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

The Earth Is Not Overpopulated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: Select Winner
Started: 6/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 906 times Debate No: 92968
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (1)




Full Resolution

The Earth is not overpopulated.


The Earth: "The third planet from the sun, having a sidereal period of revolution about the sun of 365.26 days at a mean distance of approximately 149.6 million kilometers (92.96 million miles), a sidereal rotation period of 23 hours [and] 56.07 minutes, an average radius of 6,378.1 kilometers (3,963 miles), and a mass of approximately 5.9736*10^24 kilograms (1.3169*10^25 pounds)."[1]

Overpopulated: "Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration."[2]


1. No forfeiting.
2. No semantics or trolling.
3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate and character limits cannot be broken. Sources may be posted in the comments or in an outside link.
4. This debate's resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can only be debated before you accept this debate. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments
Round 4: Defending your arguments and conclusions (no new arguments)




I thank Subutai for challenging me to this topic. I accept the rules, and wish him luck, let's have a spectacular picture-spammed debate. Thanks!!!!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank FireWings for accepting this debate.

I. Definitions

In the first round, I defined overpopulation as, “Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.” I want to expand on this a little bit before I go into my argument.

First, I must show that the Earth is not overcrowded. Second, I must show that the natural resources of Earth are not being depleted. There are three main things a human (and, in fact, any animal) requires. These are food, water, and shelter. With this in mind, the other natural resources aren't as imperative to human survival, so, by "natural resources", I'm only going to consider those three. Thus, I must also show that there is enough food, water, and materials needed to construct shelters on Earth for every human on Earth. Finally, I must show that the environment is not deteriorating. Assuming the natural resources humans need are not being necessarily consumed in greater rates they can be replaced (which I'll show in arguing the second point), environmental degradation is not necessary for human survival. All of it currently going on can simply be stopped. Thus, I don't need to show anything for the last point.

II. Overcrowding

If each person on Earth were given equally sized, distinct plots of land, each person would receive five acres of land. If each person on Earth were given equally sized, distinct plots of arable land, each person would receive a half acre of arable land. Thus, overcrowding is clearly not an issue.[1][2]

III. Resources

The first resource is food. “According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009a, 2009b) the world produces more than 1 1/2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world’s 2050 projected population peak.” That’s three billion more people than there currently are on Earth, and even enough to cover the entire population when it peaks in 2050.[3]

“In 1996 the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated that the world was producing enough food to provide every man, woman and child with 2,700 calories a day, several hundred more than most adults are thought to need (around 2,100 a day).” At today’s population levels, we could even have everyone eat at quantities comparable to the average American (although that’s not recommended).[4]

The second resource is water. Clearly, we have more than enough water itself. The main problem is that most of it isn’t fresh, and the vast majority of the water that is fresh is trapped in glaciers. But we have already devised cost efficient methods such as desalinization to make ocean water fresh, and there are many plans that have been devised to melt glaciers. In these capacities, we have more than enough water to satiate the needs of every person on Earth.[5]

“In 1900, estimated water withdrawals for all purposes were 56 cubic kilometers per year (km3/yr). Water use in the U.S. peaked in 1980 at over 610 km3/yr (Solley et al., 1998), a tenfold increase in water withdrawals during a period when population increased by a factor of four.” In other words, in the U.S. at least, the amount of additional freshwater withdrawn over the last 100 years or so is much greater than would be expected if increases matched population growth. This shows that we have the amount of freshwater necessary not only to sustain life, but to maintain a comfortable lifestyle as well.[6]

The final resource is the materials needed for shelter. There is also clearly enough material needed for shelter, as the Earth currently has three trillion trees (that’s 3,000,000,000,000 trees) to make wood from. In addition, there are a myriad of other low cost materials such as brick and steel that shelter can be constructed from. It could even be argued (although I’m not sure where I’d get the sources to prove this) that we have enough standing, individual structures to house every person on Earth.[7]

Other resources such as fuel to produce electricity, cloth to make clothes, and metal to make tools, while not necessary for human survival, are in such plentiful supply that they make the production of food and the processing of clean drinking water easier. We even have enough resources to make leisure and pleasure items out of.

