The Instigator
masterdrave
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half

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 3 votes the winner is...
masterdrave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 59741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

masterdrave

Pro

All problems in the world, AIDS, influenza, natural disasters even, are all caused by overpopulation. If we eliminate simply the children, the mentally retarded and the disabled people in our society, the population would swiftly be reduced down to 4 billion. This is the amount of people the world requires to function stably. We need to begin killing.
Aerogant

Con

No, we need to kill stupidity and negligence. Killing people will not solve the problem. The problem existed far before it could existed, but people ignored it and places feelings over facts; stupidity over sensibility. Want a better shaped world? Well then, you better shape the mind. Right now, it looks like my mother's cooking!
Debate Round No. 1
masterdrave

Pro

First of all, when replying or in your attempt to make a point, please try to structure your sentences in a way that is grammatically appealing. "The problem existed far before it could existed." Great, thanks Daffy Duck. Secondly, you're all fools if you think that birth control or another slow and "sensible" way of reducing our population will work. Birth control can be shirked and contravened, but eliminating half of our population, bringing it under the 4 billion mark, is an efficient way of dealing with the problem. If you're still too ignorant to understand the risks and exponential qualities of population growth on our planet, simply take a look at the first picture on this website http://www.susps.org..., exactly. It was only in the 1800's when the population hit 1 billion. Now, a mere 200 years later, we are at 7 billion. What do you think our world will be like in 100 years, 500? Most probably nearing extinction. The time to act is now, and if we just choose to sit around and keep living in denial, there won't be a future for any grandchildren, great grandchildren, or simply our ideals for the future of the human race to live in.
Aerogant

Con

All I have to say is one thing, Pro, "let's start with you" - and immediately, your entire argument is destroyed as it being solely a delusion built on your hatred towards people, while hypocritically denouncing your own issues.
Debate Round No. 2
masterdrave

Pro

Oh my... he's got me. What can I do? I yield! I have to yield! Oh please save me! SAVE ME!
Aerogant

Con

Now see how easy it is to cloud your ocean? Always keep the water and the sky clear from delusion.
Debate Round No. 3
masterdrave

Pro

masterdrave forfeited this round.
Aerogant

Con

Your icon is distasteful.
Debate Round No. 4
masterdrave

Pro

Your entire argument is "distasteful". And your lack of understanding in regards to sarcasm is also "distasteful". I really can't be bothered completely destroying such a fool like you, but I will say this. I would happily be first in line to go if it meant preserving the generations to come. This world is meant to be lived in, not brought down piece by piece. If we do nothing, sitting around and pretending like everything around us is okay, then your terrible metaphor about oceans being "clouded" will instead have a literal meaning to it. This world will die, with the entirety of humanity along with it.
Aerogant

Con

The funny thing is, I knew it was sarcasm. You're all so gullible and all you do is condescend all day every day because there's nothing about you that amounts to anything, hence why you continue to keep repeating the same redundancies as per the First Round of acceptance, when you've already pressed the bloody accept button, second you always cry resolution and BOP, when they don't apply to debates that involve philosophy, lastly, there's just so much hypocrisy in everything you do - you understand nothing of actual discussion, because you're not here to reason; you're here to rationalize.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
"Your icon is distateful"
lol
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
that doesn't even apply! his arguments are untouched any your just spewing random things that you don't understand.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It's a logical fallacy - one cannot say one thing without resorting to a butterfly effect.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
its not a logical fallacy, my goodness, you committed the fallacy, an appeal to fear, it doesn't address the argument it addresses the opponent, and he sarcastically responds. you haven't even refuted his case.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Perhaps you missed the part where I picked up on the logical fallacy of his by applying him to his own equation, which no longer works because one cannot want to kill, without promoting the idea that others can kill them as well.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
no refutation against pros arguments so far... the forfeit gives con conduct but not arguments
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
We don't really need to begin killing. Forced birth control would probably work just as well, and it would be called murder by far less people.
Posted by Eggsample 2 years ago
Eggsample
More reasoning and sources would be nice
Posted by mit 2 years ago
mit
The super rich...The morbidly rich, the Biderbergs, Rothchilds, evil bankers, war profiteers, corporate fascists - they'll live. The rest of us? Expendable...Blamo! Population problem solved. I'll miss everyone...*sniff*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
masterdraveAerogantTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: con was very rude
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
masterdraveAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff'd. Pro had a source. Pro had an argument for the resolution based on health, Con attempted to show hypocrisy and failed.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
masterdraveAerogantTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several unsupported assertions. Con made contrary assertions. Then the debate spiraled into nonsense. I'm nulling this vote. As always, I'm happy to clarify my RFD.