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

The World Needs a One Child Policy

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 289 times Debate No: 105991
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I believe that the world really needs a one child policy. The world is terribly overpopulated, and the environment is falling apart. The best way to curb overpopulation and save the world is to implement a strict one child policy for every couple.

To clarify my rule, twins, etc. count as a violation of the One Child Policy. Furthermore, there should be harsher measures to kill people who break the One Child Policy.

China had a One Child Policy from 1979 to 2015, and it reduced the population of China substantially. However, overseas adoptions and not using the One Child Policy on already born children has been as issue.

As con, what do you think of the One Child Policy. I believe the world should enforce the One Child Policy, and kill off everyone who is not the oldest kid in the family and all twins, etc, in order to save the planet and save the polar bears.

Once you accept my challenge, you will have 3 days to come up with a convincing argument to contradict me.

Good luck!


Ah, once more. A person who doesn't understand the way in which the world works. Here we go.

One Child Policies are a violation of human rights and should be implemented only when no other options are available. You say that China implemented this policy, and it worked well. However, I'd like to remind you that we are not China, and we are not communist as they were back in 1979, and we are not suffering a population crisis of serious magnitude here in America. China only implemented their one child policy because they were on the verge of collapse. America is a first world country with a strong economy, and we do not need to take such serious measures.

Countries should only have one child policies if the government and the people both agree that the population is getting out of hand. Having a certain number of children should not be mandatory unless you're actually about to starve.

Countries should have One Child Policies when they need to, and stop them when they don't. They are a last measure. They are the extra parachute. They should not be used simply because we over exaggerate the dangers of overpopulation. Parents who want to have more than one child-and have the money to do so-will be outraged at this law, and they could potentially revolt.

We are not going to kill our offspring just to "Save the Polar Bears". We have better ways of preventing birth, like, say, condoms, which are available at stores everywhere. Or an IUD. Or just plain abstinence, which makes the most sense of all. Better to never have kids than to kill them.

And you say we should not only kill the babies of rulebreakers, but also parents who violate this law? You're crazy! That's frickin' murder! You could just give them, like a month in jail! Not KILL them! Are you sick in the head?

Overall, you have not provided any real evidence as to why we should implement this, and you speak as if we live in a post apocalyptic hellhole. I think you might be the victim of media fear mongering. The world is not falling apart, but if we implement your dumb one child policy, there are going to be riots in the streets and things are going to be a heck of a lot worse.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, so we last debated that we should reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World. (excluding the Pyramids and the Statue of Zeus). Now we are here to debate over the One Child Policy.

I believe that the world needs a one child policy. We are approaching 10 billion, and there must be some way to control population growth before a major famine or World War 3 erupts in the next 50 years or so.

Apparently, it appears that no countries currently have the one child policy, but it would be much better for the environment if we do.

For personal family reasons, the world needs a One Child Policy. Having only one child saves money, time, and stress; furthermore, the mother gets less stretch marks, potbellies, etc. as the result of pregnancy.

But with family interests and advantages aside, the world is really overpopulated. With more people on the Earth, it is more likely that World War 3 or a famine might erupt. And what's more, we increase the likelihood of a Hitler, Nero, or Kim Jong-Un that terrorizes society. Due to a lack of resources and pollution, animals, such as polar bears, are dying out, and many animal species are becoming extinct. The best way is to strictly limit each household to one child.

To enforce this law, let us make having a second child punishable by death. Also, count twins, triplets, etc. as a violation of the proposed One Child Policy. And furthermore, if you are not currently the oldest child in the family, you will be killed.

The One Child Policy will last as long as necessary, until the world population is under control.

Just like how while reconstructing the 7 ancient wonders will be difficult and costly, it will improve our cultural knowledge; similarly, implementing the One Child Policy will be difficult and costly, but on the other hand it will prevent overpopulation and save the environment before it is too late.

There is only one round left, I suppose. I really want to see some convincing arguments coming from you.


We ARE approaching ten billion, but there are alternatives to killing our offspring. We can invent new technologies that can help allow for the population boom. We can invent more reliable crops, better housing, or more efficient travel. We don't need to kill people to achieve that goal.

You are one of those people who sit out on the street and hold a sign that says "The End Is Near". It's not near at all. We are not approaching an apocalypse, population isn't that big a deal, and we'll fix it once it does become a problem. So sit tight.

You're also immature in how you don't understand exactly what it would mean if every country on Earth implemented a One Child Policy and you fail to recognize the results of such a severe and life changing action. People will not submit to your tyranny, they will overthrow you before you sign in to the White House on the first day. people should be able to have kids if they want to, and control it if they don't want to have kids. Not that hard.

You're a sexist, because you imply that having potbellies or stretch marks is a bad thing. It's unattractive, but you shouldn't fall in love for looks, you misogynist pig.

True, having one child saves time, money, and stress, but most families know how many kids they can and can't support.