With all of this in mind, it is clear that the Earth has more than enough resources to provide for the needs, and at least some of the wants, of every person on Earth. In fact, we have so much that our resource production will still be sustainable during the population peak in 2050. Thus, we see that, in this regard, the Earth cannot be seen as overpopulated.


The Earth has enough food, water, and materials for shelter for every person on Earth, and even for every one of the projected number of people on Earth during the population peak in 2050. Further, the Earth is clearly not overcrowded by any stretch of the imagination, as the Earth is more than large enough to give each person on Earth enough space. Therefore, there is no way the Earth can be considered overcrowded.




I thank Subutai for her arguments, and in this round, I will open my arguments in this round.


O1: The Resolution, and the definitions

The resolution is “The Earth is not overpopulated”. The definition of Earth is well, the normal definition of Earth, as the third planet from the sun, and the radius of the Earth. Overpopulated means, “Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration” The resolution is that the earth is not overpopulated, or the earth does not have a excessive population in a place, which is overcrowding.

O2: Burdens

Therefore, my burden is that if I show a place which has excessive population in a place, then I win. If I can’t, then my opponent wins. I will make no framework in the debate, because it is quite pointless as that is not part of my burden. It is not about the whole world being overpopulated, which it is.

O3. Confusion

I predict that my opponent and I will be confused in what is actually overpopulated. Overpopulated is that there is too many people in Earth, many people in one area, etc.

O4: Introduction

My case will be quite short, because there isn’t much to put in this kind of debate, only lame pictures. My opponent asked to not make any rebuttals in this round, so I won’t be making rebuttals.


1/ Some pictures

As I showed my burden, and show if there is an excessive population in one place, then I win. So I will show some pictures.

s://; alt="" width="404" height="228" />

And a normal day in front of my house in the Eiffel Tower…

s://; alt="" width="318" height="159" />

And the Opera House in Australia…

s://; alt="" width="256" height="171" />

I’ve shown places which is overcrowded with people, and my burden was too show an area which has an excessive amount of people, and as I did, please VOTE CON. As it is overpopulated, which I am saying that some areas are overpopulated, and I showed, vote Con.

2/ Some country examples

Subpoint 1: An example of China

There is currently over 7 billion, and 430 million people in the world today (when I am writing my argument) [1]. And there are over 1 billion and 400 million people in China alone [1]. This is over 1/7 of the Earth’s population. China is right now 4th in world space population, 9,596,960 km squared [2]. As my opponent’s definitions, the earth is 149,600,000 kilometers squared. This means China is less than 1/16 of the world’s space. As it is over 1/7 of the world’s population, when it is less than 1/17 of the world’s space, this means that China is overpopulated, and as I’ve met my BoP to find a place with excessive population, you should ought to vote for Con.

And of course, Pro might say this isn’t overpopulated. But it is. In the world’s 10 most populated cities, China is the world’s 10th, 9th, 8th, and 1st [3]. This is a massive amount. 3/10 is China out of over 200 countries, making China overpopulated. Therefore, I have met my BoP, and please vote Con.

Subpoint 2: India

There is currently over 7 billion and 430 million people in the word as I said. There is over 1 billion and 298 million people in India, more then 1/7 of the world’s population. India is 3,287,590 square kilometers, and less that over 1/30 of the land. Therefore, it is overpopulated in india. It is also 4th in the most populated cities, showing it is overpopulated.

Summary: Many places are overpopulated, and there are more babies each day, and people born then deaths [1] as today, so please vote Con!!!!

3/ The changes of human population

I will show some pictures of the growth change of what happened of the population. This graph is quite good, as I saw.

s://; alt="" width="624" height="328" />

These changes are drastic. There were around 1 billion people 200 years ago, and in 200 years, it doubled by 7 billion. This is drastic. Look at the graph. From the start, there weren’t much humans in the early days, but look at the drastic changes [4].

Scientists say that the most people Earth can fill is around 10 billion calculating the water, and the food, etc. [5] Unfortunately, scientists believe that in around 2100, it will be 10 billion people. Therefore, the Earth is too overpopulated, and this needs to change until the earth is full, and all dies.

The future

s://; alt="" width="624" height="436" />

So, in the end, we are too overpopulated.

4/ The changes to Earth because of overpopulation

Subpoint 1: Pollution

Definition of Pollution: the action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use [6]

Why is there pollution?

