The Instigator
padfo0t
Pro (for)
Tied
27 Points
The Contender
Im_always_right
Con (against)
Tied
27 Points

The world would be better off with less people.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,471 times Debate No: 5659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

padfo0t

Pro

Hello im_always_right.
First I would like to say that Confucius is sometimes wrong.
Second, Kix are not good for hamster's health.
Third, no one else will know what we(I) am talking about because it nuna their business.

Fourth and of the least importance:

The world would indeed be much better off with less people.

1) More food.
2) Less pollution=better air
3) More job opportunities
4) Im always right hee hee
Im_always_right

Con

I thank my friend Padf00t for offering this debate to me.

"First I would like to say that Confucius is sometimes wrong."

WTF did that come from?! (W=Where in this case)

"Second, Kix are not good for hamster's health."

LOL, that has nothing to do with the debate, so will not argue here. Also didn't you say Chip ate 7 peices?

"Third, no one else will know what we(I) am talking about because it nuna their business."

I disagree, even though it is "nuna their business", they do not know because they were not informed of the issue at hand, with your mouster.

"Fourth and of the least importance:"

^ is what the debate is about! So most important.

"1) More food."

1) less people to make the food.

"2) Less pollution=better air"

2) The air wont get any better.

"3) More job opportunities"

3) Less need for jobs.

"4) Im always right hee hee"

WTF?! (W=What as ussual again)

Also:

How much less? By less you could mean like 1, person is keeping the world from being such a wonderful place.

If my opponent means many people were gone, then that wouldn't be beneficial to EVERYONE. Is he offering his family to have cleaner air? It would not be beneficial to everyone. Also think of all the now domestic animals like cats, dogs hamsters, mousters, and all the other pets people enjoy, that can't survive in the wild very easily. Many of them don't have homes, and have to be put to sleep.

With this knowlage I contend, the world would not be better off with less people. Not just people but domestic animals as well.

============================================================================
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, of the jury.
============================================================================
Debate Round No. 1
padfo0t

Pro

Your previous pre-argument comments are unneccesary to this debate, and I therefore banish their possibility to be used as arguements.

Carrying on,

As for argument #1:
You say that if there are less people, there wouldn't be as many people to make/harvest the foods.
I simply argue that there are thousands upon thousands of unemployed peoples throughout the world. When these job spots are open, there will be people to fill it. Also, there wouldn't need to be as many farm workers because demand would be lower. As you can see from the following, your argument doesn't hold, and my arguement reigns supreme in this sceneario.
Argument Number 1 goes to padfo0t.

As for argument #2
You said that the air "won't get any better.
This is simply not true. Well-read people know that almost all plants on earth, and the whole ocean ecosystem absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The reason the air is currently (2008) getting worse is because the burning of fosil fuels is creating more carbon than the biosphere can take in.
When there are less people on the earth, there will undoubtedly be needing less energy, burning less fossil fuels creating less carbon dioxide, leading to a positive growth in oxygen:carbon-dioxide ratio meaning better air.
Argument Number 2 goes to padfo0t.

As for argument #3
I understand that you believe if there are less people, the unemployment rate will stay the same.
This is also untrue because there will still be jobs for people to do, but less competition for those jobs. It is, however, true that the number of positions in jobs will be needed- mind you not much less- as the job opportunities today are endless.
Argument Number 3 goes to padfo0t.

"Argument 4" was merely a gesture of playfulness, because I believe humour makes every debate a little bit better.
(reminder to opposition, you do not need to argue that point for it is irrelevant)

"If my opponent means many people were gone, then that wouldn't be beneficial to EVERYONE. Is he offering his family to have cleaner air? It would not be beneficial to everyone. Also think of all the now domestic animals like cats, dogs hamsters, mousters, and all the other pets people enjoy, that can't survive in the wild very easily. Many of them don't have homes, and have to be put to sleep."

Please do not interpret the topic incorrectly. In no way do I mean that half the people on earth should just vanish and die. I stated "less people", and you can conclude that that means the population never got that high in the first place.
Also, you simpathyze with poor animals that "would be left on their own", but these animals would not have come to existence if the people's population were never so high.

As i have clearly rebutted all of your points, and explained again why mine are superior, I would like to add some points that you shall have to rebutt:

i) It is easier to please the masses, if they aren't so massive.
ii) There would be more space to build facilities
iii) You might suggest there would be less brains to think of inventions and the like, but students would get more individual attention, become more educated, and succeed in life.
vi) It would help save species from being hunted to extinction
v) There would be less waste as a result of human activity.

I advise you reasonably argue these points, and come up with some of your own so this may be a fun debate with no more "WTFs".

Good Day!
Im_always_right

Con

I will win because Im_always_right. The votes may seem to say padfo0t wins, but really I am right.

The world would be better off if per capida the population was informed of the issues at hand, like how Kix is bad for a hamster's health. It would also help if the people used less fossil fuels so a simpler solution would be to have people have a limit to how much oil each person can use, and that would be alot easier to enforce than going back in time, and not allowing some of us to even be born. It is also more likely to happen and can help solve the problem.

Also, theoretically, if this did happen, then what if Ben Franklin was never born? Who would be on $100 bills???? And invent all the stuff he made.
Debate Round No. 2
padfo0t

Pro

padfo0t forfeited this round.
Im_always_right

Con

I am sorry my opponent had to forfeit, extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
padfo0t

Pro

padfo0t forfeited this round.
Im_always_right

Con

Im_always_right forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dninja13 7 years ago
dninja13
im_always_right is way right is right on this.
Posted by bored 8 years ago
bored
FEWER!!
It's 'fewer', not less.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
1) More food.
2) Less pollution=better air
3) More job opportunities

1) People create food via agriculture, so no.
2) Not necessarily. The Supreme Court considers CO2 to be a pollutant and without it, plants cannot survive.
3) People create jobs, so no.

Your points are illegitimate.
Posted by dninja13 8 years ago
dninja13
Hi
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
hamsters got this one :P
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Also, in that guy's defence, he simply stated 2 things in a close proximity to eachother, not stating whether the two were in any way connect!
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Um.
2 Im-always-right:

Sorry, I was on a week long retreat w/ no internet access.
Thus, no db8.com thus no argument.

N.E.way>>>
I don't think any of your "arguments" make sense and I am asking for some clarification.
You have not rebutted any of my points so I still am winning this debate.

Have a nice day!
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Ummm pets would prolly die if their owners died, and most of the people around them. Thus making them slowly starve and/or eat each other, thus making it worse on not only people but their pets as well.

OF course I Am biased though, I am an animal lover.
Posted by Bandnerd112 8 years ago
Bandnerd112
What does having a pet matter in a debate that isn't even about pets. . . . . . your biased!!!!
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
You. Are. Voting. Based. On. A. PET!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dninja13 7 years ago
dninja13
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 
Vote Placed by nonparticipant 7 years ago
nonparticipant
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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 
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
padfo0tIm_always_rightTied
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