The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

The world is not yet overpopulated and population will stop growing (eventually)

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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,097 times Debate No: 20166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (8)

 

16kadams

Pro

first round acceptance only, ask questions in comments.

I will provide definition:

Overpopulate:

to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities: Expanding industry has overpopulated the western suburbs.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

I await your acceptance.

Also the BOP is = for both as this topic has proof for both sides and I would like it to be =. No arguing otherwise. Also the resolution you argue is : the world is already overpopulated, and population will continue to grow forever. I say the world is not yet overpopulated, and the population will peak and level off or decline sometime in the future.
imabench

Con

I accept
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

C1: fertility rates have been dropping since 1060

http://www.google.com...

This graph shows that there was a huge down in fertility rates, showing that population growth is slow. And in 2009 it began a small decrease again.

Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years. [2]

The CIA agrees with me, populations will decline.

C2: food and poverty are not related to overpopulation (as of now)

Among the key causes of hunger are natural disasters, conflict, poverty, poor agricultural infrastructure and over-exploitation of the environment. Recently, financial and economic crises have pushed more people into hunger. [2]

They do not list overpopulation a problem.

Trinidad and Tobago show the lowest percentage of stunted children under five and Guatemala the highest (almost twelve times greater); yet Trinidad and Tobago's cropland per person-a key indicator of human population density-is less than half that of Guatemala's. [3]

This indicates that a dense possibly overcrowded community has less hunger, ruling out the possibility of overpopulation and hunger.

How does one determine when a nation is overpopulated? There are no clear demographic indicators for this fuzzy notion. If population density is used as the criterion, then Bermuda and Monaco would be crisis zones, while Nigeria and Ethiopia should be paradise. [4]

So if we use population density (which is what overpopulation supporters use) then those places would be Heaven and hell. But the less dense underpopulated areas are war zones. And are starving, the "overpopulated" countries are really good and most people are not hungry.

C3: China's one child policy

According to the CIA world factbook you need 2 kids per mom to keep populations the same and 2.1 to grow. The 2.1 is factoring in the baby mortality rate. So in all reality you need 3 kids per mom.

The one-child policy has been spectacularly successful in reducing population growth, particularly in the cities (reliable figures are harder to come by in the countryside). [5]

One Chinese official said the one-child policy has prevented 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of Europe. [5]

So their population control works which has helped stabilize growth.

C4: UN predictions

According to the United Nations, the world population will reach 9.1 billion by 2050 — an increase of about 50% from current levels. [6]

C5: population will stop growing

Despite a growth burst that more than doubled the global human population over the past 50 years, a study released today predicts it will peak at 9 billion by the year 2070 and then begin to decline. [7]

"People thought for many years that we would breed ourselves out of existence," says Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics and history at State University of New York at Stonybrook and co-author of the study appearing in this week's Nature. "They thought we'd produce so many children, there would be no standing room left on the planet. But now it seems our population will peak. [7]

In the future, world population has been expected to reach a peak of growth, from there it will decline due to economic reasons, health concerns, land exhaustion and environmental hazards. According to one report, it is very likely that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the 21st century. [8]

"There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's population will most likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion; other predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. The world may soon be facing an under-population crisis -- a prospect that has all but escaped media scrutiny." -- Anthony C. LoBaido [10]

C6: population may even decline

Further, there is some likelihood that population will actually decline before 2100. [8]

Population has already declined in the last decade or two in Eastern Europe, the Baltics and in the Commonwealth of Independent States. [8]

Ben Wattenberg says UN demographers have finally accepted the extent of declining birth rates.

Now, in a new report, United Nations demographers have bowed to reality and changed this standard 2.1 assumption. For the last five years they have been examining one of the most momentous trends in world history: the startling decline in fertility rates over the last several decades. In the United Nations' most recent population report, the fertility rate is assumed to be 1.85, not 2.1. This will lead, later in this century, to global population decline. [9]

C7: most of the world is empty

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido [10]

C8: water

we use more than half of the accessible surface fresh water [11]

So about half of the fresh water supply is being used. But you can always use sea water.

we use 8% of the primary productivity of the oceans (25% for upwelling areas and 35% for temperate continental shelf areas). [11]

So we still have access to 92% of ocean water (which can be purified to fresh after, ex Iran)

C9: food production

In fact, in 1994, the United Nations Population Fund acknowledged that the world can feed itself in its report that concluded that "[food] production should be sufficient to meet all needs for the foreseeable future..." [12]

"Africa is the least populated of all the continents and has the ability to feed the entire world two times over...The good news for the people of Africa is that they need not suffer in poverty any longer. The solution is simple: free the people to produce; allow the people to keep what they produce; and the people will produce." [13]

So Africa can feed us, food is not a problem.

