The Instigator
dude100
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

mandatory sterilization after second child

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 4 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 90390
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

dude100

Pro

Imagine that all the land in the world fit into one acre. It's enough space to feed a family of 4 assuming you all go vegan. If you, your spouse and two children live there, does it make sense to have another child? No it's illogical. So applying this to grand scale, we already have so many hungry people in the world, why would anyone have any more than two children? It seems to me that having any more than two kids at any given time is like saying that other people can't have more than one, but that you are an exception. This is unacceptable and unstable. Why have more children if we already know that we can't even afford the children we already have? Sterilizing all people after they have their second child is a safe and effective way of improving the standard of living for all of humanity.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

Pro claims we should impose mandatory sterilization because the world is overpopulated; we already have hungry people in the world; and sterilization is a safe and effective way of improving the standard of living for all humanity.

Moreover, Pro claims we "can't afford" the children we already have, though I am not exactly sure who or what he is referring to. Surely many people can afford to support their children. While many poor people cannot, this resolution does not only apply to poor people. Therefore, this argument does not apply to the majority of people who are able to keep their offspring alive.

Regarding Pro's argument that the world is overpopulated, that may not necessarily be the case. Overpopulation describes a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment, in such a way that it can no longer support that population [1]. This is not to be confused with overcrowding. Overcrowding should be solved by city planners, not population controllers.

While Pro rightly points out there are hungry people in this world, he fails to prove it is due to overpopulation. There are currently 7 billion people in the world, yet the world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people [2]. "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures." The key causes of hunger include poverty, natural disasters, poor infrastructure, war and political crises. Overpopulation is not the cause of starvation. Theoretically there is enough food in this world to feed everyone, if only it is/can be made available to them.

Pro's last point is that sterilization is "safe and effective." Forced sterilization has been tried in India where the population is very high. There were 1,774 deaths due to botched sterilization procedures according to the Indian government's own statistics [3]. As such, we have no reason to believe that sterilization is safe. Indeed thousands of deaths by forced sterilization can be observed in India [4].

None of Pro's arguments withstand any scrutiny. However there are several key reasons why forced sterilization should NOT be mandatory. First and foremost, women should have sole reproductive rights over their own body. Only women themselves can provide valid consent to their own sterilization. Sterilization should not be performed within a government program or strategy that does not include voluntary consent [5].

The bottom line is that forced sterilization is a violation of bodily integrity and autonomy. "Manipulating a woman"s body against her will takes away her agency to make choices about her body, including the number of children she will have; and is a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to health, that are supposed to be protected by international treaties and instruments, including: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Articles 10h, 12, 16e, Gen. Rec. 19); and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (Women and Health par., 94)" [6].

There are viable alternatives to forced sterilization. People can utilize contraception such as birth control pills and condoms. However ultimately reproductive choices are personal decisions that should be left up to individuals, not the state. Sterilization is not only a violation of individual reproductive rights, but religious rights as well. Many religions call for natural family planning and/or having as many kids as possible, per their religious beliefs [7]. Inhibiting the number of children they have imposes on what they believe God wants for their lives.

[ In Conclusion ]

The government's role is to protect people's rights, not inhibit people's rights. Forced sterilization is a violation of people's religious and reproductive liberties. Pro has failed to prove overpopulation exists and is leading to mass starvation, nor has he proven that sterilization would be effective at solving poverty/hunger. Finally, Pro's proposal is dangerous and risks people's lives. Ultimately the right to bodily autonomy trumps the myth of overpopulation and the state's alleged solutions.

[1] https://www.pop.org...
[2] Gleick, Peter H. "A look at twenty-first century water resources development." Water International 25.1 (2000): 127-138.
[3] http://www.evolutionnews.org...
[4] http://www.telesurtv.net...
[5] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org...
[6] http://news.trust.org...
[7] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dude100

Pro

dude100 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
dude100

Pro

Hello sorry for the late response I didn't have time to write too busy with work and school anyways lets begin.

