The world is over populated
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept and I thank my opponent for setting up this debate. Let's get down to business.
"The world is over populated"
I will be arguing against this resolution. Therefore, to win all I must do is show that the world is not overpopulated.
Burden of Proof
Pro will have the burden of proof as he is putting forth the positive claim.
Overpopulated: The population of an area in too large numbers
Since Pro has made arguments in round one I assume that this round is for actual arguments and not just acceptance, so here we go.
1. Too many people
Pro claims that there are too many people, and this is just not the case. Every single person on Earth could fit into Texas and have a 66'x66' plot of land (enough for a single family home + yard) . This would leave the entire rest of the inhabitable earth devoid of human life.
2. Too few resources
Pro contends that there are too few resources, giving examples such as food and oil. In terms of food the problem isn't that there's too little food, it's that a select few groups of people are eating a disproportionate amount. Consider this; Americans, while only making up 5% of the worlds population, eat almost a quarter of all consumed food (24%). In fact, the average American consumes as much food as 370 Ethiopians. It's not just a matter of food consumed either. Americans throw out 200,000 tons (440,924,400 lbs) of edible food every day . Consider also that less than half as many people die from famine each year now than a century ago, even though our population has quadrupled , and World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase .
In terms of oil, we aren't even close to running out. The end of oil has been predicted for over 100 years now and year after year we see that our oil reserves are actually growing. In 1882 it was estimated that there was only 95 million barrels of oil remaining and that we would run out of oil before the end of the decade. By 1919 (37 years later) we still had oil and it was estimated that we would run out of oil in 20 years. By 1950 (31 years later), there was over 100 billion barrels of oil estimated on reserve. This cycle of people predicting the end of oil and oil reserves increasing has continued until today. Long story short, we now have estimated about 1.25 trillion barrels of oil remaining -- over 13,000x as much oil on reserve as was estimated in 1882 when the death of oil was first predicted . I highly recommend checking out the rest of this video for those of you who want the rest of the figures given.
Once again, this isn't an issue of numbers, but an issue of poor management. Consider this;
"Due to developments in waste management, the projected landfill waste for the United States (a relatively massive producer of waste) over the entire next century could be stored in a landfill area only 18 miles on each side." .
This landfill could even be reduced by upwards of 70% due to recycling . So it's clear that trash is only as big of a problem as we let it be -- and even then how big of a problem it can be is exaggerated.
Finally, it has not been established that humans are responsible for climate change. This needs to be established before I can be expected to debunk this claim.
4. Irrelevant Arguments
The rest of Pro's argument is about ways we can reduce our population and the projected benefits of a smaller population. There are numerous problems with what he's said, but there's no point in arguing about it because ultimately these things are irrelevant to both of our positions. All Pro needs to establish is that the world is overpopulated and all I need to do is refute his argument for that resolution. Questions of how to do deal with overpopulation are meaningless unless it is established that the world is overpopulated in the first place.
I've shown that in terms of land, oil and food, the world is not overpopulated nor is it even close to being as such. As it stands right now, Pro's BOP has not been fulfilled.
I look forward to your response.
sapere_aude forfeited this round.
sapere_aude forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.