C10: you can fit the world in all of these places

Oregon (97,132 sq mi)
New York (53,989 sq mi)
Colorado (104,100 sq mi)
Minnesota (86,943 sq mi)
Florida (59,928 sq mi)
Missouri (69,709 sq mi)
Wyoming (97,818 sq mi)
Rhode Island (1,231 sq mi) [14]

Yeah if we can fit everyone into Rhode island we are ok.

==conclusion==

The world is not overpopulated currently, population growth will stop, and our amount of people are sustainable. Vote PRO! Thank you.

==sources==

https://www.cia.gov... [1]
http://www.wfp.org... [2]
http://www.globalissues.org... [3]
http://www.jefflindsay.com... [4]
http://factsanddetails.com... [5]
http://www.theglobalist.com... [6]
http://abcnews.go.com... [7]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]
http://www.futurepundit.com... [9]
http://www.juntosociety.com... [10]
http://www.dbc.uci.edu... [11]
Sunday Times Business Times, "Too many people, so few resources", by Bronwen Maddox. 28 August 1994, p5 [12]
Ibid, p70 [13]
http://www.firstgen.org... [14]
imabench

Con

1) The graph that the Pro has provided only relates to fertility rates of the United States, here is the projected growth rate for the world,



The problem here is that falling fertility rates does not mean that populations will shrink,but that population GROWTH will shrink, the world is expected to cross the 7 billion people threshold very soon, and in the near future we will easily cross 8 and then 9 billion. Also, fertility rates are still at an alarmingly high rate despite their decrease, in parts of Africa alone women having 6 or more children is normal,



2) Overpopulation is not a cause of hunger, however overpopulation does exacerbate the effects caused by hunger. If a sudden drought were to suddenly wipe out an entire harvest, then countries that house larger populations would face a more devastating effect due to the famine. Somalia is once again in the midst of a famine, but with a population of 9 million if the same were to happen for say Mali, population 15 million, then overpopulation now only increases the effects of hunger and starvation since the number of people affected by it are greater.

3) The reason China needed a one child policy program in the first place was to forestall the rapid growth of the chinese population following WWII and to ease the burdens that the rapidly increasing country was placing on the economy, environment, and government.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How can you claim that the world is not yet overpopulated when the largest country in the world already decided it was over populated 40 years ago?

4)......... The world will add 2+ billion people in about 40 years and since most of these people will be born in Africa and India the affects of such overpopulation would only become more apparant as the years progress.

5) Through the definition of carrying capacity one would automatically think that the human population would one day "top out" but look through history, man kind has invented countless machines and devices used to obtain more and more food from the same amount of land time and tme again. The invention of the plow, fertilizers, insecticides, genetics, etc have consistantly increased the yield of food that farmers can harness through a fixed amount of land. Mankinds ingenuity will constantly raise the carrying capacity of the human race on Earth and at the current rate of science, we may never come close to such a number. You claim the world will stop growing due to many reasons, but the reasons you provide already have solutions to them. People are becoming far more sanitary and health-orientated, economic growth can be linked in some cases to population growth, we can get more and more out of land and with the invention of the skyscraper we can now exploit land better than ever before, and environmental hazards of population growth are now understood and are being treated by humanity mroe than ever, and will only continue to be the case in the future.

6) You argue that populations might decline even though you quote the UN for saying that it will reach 9 billion by 2040, pick a side already...

7) There isnt any evidence the world is 97% empty, the source you provided just shows the guy saying exactly what you copy pasted. If the world somehow is 97% empty, then humanity is cramming close to 7 billion people onto 3% of the worlds land. Im no statistics expert but if you have 7 billion people crammed into 3% of the worlds land then that could probably be defined as "over populated" compared to the other 97%....
8) I agree that only half of the accessible fresh clean water is being used, but since 99.7% of the worlds water is NOT fresh clean water that is easily accessible, then that leaves a considerably smaller proportion of fresh water that can be used for an ever growing population of humans soon to top 7 BILLION people..... and having access to water is one of the issues that can cause over population. if you have 9 billion people living on a desert where fresh water isnt easy to come by, then your going to have some overpopulation problems...

As for using just seawater, the cost for chemically altering seawater into clean drinking water to set up the facilities and power them make them only available to very industrious countries, not the poorer countries of Africa that could use these the most. Also, I doubt that nations like Chad, Niger, Mali, Ethiopia, Botswana, and Niger (the country with the highest fertility rate in the world that really needs water) could explot seawater since they dont border the oceans.