You say that this concept only applies to poor people yet what happens when we reach the 10 billion limit? Should we just put off the inevitable until it's too late? Even so, that 10 billion only exists because we are over-exausting resources. we are overgrowing crops to the point where we need to put non-organic chemicals in the soil, we are over fishing fish, over hunting game, sharks are almost extinct because of it etc. It's completely illogical to think that we can infinitely grow when not only are our resources exhausted, but even if they weren't there is still a limit. " Humans have exhausted a year"s supply of natural resources in less than eight months, according to an analysis of the demands the world"s population are placing on the planet."
I don't need to prove that hungry people are hungry because of overpopulation I only need to prove that reducing population will increase the amount of food each person has. example, if one family of 4 can only support 2 people they will go hungry but say that same family didn't have 2 kids, they would be able to feed themselves. Your only example of unsafe sterilization is in the case of india, but theoretically if applied to american standards of health, the risks are greatly reduced. You are assuming that sterilization would only apply to women where this concept should also apply to men. My argument is that it should be mandatory for all people to have second child sterilization because it is the responsible thing to do and quite inevitable. Eventually we will reach our population limit and people all over the world will go hungry even in countries with political stability. If you are concerned with matters of morality, perhaps you should consider this, in the future when we reach our limit would you rather have a child you can't feed who will die hungry and miserable or never have the child in the first place?

Personal autonomy and rights are irrelevant to the big picture. If a car is moving in your direction, would you stand there and let it hit you? no because that's illogical; on that same note would you let someone else get hit because it's their problem? If you have a limit on the amount of food you can produce, does it make sense to have more kids that you can't feed? no it's illogical; on that same note, should we allow other people to do the same? By the time we reach our limit, and people finally realize the necessity of mandatory sterilization, we will have to wait years for due process during which time all countries will have the number of starving people go up including middle class americans. If we hold the wealthier countries responsible for all living people on this earth, then the food we produce could be distributed in accordance to the people who need it around the world. This could end starvation. I should let you know that when people are starving, they are still starving even when you're not watching. Most people see ads to donate money to starving children around the world and think "oh that's so sad" then flip the channel. You're lucky that they don't show what these people do for food. Some kill, some steal, and some resort to prostitution. by ignoring this, you are allowing these things to happen and don't ever forget it. when you don't speak up, you're part of the problem. One might argue that it's not our responsibility, does that make it any less unethical? If we can, we must because it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then how can you live with yourself?

http://www.theguardian.com...
Danielle

Con

Thanks for responding, dude100.

1. Pro's first point is that sterilization should be imposed because people are starving to death. I've proven that we have enough food and resources to care for everyone on Earth and then some. Pro responded that we cannot infinitely maintain this when there is no population limit and our resources are being exhausted.

He writes, "Eventually we will reach our population limit and people all over the world will go hungry." Later in the debate, Pro presents an analogy where he compares death by car accident to death by starvation. Pro's mistake here is assuming that starvation is inevitable. However reports claim "The principal barrier to ending world hunger is neither lack of resources nor insufficient knowledge," says Bread for the World president David Beckman. "It is the failure to put ideas that work into practice on a broad scale" [1].

Pro claims, "I don't need to prove that hungry people are hungry because of overpopulation, I only need to prove that reducing population will increase the amount of food each person has." This is false. I've already explained how political failures and not lack of food causes starvation. The social and political obstacles would still be a barrier. Consider the fact that empty houses outnumber the homeless by six to one [2]. Just because more food could be available does not necessarily mean the food would actually BE available. Just as the homeless don't have homes even though the homes exist, poor people might still not have food even though more of it exists.

"Over-population is merely a symptom of resource scarcity due to resource mismanagement. In reality, the only reason resources are scarce is because we as a civilization are still figuring out how to manage them effectively and in a sustainable manner" [3].

2. Pro says that unsafe sterilization is only the case in india, but theoretically if applied to American standards of health, the risks are greatly reduced. However why should we assume that American standards would be utilized all over the world? It's most logical to assume those standards would only exist in America; at the very least it could exist in the Western world or developed Eastern countries. But third world nations (or more developed ones that still have a lot of poverty) would not be able to utilize these standards. Pro hasn't explained how this would be possible. If we can't even feed the poor, how can we afford to provide substantiate medical care via surgical procedure to the poor? Thus the risks of sterilization are still problematic.

3. On that note, I'd like to introduce another argument in my favor: we already have a doctor shortage in the world [4]. Our doctors are currently saving lives and working to cure disease among other noble endeavors for the problems we know already exist. We don't have the medical resources or supply of doctors to implement this endeavor.