“ It comes from both natural and man-made sources. Motor vehicle emissions are one of the leading causes, but other principal pollution sources include chemical plants, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, petrochemical plants, nuclear waste disposal activity, incinerators, large livestock farms, PVC factories, metal production factories, plastic factories and other heavy industry.

Read more at [7].”

It says it comes from man-made things, like vehicles, factories, etc. But why are there these things? Because of humans!!! More people, more pollution. And there is lot’s of pollution right now, see this picture in the deaths of pollution

s://; alt="" width="485" height="330" />

If there is a lot of deaths from pollution, then logically there is lots of pollution in the world. If more pollution means more people, that means that because there is lots of pollution, it means that the earth is overpopulated.

P1: There is a lot of deaths in pollution

C1: Therefore, there is a lot of pollution

P2: More pollution means more people, as I showed

P3: And, as I said in C1, there is a lot of pollution

C2: Therefore, the Earth is overpopulated

Therefore, I have shown pollution as an evidence of the some areas, such as China in this map, as it has most pollution, is overpopulated.

Subpoint 2: Global Warming

Definition of Global Warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution [8].

I will explain this point more, even though this is basically the same as pollution, the more evidence, the better.

Causes: “It took more than 20 years to broadly accept that mankind is causing global warming with the emission of greenhouse gases [9].” Many other sources to prove this too [10].

Humans are the cause of Global Warming. And, in the last 20 years, as it said, there was lots of global warming, and in this graph also.

s://; alt="" width="500" height="390" />

This seems suspicious that humans did it, because in the last 20 years, human population had began to increase a lot, and it is the same as global warming. Therefore, there is another premise.

P1: Global Warming went up in a lot in 20 years

P2: Also human population began to come up

C1: Therefore, global warming must be because of humans, and more the human population goes up, the more global warming there is.

P3: There is more global warming

C2: If same, the human population is overpopulated.

If this is right, then that means that because there is lot’s of global warming as showed in the graph above, so logically, that means human population is increasing, and it is overpopulated, as there is lot’s of pollution


Just a funny picture

s://; alt="" width="378" height="416" />

Now, I’ve spammed too much. I could have just ended with my first argument, from the pictures, because it shows overpopulation from one area, but I showed all the other graphs more. I think I have shown that humans are overpopulated, gave examples such as China, so on, and so forth. My burden is full because I showed that some places are overpopulated, therefore,

Please vote Con!!! Over to Pro!!!



For the first source, it also shows the population growth.










Other sources of the pictures


For the picture of Global Temperatures


For the deaths of pollution picture


For the world population development


The same source for my first [1]. Scroll to the bottom, and you can find it.


Picture of the eiffel tower


For the Opera House


The first picture, the overpopulated place.

Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank FireWings for presenting his arguments.

It seems my opponent has misunderstood his burden. This debate is not about whether certain cities or countries are overpopulated. It is more broad than that. It is about whether the entire Earth is overpopulated. Thus, my opponent’s burden is greater than simply showing that certain areas on Earth are overpopulated. He has to show that the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. More clearly, he has to show that the current global population is unsustainable for Earth as a whole. It is beyond any doubt, as my opponent has shown, that certain areas on Earth are overpopulated. But he has to show much more than that.

There are serious problems with my opponent’s first and second arguments. However, one point he makes does hold true – that certain areas of Earth are overpopulated. Nevertheless, like I explained above, these arguments don’t satisfy his burden, so there’s no point in me attempting to refute them, particularly considering that, while flawed, his basic conclusion is true. Thus, I will only deal with my opponent’s third and fourth arguments.

I. Population Trends

The population held relatively steady before 1800, continuously increasing at a slow rate (however, there were a few massive population declines corresponding to plagues). Beyond that, however, the population exploded sevenfold in just two centuries, far outpacing any population growth over any other two century timeframe. However, population growth has been declining for the last 50 years, and is projected to continue to decline.[1]

A study by the UN predicts that the population peak will occur in 2100, with a number around 11 billion. A separate study by Deutsche Bank predicts that the population peak will occur in 2055, with a number around 8.7 billion (although this study assumes a rather low fertility rate). Citing the studies I showed in the last round, even assuming the number is more like 11 billion, the Earth produces enough food, and has enough water and materials for shelter for 11 billion people. Further, we are continuing to make strides in technology, like genetic modification for increased food production, desalinization and glacier melting for water, and artificial forests and synthetic materials for shelter, which means that we are able to provide for even more people every day.[2][3]

Thus, the population increase is falling rapidly, and the population level will eventually stabilize in the latter half of this century. In addition, we have enough materials to provide for the number of people predicted to be on Earth in that time. Therefore, the population increase from 1800 until now is not going to be a problem in terms of overpopulation.

