years the earth will become more and more uninhabitable until humans can no longer survive and die. Thus eliminating the concern. Or humans survive by traveling through space and find multiple new environments to inhabit and in that case population will not be a concern because with that population can expand to the ends of the universe. (there is no end).

The population growth of the planet is actually slowing down overall and the UN expects the population to settle at around 8 - 10 billion in the year 2100. [1]

Many experts are even saying that population will steadily decline before DECLINING. [2]

[1] http://rhein.blogactiv.eu...
[2] http://newsfeed.time.com...
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

You stated why we shouldn't be concerned, not why we aren't concerned. May I point out you already conceeded and even said "congratulations on the free win" in the comments?

You state that the population will start declining while the population rises to 10 billion by the year 2100. Both arguments cross eachother out.

Furthermore, you state the laws of the universe, which has nothing to do with this debate.

You also said that the Earth would become uninhabitable, which is because of population. Another concession.

You state that the universe is infinite so population is not a problem. In the first round I said "population on EARTH."

I have proved my resolution that the population is a concern to the smallest extent. You stated that I would win if I prove that one person is concerned about the population. And I did, thus the resolution is met.

Merry Christmas once again!
miketheman1200

Con

"May I point out you already conceeded and even said "congratulations on the free win" in the comments?"

Not a concession, just speculation.

"You state that the population will start declining while the population rises to 10 billion by the year 2100. Both arguments cross eachother out."

I did not state anything myself other than what the studies from my sources concluded. The studies showed that after reaching 10 billion the earths population would stabilize and begin to decrease because of human trends in more developed countries. The more a country develops the less people reproduce.

"Furthermore, you state the laws of the universe, which has nothing to do with this debate."

The laws of the universe do have to do with this debate. The population is part of the universe, you and I are part of the universe, and even your tricky resolution is a part of the universe. So the universe certainly has to do with this debate.

"You also said that the Earth would become uninhabitable, which is because of population. Another concession."

When I spoke about the earth becoming uninhabitable I did not say because of population. Let me clarify. You know that big hot thing in the sky? The sun? Well interestingly enough that big hot ball of gas is getting hotter as time goes on. It is estimated that in about 1 billions years the heat from the sun will make it impossible to inhabit the earth as surface temperatures would rise killing plant life and therefore any surviving species.

The population of earth is irrelevant because one day the earth will be gone. For humans though survival may be possible through the infinite universe.

Before closing this off I'd like to point out how unfortunately subjective the resolution "population is a concern" is.

People like Pro being born into the population concerns me. Whoa look at that I got a free win with out putting in any real work because some sad sucker accidentally accepted my debate before looking at it closer.

Well I gave it my all and I hope that you see that just based on the studies I have provided and points on limited existence that population is not a concern. Thank you.


World historical TFR (1950–2015)
UN, medium variant, 2010 rev.[2]
YearsTFR
1950–1955 4.95
1955–1960 4.89
1960–1965 4.91
1965–1970 4.85
1970–1975 4.45
1975–1980 3.84
1980–1985 3.59
1985–1990 3.39
1990–1995 3.04
1995–2000 2.79
2000–2005 2.62
2005–2010 2.52
2010–2015 2.36

This graph shows that reproduction is not only slowing down but coming close to the point where it wont be a growing population. (1.9) [1]

source:
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Sure thing.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Nonetheless is was a trap. I'm still going to try bbe don't be upset. This should be smooth sailing. But maybe some other time we can do a debatable topic and not a subjective statement.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
It was not intended to be a trap and it would not have been if you did not make that comment. Before you said that, I thought about the environment, not if anyone is concerned about it. Nonetheless, the terms have switched.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Not to mention the whole "being a concern to anyone" thing? How subjective can you get and not say this was a trap?
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Haha, no it was a trap. I fell for the oldest trick in the book and it was blatant. Its my fault. Congrats on the free win.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
population as a broad subject is not a concern. But you may have well as already won if you just need to prove that population has concerned people before. Guess I fell for this trap. Ill give it my best.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Not to worry TUF
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Just a fair warning: "theultimatetroller" might come through here, accept your debate and every other one in the challenge period, and de-activate his account. ;-)
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Global overpopulation is a myth.

Just putting that out there.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros points were simple: we are concerned, we should be concerned because it's getting worse. Con in the beginning really was weak. It was mid debate he actually tried. I consider polls (people think this) a poor argument. It is merely a bandwagon fallacy. It was the second point that was the issue at debate. Pro said look, we have a lot of people, an this scary upward trend will continue. Con when he began arguing showed that the population increase will slow and fertility rates are nearing "normal" levels. This means that population increases will be slower or nonexistent. This point really unhinged pros case. It rectified cons atrocious performance in the beginning. In the end cons argument was stronger. Com provided many more references, and the references he cited were on par with or more credible than cons. Therefore he gets sources.
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering MadisonMichelle's votebomb. MadisonMichelle did not present a valid RFD . It's obvious that it was a votebomb.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My reason for this comes back to Pro's wording in his resolution. He says that "population is a concern" means the EARTH's population of humans is a problem. And this concern(which he has defined as the population of humans being a problem)can be big or small. Con showed with his statistics that population will is not a problem, as its growth is on the decline.
Vote Placed by MadisonMichelle 3 years ago
MadisonMichelle
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was a better debater. Was more professional.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Pro makes a very good case in round to, and also using numerous sources to back it up. Pro also did a good job including many statisics as well. Con's arguments weren't as detailed, and he used less sources to back his up. Good luck to both of you in future debates.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
dtaylor971miketheman1200Tied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: The reasons I voted the way I did was this, the conduct was not really an issue, but the con in my eyes, already gave up, and I never like that! Spelling and grammar also goes to the pro for the best and well though out well meaning words. The one place the con did win is sources, the con put more sources than the opponent. A graph could be created very easily, and shows no real source. Bot the pro and the con should remember this next time they debate. However, the pro has made a valid point that populations could exceed earths capacity! I rule in favor of the pro.