4. Pro claims that both men and women should be sterilized. But my arguments of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights were not only meant to be applied to women. Men also have the right to govern their own bodies.

5. I've argued that bodily autonomy is the proper moral standard, though Pro suggests another. He asks, "In the future when we reach our limit, would you rather have a child you can't feed who will die hungry and miserable or never have the child in the first place?" This suggests a subjective standard of morality rather than a universally utalitarian one. If I would prefer to have kids and risk the potential they starve to death (but not the guarantee), that should be my choice. Tyranny of the majority or might-makes-right (aggressive force) should not be the moral standard upheld by the populace and authoritative state. Pro writes, "Personal autonomy and rights are irrelevant to the big picture." On the contrary individual rights are the very basis of our humanity and freedoms. To give up the right to govern our own persons essentially makes us slaves, and inhibits our personal liberties. Why would we want to live in a world where we were not free?

6. Pro concludes, "One might argue that it's not our responsibility, does that make it any less unethical? If we can, we must because it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then how can you live with yourself?" However my opponent has failed to prove a singular objective standard for morality, nor has he proven that overpopulation would inevitably lead to the death of humankind. In fact global climate change, loss of biodiversity, the decline of bees and bats, a pandemic of disease, biochemical or nuclear warfare, terrorism/war, super volcanos, asteroid, the rise of machines and even a zombie apocalypse are greater threats to humanity than overpopulation [5].

7. In the last round I presented alternatives to sterilization. My opponent completely dropped my suggestions which included birth control. Additional, more moral alternatives to sterilization include better education - especially sex education; making people aware of family planning; providing access to birth control to anyone who wants it; and offering tax benefits or other incentives to people who choose not to reproduce or to reproduce at a lower rate. Ergo, the fact that there are so many viable alternatives to sterilization that can reduce population is a great reason why the drastic measure of sterilization ought not to be imposed.

8. Many people suggest that the rise in artificial intelligence and virtual reality will cause a natural shift in depopulation. For example, in Japan well over 30% of the population chooses not to get married or have kids. Many attribute this to a growing fetish with engaging in romantic relationships with robots and video games vs. real people, while others claim there are social factors (like an intense work culture) that is leading to a declining birth rate [6].

9. Sterilization is also occurring naturally in the world at a greater rate. Almost one in six couples are now infertile [7]. Reasons for this include increased use of birth control (which reduces fertility rates in some cases), the effects of STDs, increased levels of oestrogen in the water supply, etc. [8].

10. Please extend my argument that forced sterilization is a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to health, that are supposed to be protected by international treaties. This is to show that this standard would likely be impossible to actually implement around the globe. Therefore only some would have their rights inhibited (if this were tried) while others would not which is unfair. People around the world recognize the right to procreate as not only an extension of their bodily freedom but religious freedom; another argument that my opponent dropped from the last round.

I look forward to Pro's final case.

Sources:

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com...
[2] http://www.mintpressnews.com...
[3] https://timmcgivern.wordpress.com...
[4] http://www.irinnews.org...
[5] http://www.alternet.org...
[6] http://theweek.com...
[7] http://www.reuters.com...
[8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
dude100