The world really is overpopulated. I think I'll give you an alternative solution. Instead of forcing the populace into mass suicide, how about you educate them about the dangers of overpopulation and see if they'll fix stuff on their own. Don't you have any faith in humanity? If you ruled the world with your warped ideals, would you be a just king?

We're fine right now. But, let me tell you, if you implement a one child policy without the consent of the people, you are the equivalent of Hitler. can you imagine a world where parents are EXECUTED just because they have two kids? Are you going to set up concentration camps for all the parents and babies who disobey your selfish whims?

Also, why do you compare HITLER to NERO? Nero wasn't as bad as Hitler. Use a better metaphor, OK?

We're not gonna kill ourselves just so polar bears can live. I'm sure we can coexist in some way. You're mixing up Global Warming with Population. They're two different problems. related, yes, but this debate should be about Global Warming if you want. And why do you care about only polar bears? What's up with that?

Again, very poorly thought out, no evidence, no well constructed plan, you oversimplify the lives of 7 billion people to what you want. You don't understand how the world works, there's only 3 rounds, the word limit is too short, and you think you're a genius or something.

Just so I get some evidence points from the judges, here's a link to the world birth and death rate counter. People die about as much as they get born. A little less, but you get the drift. We won't hit a population crisis for another century or so. THEN we'll kill our offspring.
Debate Round No. 2


So you say that there are better alternatives than killing off people. But even if we stabilize at 7.6 billion, the world is still overpopulated. Frankly, in my opinion, we should have a One Child Policy to limit population growth.

The world population is projected to hit a whopping 7 billion by the end of this month, and researchers suggest it could reach 10 billion within the next century. On the one hand, this means we're a great success " after all, the goal of any species is to expand and conquer. But, on the other hand, all that expansion means more mouths to feed, which requires more space and energy, which increases the demand on resources and the environment, perhaps too large a demand for Earth to support.

So Life's Little Mysteries asks: How can we curb this growth? Should there be a global one-child policy, like the one enforced in China?

One child per family

In 1979, in response to two decades of rapid population growth the Chinese government announced a policy that limited each family to just one child (although there are exceptions). The worry was that if growth continued at such a pace, it would be a crushing burden to both society and the economy. [How Many People Can the World Support?]

In terms of limiting population growth, the policy was successful, cutting China's population by an estimated 250 million to 300 million people, according to Chinese authorities. But this success came with a price. Reports of forced abortion and sterilization abound. And, because of a preference for male children in China, sex-selective abortions have skewed the country's male-female birth ratio from the natural biological ratio of 105 to 100 to 121 to 100, resulting in millions more young men than women. Socially, the consequences range from mental health problems to kidnapping and trafficking women for marriage.

Social questions aside, does a global one-child policy make sense?

"I don't think that's a good idea, frankly," said John Bongaarts, vice president of the Population Council, a global nonprofit and NGO. "First of all, nobody's going to accept it. There's been a massive outcry over the one-child policy in China as coercive, and there's not a single person that I know that would support it. Plus, you don't really want the fertility to decline to one child per woman, because you end up in the same problems as Japan has now, and nobody wants that."

Aging population

The world's population may be growing, with an overall fertility of 2.5 births per woman, but it isn't increasing at an even rate worldwide. Fertility rates in Japan and throughout Europe, for example, are very low, at just 1.4 and 1.6 births per woman, respectively. In other regions, the rates are high, including Africa (4.7) and parts of Asia and Latin America. The U.S. is somewhere in the middle (2.1).

That is why we need a One Child Policy.


Great, we're almost done. I want to get this over with.

We're not in that hot a stew. Nobody is going to implement a one child policy anytime soon, only when everything becomes insane. Then we'll worry about that. We have time, though, to try and stop something like that before it happens. We can educate people about the horrors of overpopulation. We can give sex ed classes. We can dole out birth control pills. We don't need a one child policy at the current moment and I don't think we will until at least 2100.

Again, you compare us to China. But we're not China. And neither are most of the other 165 countries on the planet. Lots of countries AREN'T overpopulated. Have you seen Canada? Just miles and miles of Arctic tundra. They don't need to implement a one child policy. One Child Policies, again, should only be put forth when there's a serious problem. If a country is on the verge of becoming Mad Max, then they should enforce a one child policy. If not, people should get to have as many kids as they want.

Keep in mind, judges, we aren't talking about abortion. This is something much more insane.

And then you go on about how horrible China's one child policy was, and you point out its flaws. Please, stay on your own side. If you're all in favor of one child policies, don't go into how they create mental illness and sex trafficking. You're fighting yourself there. Do you even know how to debate?

Yeah, then you talk about how Japan needs more kids than they have. Are you crazy or something? Why do you bring up arguments like this if you just decide that they suck in the end? You're probably going to lose, but I don't care, I'm done with the whole thing, One Child Policies suck, you care too much about polar bears, you want to execute parents who have more than one kid, you overestimate the dangers of overpopulation, and so on. Yadda yadda yadda. I'm outta here.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.