II. Pollution

Pollution is not a symptom of overpopulation. However, it is exacerbated by overpopulation. He has shown that pollution exists and has correctly argued that, if the population were larger, the level of pollution would be worse. However, there are two problems with my opponent then claiming that the Earth is overpopulated because of this. One, the pollution level would only indicate overpopulation if it was so high that is was globally unsustainable. My opponent has not provided any evidence that it is, and I deny such a claim. And two, things can be done to combat pollution. It hardly indicates overpopulation if something can be done to stop it.

III. Global Warming

To my opponent’s favor, unlike his previous argument, that the current state of global warming is unsustainable in the long run is something that I won’t deny. However, this point still fails to refute the second point. Things can be done to counter global warming. It’s unreasonable to argue that the Earth is overpopulated just because the current number of people on Earth are committing some unnecessary detrimental action.

We can, and are doing things to combat both pollution and global warming, with varying degrees of success. At best, it can be argued that our current living state is globally unsustainable, but it can’t be argued that the Earth is overpopulated from these two facts.




I thank my opponent for his rebuttals. I will post my rebuttals in the debate, and not post any defense of my case.


The Burdens are that I have to prove one part of the Earth overcrowded, with all animals, etc.


This isn't really an argument. It is just an expand of the definitons, and the basic burdens of the debate. I agree with my definitons, my opponent needs to provide arguments that there is food, water, and shelter for all of us. I won't really expand on this point right now, and just leave it like this.


My opponent shows that if the Earth was equally sized, then a person would get around 20000 square meters of land [1]. However, as a definition of Earth is overpopulated, it isn't only about humans, isn't it? Does Earth only have humans? There are around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 insects [2]. They are in the Earth also. Why don't they count? Also, is there a place with only humans? Humans mean a society, and in a society, there are stores, cars, streets, factories, department stores, etc. We can't just count humans, because humans don't mean the whole earth. Also, no one uses land in Antartica, and very few use Russia (north east.) Therefore, this argument is invalid.


A: Food

My opponent says that we have 1 1/2 times of food to feed everyone in the planet. As looking at Pro's arguments, he is definetly only talking about humans, and once again, THIS DEBATE IS NOT A HUMAN-BASED DEBATE. The debate is about the Earth being overpopulated, not about too much humans. And, as far as we found, there is around 1,589,361 species in the world, definetly more [3]. And, humans are just one species, so definetly, there is not lots of food for all animals. Therefore, this is refuted.

B: Water

My opponent says that most water isn't fresh, mostly in glaciers, which is basically a concession. Pro says that there are some methods to make the ocean water fresh, but a) no source b) if you use the evaporation trick, there won't be much water left, c) the fish won't have any water. Therefore, we can't do that. Melting glaciers, sure. Pro says that there is enough water to satisfy everyone. But, he didn't include other animals, so this is invalid, and every species, even plants need water, and you need water to do many things, such as cleaning, so there won't be much water to satisfy every animal or plant in Earth.

C: Shelter

Pro says that earth has 3 trillion trees, which we can make wood from. However, many animals live in trees, and if we use them, they have to evacuate. Pro doesn't have any proof that every person can have a house. Also, there is no one equal, so some people will have bigger houses, so there can't be houses for all people. We didn't count nature, or stores and things we need, so this is rebutted.


I have shown that the Earth has no food, water, or shelter for all of us, including animals, because humans doesn't mean Earth, therefore we have to include them, and if we include them, there won't be much water, food, and shelter for all of us, therefore you have to vote for Con.





Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank FireWings for this debate.