9) "So Africa can feed us, food is not a problem."



^ africa



^ us

good luck explaining that one..... considering how Africa cant even feed itself right now.

http://www.unicefusa.org...
http://www.missionariesofafrica.org...;
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
http://www.un.org...
http://www.independent.co.uk...


10) Read your own survey Pro, you seem to have hilariously misread the information on it.

This argumetn the Pro found states that if you took the entire world, divided it into families of four and gave them one acre each, then all those people would take up a space of about 80% of the US. however this half baked study doesnt take into account that,
1) that not all of the US can be occupied, a good chunk of it such as the mohave desert ot the Rocky Mountains would be impossible to inherit so the amount of land left over would be far smaller.
2) If you put these people there then their would be absolutely no space left for growing food, creating jobs, making goods people need, providing services they need, no space for buildings, industries, etc. neded to actually sustain them to live there meaning that the world cpuld live in the US, but not for a long time.
and 3) the world doesnt all live in families of four

Conclusion:
The world is over populated and governments have been realizing this 40 years in the past. The world population is expected to hit 7 billion by the end of this year, 9 billion by 2040, and 10 billion by 2100 implying that if the world does stop growing, its sure as hell wont be anytime soon.....
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

The graph

Where is it from? Can't trust uncited evidence. Will refute when it is cited.

It also proves thet fertility rates will fall, therefore slowng population growth, also:

A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. [1]

So if the rate falls below 2 then population will shrink.

"Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history." [2]

I need to do this in word it keeps deleting, this is my 5th draft.

Hunger

by definiton if we where ovepulated we would be all in hunger as overpopulation wold et up food and water reasaorces. But you concede we are not all starving, therefore he basically concedes.

China

He also concedes again the one child policy will drastically cut populations, regionally and world wide.

He also uses a falacy if a country was overpopulated 4rs ago how is the world not overpopulated. imabench we argue world overpopulation not regional. America is not overpopulated obviously, and some are are under populated, but the thing is those regions fully affect the whole world. The killings in rowanda or the anarchy n somalia doesn't affect us as is reigonal. SO my opponents argument here is a fallacy.

Africa

My first source says europe will lose millions population, my seconsays america will lose some too, and another source will prove brazil will some:

http://www.google.com...

This graph shows the popn fertility under 2, 2.1-2 is what you need for a stable popualtion. So their population will decline.

My opponent once again says that regional changes will affect world problems. At first it will over time the countries and continents I have mentioned proves you wrong.

Top out

My opponent says my reaons are false and population will grow, which is false according to UN estimates:

A UN PDF link is provided (3rd source) they say around 2300 or 2100 populationw WILL STABILIZE and top out and maybe even decrease. So the toping of is gonna happen no mater what, wether we will flat line or go down is the question now. [3]

other predictions:

But Haub said the observed increases in industrialized-world fertility rates will have a relatively minor effect overall - populations are expected to decline over time if average fertility rates remain below 2.1, which demographers consider the stabilization rate, absent net migration.

"Developed countries have largely painted themselves into a corner now," Haub said, referring to the likelihood that their low fertility will result in smaller populations in the years ahead. "All the growth will come from developing countries." [4]

and another:



Change in world population




Linked to 5th source.
Population will flat out. Also the site shows japans population will hit near 0. So sure india and africa will keep pumping out babies, but the rest of the worlds population decline will make it flat line.

UN

I picked a side. I picked the UN, if you do to then thanks for the debate. But please don't let it end up like our fetus debate lol.

97%

I will define overpopulation again:

the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

dang it d my explanation. basically I said the worlds cities only take up 3% an al areas take another few percent and that life is better now with higher pops on that 3% then in 1700. And called your arnother minor fallacy.

Water

a few things:

1. water filters filter water
2. most water that frwch is drinkable after filtration which most water goes through now. (that is universal I provided no source as all of the goverments in the world [well most of them] have city wide filters).
3. Salt water can be frashened easily [6]

They can also ship the water to these countries.

Africa

easy to explain. Only ertian areas have acces to foods and those areas can feed the world. Tos pictures are from dar-4. Dar-4 has no reasources, just starving people and desert . poor people :( africa CAN sistain the whole world with right tools and transportation. will provide more proof:

a video for those who wan't to hear the tanzanian president: http://www.aol.com...

