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

Population is too high!

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 82187
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Too many stupid people, more abortions need to happened. The world can't keep up with the amount of pollution we're doing. We don't have enough jobs for these people. Crime is going to go up. Teenage pregnancy is out of control too!


Earth does have 7 billion people, but I'm sure we can manage. I'll start with my rebuttal against my opponent.

"Too many stupid people, more abortions need to happened." Abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. Pro hasn't identified any sources suggesting we have "too many" people.

" The world can't keep up with the amount of pollution we're doing." Actually, the most polluted country (that I know of at least) is China. I'm pretty sure America and Australia aren't at that point yet, thankfully for us. I'm sure America can manage a long time.

"We don't have enough jobs for these people." Proof is not present. I went to Google, but all I saw was employment websites (Vacant Jobs), and the world running out of resources (Is the world running out of vacant jobs?). I don't think we're at that point until hundreds of years from now.

"Crime is going to go up." Proof is not present. How are you so sure that people will become thieves, murderers, hackers, or rapers? Sure like 1/80 of people may be a criminal, but that doesn't really count as "crime going up", since it's not significant.

"Teenage pregnancy is out of control too!" I have heard of this being an issue, and found a source. But what does this have to do with overpopulation? Sure a 15 year old girl could get pregnant, but her body isn't ready to handle the birth. She could die from the birth. That would be 1 (baby) - 1 (teen mother dies) = 0 net increase of population. This doesn't affect much.

Now that my opponent's case has been refuted, I need to fulfill my own Burden of Proof.

Point 1: We're actually declining in population.

We're not dealing with overpopulation. Underpopulation is what humanity's facing.

Go to the halfway point of the site. "The United States is the only large industrialized country with a birthrate above the replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Populations in the rest of the developed world, from Europe to Japan, are shrinking. The same thing is happening in the Middle East. "Muslim countries with a high literacy rate -- Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia -- have already fallen below replacement fertility," Goldman says." Europe, Japan, Turkey, Algeria, and more areas of the world (US is fine) are declining in population.

Sadly, Pro only chose 1 round, which is a terrible idea unless you're very confident your only argument stands. If someone was to accept a 1 round debate, like me accepting this one, you have to be lucky to have your argument survive. 3 rounds is the recommended minumum, so you can refute your opponent's argument and counter his rebuttals. In this debate, however, you weren't so lucky. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago

6 points to Con for arguments and sources, conduct

First of all, Con gets sources because he had two, which one was not reliable because it might be fake, and the second one reliable, when Pro had gave no sources.

Con gets arguments because Pro's argument was

" Too many stupid people, more abortions need to happened. The world can't keep up with the amount of pollution we're doing. We don't have enough jobs for these people. Crime is going to go up. Teenage pregnancy is out of control too!"

This is rude because Pro had said stupid. Con has got a conduct point. He mentions that we have too much pollution and also not enough things for these humans.

However, Con's argument was about we are already declining the population which is a good point, making the resolution negated. He also rebutted all of Pro's points.

I will give Con the win.

RFD (Part 2):

Okay, this is the second part of my RFD.

First of all, when Pro says that there are too many people, he does not explain "how" we can reduce population, however Con gives explanations of how these days, there is a reduce of people.

Pro had failed to tell more and expand his arguments. He just told that there is not enough things. He did not explain why there was not enough thing and we need to reduce the population.

Con had rebutted the points by saying that China was the pollution country. Also there was jobs left in google.

Con has explained Europe, Algeria, Turkey, etc., has declined there population by evidence and quotes.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Bosoxfaninla// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision:Much stronger argument from con

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources is unexplained. (2) An RFD is a reason for decision, emphasis on the "reason." The voter has to explain their decision, not merely restate it with the statement that one side had "much stronger arguments".
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: HankMG22// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Since the argument was only one round long, and Pro had no evidence or proof to support his answer, and Con rebutted all of his assertions, I will say Con won.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't justify conduct. (2) The voter needs to do more to justify sources than state that one side had them while theo ther didn't. (3) Arguments also require more support, requiring that the voter explain how specific arguments affected the outcome rather than making generalizations.
Posted by Sciguy 2 years ago
Teenage pregnancies are lower than they were in the nineties and eighties combined do you know that Pro? It seems to me that you are one of the idiotic people that you speak of when you say, at least I assume, people need to die.
Posted by Sciguy 2 years ago
I disagree with Pro but this what I have in say. Just wait until the nine-billion or ten-billion mark for population of the Earth in whole (Humans) then you shall see a great famine shed itself upon the land and after that there shall be a great rapture and the second coming of your lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

No, I am only joking but we will only have time to tell.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sciguy 2 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more of a convincing argument because he had more reliable sources such as and wikipedia. Sadly it was only one round long so there could be no reason to give any other points.