I. Overcrowding

Six acres is clearly enough room for a person and the animals inhabiting his surrounding environment to be at peace. The addition of one person into an ecosystem that size is hardly going to be an issue. In addition, consider my other statistic that each person of Earth, if given equal sized plots of land, could have half an acre of arable land. These lands are cultivated and typically devoid of animals in the first place. Not only that, but the average person only requires one acre of farmland if they’re eating the typical American diet to feed themselves, and that’s for normal, healthy adults eating the typical American diet, both of which force that number up. Considering those two forcings, in conjunction with the use of high output greenhouses and other agricultural technology allowing for the production of food without the need for land, the number is probably considerably less than one acre. Thus, that one half acre is enough to feed that person. Also, Antarctica is irrelevant because that land is not arable, and most of Russia isn’t too arable either (although people can still live there).[1]

It’s true that humans often live in cities, but, like I’ve mentioned, given the proper planning and development, overcrowding in such areas isn’t going to be a problem either.

II. Food

The main problem with my opponent’s argument here is that humans get the vast majority of their food through agriculture and not by hunting and gathering, meaning that we don’t take away much potential food for animals, as we produce the vast majority of our food ourselves. Of course, there are local instances where mismanaged development took away the food source for animals in that area, but that can be stopped with coordinated effort, and is thus not a symptom of overpopulation.

III. Water

While most of the water is on is not drinkable without having it go through some sort of process, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to make that water drinkable. I provided a source in round two about efficient ways to melt glaciers. Source two provides some of the proposals put forth for efficient desalination. There are also many other ways we are getting freshwater out of existing reserves.[2]

Water is a renewable resource. This means that (assuming there is not so much use that it overcomes the rate of replacement) water always re-enters the environment. The controlled use of water will neither use up the sources of water we have nor will it take away water from animals. As with food, the source of water for animals is usually different from that of humans, so our presence will do little to affect animals’ water supplies. The rare cases where it does are the result of fixable misuse, and is thus also not a symptom of overpopulation.

IV. Shelter

While deforestation is a major problem in places like Brazil and Indonesia, with the advent of practices like sustainable logging and tree farms, we have ways of producing wood with minimal harm done to animals. In addition, the eviction of animals from trees is hardly a sign of overpopulation, particularly since (again assuming that widespread deforestation is not the issue) there are plenty of other trees those animals can go to. In addition, trees often fall as a result of disease or lightning, which also forces animals from trees.

Three trillion trees is a very large number. That’s 500 trees for every person on Earth. The average home size in the U.S. (and homes in the U.S. are, on average, much larger than elsewhere in the world) would require, if built from wood entirely, 22 trees (the source I quote uses mature pines here). Not only that, but there are also a bunch of other building materials, like brick and concrete, which are not made of wood. Thus, there are more than enough trees to build homes with.


Earth has enough food, water, and materials for shelter for each of the seven billion people on Earth, and these resources, with the proper management, can come with minimal harm to animals. In addition, the Earth is large enough to not only give each person on Earth enough space to prevent overcrowding, it also gives each person enough space to support themselves. And, if current population projections are to be believed, these facts will not change even when population peaks in the latter half of the 21st century. And, again with proper management, we can keep the environment in an unaffected, and even an improving state. Thus, by definition, there’s no way that the Earth, given the current and projected number of people on Earth, can be considered overcrowded.

Mismanagement, given the fact that it can be corrected, is hardly a symptom of overpopulation. There are efficient and practical ways that humans, as a society, can live without these issues. Thus, there's no reason to blame overpopulation on issues like pollution and the misuse of water.




I thank my opponent for making his defense. I will provide my defense, and head onto to the voting period. Thanks for the debate!!!



Pro says that I misunderstood my burden. Pro says that it is not about some cities overpop., it is about the whole world overpopulated. The definiton of the debate is overpopulated- a certain area not overpopulated. So, the debate is, "There is no overpopulated area in the Earth, if you paraphrase it, not what my opponent said. My opponent didn't make anything about burdens, and changing it in round 3, in the middle of the debate makes the debate change, and my opponent needed to argue about it in round 2, which he didn't making my burden, and the burdens the same, and if I prove that there is a excessive population in one place, then I win.

1st and 2nd argument

My opponent does not rebut my 1st and 2nd argument, only saying they aren't related to the resolution, and don't satisfy my burden, and she drops it. She drops it. However, I have shown that my burden that I said is actually right, according to my opponent's definitions, and it is ridiculous to change it in the middle of the debate. Therefore, my arguments actually make an impact in my burden, and as my opponent didn't rebut them, I tell to extend my arguments, and vote for Con.