Now real not just links *looks at you* jk

Also it sn't have the corps to feed it's nations, but what I meant was it had the potential to. [7] It has the potential to feed the whole world and 9 billion people+ if they get enough workers and enough crops. It has a huge potential and if need be get moving and feed the world. [7]

lol so now they struggle but they have the POTENTIAL to feed the world. SO if one co can then we're ok.

survey

.
I did you mismy arguments. It said in any one of those places all 7 billion people could fit. So 80% of america is not occupied just any single one of those states. Sorry for the problem in that argument. Also imabench you ignore the study. People could fit there, obiously not get fed. It said it is possible they could all be there temporarily. They would need another state to feed themselves. But the point of that was basically 7 billion people spread out don't take up much space, strengthening my other arguemnt (97%).

==conclusion to rebbutals==

my opponent made weak rebuttals to my case with none of his own, the BOP is split 50-50 as I stated first round. I also challenged him to provide evicence, whic I see none. I also chalenged him to provide evidence that we absolutly could not sustain current populations (as he needs to prove a. we are currently overpopulated, and b, never gonna stop growing) he has not fufullehis bop. I recomend he make a case next round before attacking my arguments. Vote con as I have evidence.

add on to arguments:

C1: fertility rates
my opponent gave that to me

C2: food and overpopulation

gave that to me too

C3: china one child

gave that to me too

C4: UN predictions

proved above

C5: population will stop growing

proved above, no significant rebuttal

C6: populaiton may even decline

fairly proven, but i will add a little.

But now there is a growing consensus among demographers over a new forecast: that women in nations with 80 percent of the world's population will begin to limit their families to two children or fewer.

Before the century ends, the number of humans likely will start to shrink, reckons James Chamie, director of the United Nation's population division. That will be a "momentous" reversal in direction. [8]

low on room that's all I can do.

C7: most of the world is empty

no signifacant rebuttal here and after saying that it was untrue argues it like I was right but somehow tried make it pro him.

C8: water

proven

C9: food production

no rebuttal

C10: fit the world

proven, poor rebuttal

==conclusion==


he basically conceded my arguments or didn't refute. Vote pro ad my opponent has not t his BOP nor dos he have arguments. The world is not overpopulated, and populations will top off.




https://www.cia.gov... [1]
http://www.census.gov... [2]
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/.../WorldPop2300final.pdf [3]
http://www.worldwatch.org... [4]
http://wmbriggs.com...; [5]
http://ga.water.usgs.gov... [6]
http://online.wsj.com... [7]
http://www.csmonitor.com... [8]
imabench

Con

Evidence that the human population is expected to grow in the immediate future,
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
http://www.prb.org...
http://www.earthportals.com...
http://www.susps.org...
http://rainforests.mongabay.com...

The Pro claims that you need a 2.1% fertility rate to maintain populations and that current fertility rates are dropping.
The current world fertility rate is 2.5%
http://www.google.com...

You might also notice on that graph that in recent years fertility rate on average (according to the CIA) from year to year has only dropped by about .02%..... this means that at the current rate of drop in fertility rates, it would take another 90 years for it to fall to the 2.1% levels..... Until then human populations will only continue to grow and continue to increase the strains of overpopulation on the world....

The Pro clarifies that over population is "to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities"

Overpopulation is literally defined as any area with so many people that available resources are strained, if you look at any major city anywhere in the world, you will find that because of the vast number of people living in those cities that those cities have had to expand very far outwards for resources needed to sustain life there. Had those cities not had the ability to acquire more resources outside of the city itself, then the people living there would quickly starve to death or die from lack of water. Not one single city in the world can sustain its population with food and water, they must always be brought in from the surroundings. If these supply routes were compromised then the cities would quickly starve to death.

As for China and the one-child policy, that policy itself was the most controversial population control method ever implemented in history, if you are implying that the world can simply adopt this measure to stop overpopulation then you concede that the world does have an overpopulation problem but ignore the fact that such a policy would not be easily adopted in most, if any, countries in the world.

As for the Africa argument, I have shown that Africa cannot even feed itself, and the idea that Africa can produce enough food and have the tools to logistically move millions of tons of food overseas to feed the other 5 billion people in the world is laughable, since the Pro has absolutely no evidence to suggest this is possible or probable. He is only implying that it is possible for them to do this if Africa "if they get enough workers and enough crops. It has a huge potential and if need be get moving and feed the world"which I think we can all agree will not be happening anytime soon since the last time Africa had the potential and resources to feed the world was......... never

In the carrying capacity argument the Pro has not addressed that human technology always allow for the human population to continue growing with no cap limit and he even mentions how Africa and India will continue growing in millions of people.

After the Pro decided to stick with the UN statements showing how the world population in projected to add another billion people in the coming years and dropped his idea that world populations will immediately decline..... That shows how the human population is only going to continue to grow at a very fast pace.