I'll now go onto my other arguments which my opponent does rebut.

Population Trends

My opponent says that the population is starting to decline. This is really ridiculous, as I shown in my graph, and other graphs. See again here:

I am shocked how my opponent can call this declining from the 1800's. 6 billion people were borned in that time, and how is that declining? That is not, and my opponent's rebuttal is false.

My opponent says that we can provide things for 11 billion of people, but that is false. The Earth can only fill 10 billion calculating the water, as my source in round 2 said. My opponent does not rebut this at all, and my opponent's rebuttal is false. And 40 years against D-Day is quite not that far away, therefore the Earth is overpopulated.

My opponent fails to rebut my argument.


My opponent says that he denies that there is lot's of pollution, and I don't provide a source. I am shocked that my opponent denies this. This is a logical fact, and I thought it needed no source. Look at all the sources here-

My opponent says that this does nothing to do with pollution. More pollution means more people, as I shown, and that there is a lot of pollution, there would be a lot of people. My opponent doesn't rebut this, therefore it is dropped.

Global Warming

Pro says that this cannot be argued that the Earth is overpopulated. I've shown it. My opponent doesn't rebut it, only saying it is false. Why? My opponent doesn't explain. Hence, you shouldn't buy his rebuttal, therefore please vote Con!!!



All of my opponent's case was not explained of the other animals, and they are part of Earth, if my opponent's resolution was about humans, it is a good case, but it is about the Earth, and he doesn't explain about animals, therefore his arguments are all wrong.


My opponent fails to refute any of my arguments. He drops my 1st and 2nd argument completely. Population Trends argument was false. Pollution and GW, my opponent said it is false, but doesn't say why, so they are bad rebuttals.

Therefore, you have to vote Con, as there is no other choice. Vote Con. Thanks for the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 months ago
The resolution is clear, and can be meaningfully interpreted only to mean "the Earth is not overpopulated." It's that simple.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
You should say that the "area" is the whole Earth. I thought you meant areas like China, etc.
Posted by tejretics 3 months ago
Fire is wrong, simply because "the area" in question here is the Earth, as specified by the resolution.
Posted by Subutai 3 months ago
I thought it was plenty clear enough. I honestly still don't see how any reasonable reading of the definitions can make it sound like you thought it did. Sure, the definition of overpopulation does say that it is "an area" under consideration, but it was pretty clear that, in this debate, the area was the Earth itself and not any specific part in it.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
Subutai, you have to make it clear, so that the debaters need to know at round 1. I was confused in the whole debate. You should have told me earlier, as I have followed the definitions, and look what is happening now.
Posted by Subutai 3 months ago
You're misconstruing what the definition are saying in connection to the resolution. The definition of overpopulation does state that it is "an area" to be considered, but given that the resolution is "The Earth Is Overpopulated", it is clear that the area under consideration was the Earth itself, and not any one part of the Earth at the exclusion of the others.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
tej, I didn't mistake my burden. The debate is the Earth has excessive population of an area, as that is the definition of overpopulated in the debate. Therefore, my understanding of the burden is correct, as I showed that the Earth has an excessive population in an area, and showed some examples. You didn't examine Pro's arguments, and you only addressed one of mine, and that is a "rebuttal."
Posted by fire_wings 4 months ago
Cool picture there :D
Posted by fire_wings 4 months ago
Oops, the pictures did not work, crud.
Posted by Subutai 4 months ago
Sorry, I was going to finish my arguments sooner, but like I normally do with debate arguments, I procrastinated way too much. Also, the character limit is 10,000 characters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con misstates his burden, because the resolution talks about the Earth -as a whole- being overpopulated, not certain places; Con concedes Pro's observation with regard to this issue, meaning Con is left with one major offensive argument: that the Earth is overpopulated for animals. Con fails to affirm that there isn't sufficient food or habitat for animals, and Pro shows that, despite deforestation and similar human activity, there is sufficient food in existence for animals, and that any problems with access to food are not a direct result of population growth -rather, they are separate problems relating to accessibility. Con doesn't really contest this. With respect to land, Pro demonstrates that there is no lack of land for animals to live in, because, well, animals reside somewhere on Earth currently--and that there is sufficient habitat in existence for all currently living animals. Con fails to address this, too. Thus, I vote Pro.