With the 97% argument (after he redefined his own definition of over population that he gave in the first round) I translated it into English and hes arguing how in cities the quality in life has improved then they were 300 years ago. While quality of life has increased that means that now people will now be living much longer than they did before, and longer lifespans combined with an ever exploding population growth only adds to the fact that overpopulation is indeed a problem.

As for the water argument the Pro provided, Water filters do filter water, thats sort of what it means Pro, but you would need thousands of them to help get water to millions of people (expensive water filters may i add) and not only that, but water filters dont help if you dont have water in the first place. Secondly the Pro only meantions how fresh water is easily fileterable...... no duh. The problem is that 99.7% of the world's water isnt fresh and isnt available for consumption which the Pro seems to have ignored.

In the study the Pro miscited, he claims that the survey only shows that "People could fit there, obiously not get fed" which conflicts with his own (redefined) definition of overpopulation which he himself claims is "the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash". and if you have 7 billion people living in one place and not have any food, i think that qualifies as an impaired quality of life.

So to finalize this entire debate
Fertility rates: I have shown that fertility rates in the world are still very high, only falling by a very small margin, and that fertility rates does not stop overpopulation, only the rate of which we continue to add to it.
Food and Population: I argued that population puts an increased strain on food supplies in a situation where a population suddenly loses access to food supplies which is exacerbated if the population is very large. Pro didnt even argue this one
One Child Policy: For this one my argument was that overpopulation was a problem in countries decades ago and that in the past populations severely harmed the surrounding ecosystems which according to the Pro's definition of overpopulation qualifies as overpopulation. The pro dropped this argument.
UN Predictions: I have shown that the UN believes that world populations continue to grow in vast numbers, Pro completely ignored this one and stuck to his own hypothetical unfactually based randomly cited studies he found on the internet that he doesnt even elaborate on.
Population may even decline: Again, forecasted to increase in hundreds of millions of people in a matter of years...
Most of the world is empty: I argued that most of the world cannot even be inhabited (oceans, deserts mountainous regions, arctic tundra, etc.) and that the few parts of the world left over have to hold 7 billion people.... Pro ignored this
Water: I showed how a vast majority of the world's water is undrinkable or is inaccessible and that countries who need water the most do not have the financial means or location to access water to support its population. Pro claims I conceded this argument to him even though he dropped them completely
Food production: I showed how Africa does not have the means, manpower, technology, or even luck to handle the task of feeding the entire world when they cannot even feed themselves. Pro only argues that it is possible even though I have shown it literally isnt.
People can fit in the world: Pro used a poor example he himself miscited to show how the world can fit comfortably in the US when in reality a good majority of them are crammed in the slums of India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa, etc. which again by the definition of overpopulation implies the world is indeed overpopulated...

I'll let the voters decide who dropped whose arguments, and whose grammar was better too.....
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yay
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
odd it just dropped 1% for no reason...hate this, dislike losing
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
how did it drop...let me see.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
it says your up to 63% now...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
what? my win record lowered to 61% yet the debate i lost are winning again wtf
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
this feels better
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
and now its resolved :)
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I know I asked for a counter on my debate with him.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
someone votebombed...
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Pro had superior sources; however, Con had much better S&G. Arguments goes to Pro as well. One of the reasons being is that while fertility rates may be high as of now, they are still lowering. Thus, it is likely that in the future, fertility rates will drop below 2.5%. In other words, population will slowly lower its growth rate until it stops completely.

It was a close, good debate, and both sides did very well.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering the vote bomb of RussianFish99...and, to top it off with my mirthful humor, I'd like to quote Horace when he wrote "Don't ask (it's forbidden to know) what final fate the gods have given to me and you, Leuconoe, and don't consult Babylonian horoscopes"....
Vote Placed by RussianFish99 5 years ago
RussianFish99
16kadamsimabenchTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: The sources definitely go to pro, but con's graphs are only for the near future. Extend that long graph out several centuries, and the projected population will actually start to decline! Con's sources are not reliable.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: imabench had superior S/G throughout. I felt like Pro was cheap for trying to present a fake graph that only showed fertility rate for USA when it should have been for whole world, hoping Con wouldn't notice. So, bad graph = sources to con. Pro tried to get away with refuting the proper graph by con by saying "cant trust unreliable sources". Thought it was unfair = conduct to con.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Opinion (based on several documentaries and articles): the world is artificially overpopulated because of oil, and it will decrease when oil production dwindles (we have passed peak oil). I detected more spelling and grammar errors on Con's side than on Pro's side. Furthermore, Pro had better organization. Con made his case much more convincing, and his rebuttals were more comprehensive. Pro used better sources and cited specific points in his case.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Close one, but I have to give sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close one....