Pro

Thank you for the argument I appreciate your concern for autonomy and personal bodily rights, however you're not considering the rights of the children. I've already given you proper statistics to back my claim and so I will further them.The GFN estimates that human consumption first began to exceed the Earth"s capacity in the early 1970s and the overshoot day has been falling steadily earlier ever since, due to the growth in the global population alongside the expansion of consumption around the world. This is an unavoidable fact. It's not a matter of managing resources better the world is only so big. Humans compared to other large mammals, is the only large mammal to number in the billions. This has a catastrophic effect on on the environment with respect to overconsumption. By the year 2030 humans will be consuming the equivalent of two earths worth of natural resources. This is also a fact based on current projections. Once we reach our limit, it's the children who will suffer. Your statement that "If I would prefer to have kids and risk the potential they starve to death (but not the guarantee), that should be my choice" is appalling and irresponsible should you choose to risk harming a child. Nobody should have the right to endanger the welfare of a child ever. This is not question of IF we run out of resources it's when. And when that time comes it would've been responsible for us to prepare today rather than tomorrow when it could be too late. An ideal law system would allow people to have more kids when population drops below a threshold and then lowered back to 2 once numbers are replenished.
I never said that such a feat as mandatory sterilization wouldn't be difficult regarding political and social as well as health standard hurtles, I merely suggested that it's a better alternative than current law systems provide. Even if you are right about managing resources, you lack legitimate data to support you claim that "Many people suggest that the rise in artificial intelligence and virtual reality will cause a natural shift in depopulation." The only statistic you provide is japan which is the only country affected by this grand scheme, and yet neither china nor the the united states have this problem to the extent of the Japanese and the US as well as China produce more video games than Japan. Numbers don't lie, human population goes up every year, and it hasn't stopped growing.
You're not thinking about the rights of the children. Children don't ask to starve yet you would knowingly allow them to in the future? Do you honestly believe that it's YOUR right to endanger the welfare of your children? I'd like to see you find a single country in the world that would condone such an action. Though it isn't the case currently, projections show that both population and consumption of natural resources is on the rise and have been for decades. It hasn't changed The problem is still ahead of us, and you suggest that your personal freedoms are more important to you than the welfare of your children, and if not your children than the children of someone else. You say that we have a shortage of doctors in the world, but that would change upon the drop in population because, less people=less consumption= less doctors needed which further exemplifies the benefits of mandatory sterilization. Fortunately birth control helps, and is one of the primary reasons for the plateu-like drop in population growth, never the less population is still growing at a rate too high to control completely. We as a society need to do the responsible thing and safeguard the future of our children by bringing population into decline.
Your statistics on infertility are completely inaccurate this is from the world health organization.
"Research by the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that in 2010, 48.5 million couples worldwide were unable to have a child. They found that 1.9 percent of women aged 20-44 who wanted a child were unable to have their first live birth and 10.5 percent of women who had previously given birth were unable to have another baby after five years of trying. This represented a 0.1 percent and 0.4 percent decrease from 1990, respectively.

'Independent from population growth and worldwide declines in the preferred number of children, we found little evidence of changes in infertility over two decades', the authors wrote, adding that 'further research is needed to identify the etiological causes of these patterns and trends."
http://www.bionews.org.uk...

so as a matter of fact you got that backwards infertility has actually gone down a little bit. However, lack of proper nutrition will eventually lead to stillborns and malnourished children/women. It's a fact that a woman's body requires more nutrients for reproduction but less food means more death by childbirth which is something that can be reduced with mandatory sterilization. To prevent too many children and thus prevent more death of women and babies.
Religious freedom is also irrelevant to the big picture. If your religion states that it's ok to kill people in the middle of night while they sleep for no reason, does that make it morally right? Time and time again reformed laws contradict many religious beliefs because of their (with respect) "outdated concepts." For example the public has been having a difficult time to adjusting to Gay marriage which (as proven by popular vote) is acceptable in our society now. People argue that it's a violation of their religious freedoms. So is telling a suicide bomber that he can't kill people in public for Allah so he can go to heaven to meet his 70 virgins. Yet you would argue for your religious freedoms on the premise that YOUR religion is the standard for morality. The law says NO this is not the case, just because it's against your religious beliefs, does not mean that it contradicts the public's view on morality. This is why people like me and you debate on the subject :).
The bottom line is that if we live by your philosophy and have as many children as we want, we would be condemning children of the future to hardships we can not possibly fathom. Stillborns, women dying from child birth, hungry babies, hungry people, desperate people, dangerous people. We can see this coming years away so we should do our best to prevent it now. Don't just think about yourself, think about other people. Just because your children might not be starving, doesn't mean that someone else's children won't be. If we lived by your philosophy, then those who can afford children will be denying the right of those who can't afford children and even if those people do have children then those children will starve.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Since he did not stick to the numerical arguments for clarity, I will try to piece it back together.


1. Pro's first point was that sterilization should be imposed because people are starving to death. I've proven that we have enough food and resources to care for everyone on Earth, and that political failures have encouraged poverty. Thus we have no reason to assume politics will magically improve to the point of taking care of all humankind. Simply having more food doesn't necessarily mean more food will be available to the people who need it. Pro (seems to) contest this point with statistics, but does not address the statistics I've presented, and does not provide sufficient sources to prove his claims. Please compare this to my quotes and numerical figures which I've cited and sourced in the last round.

Moreover, even if Pro did prove a guaranteed shortage of resources (which he hasn't), my other arguments would still take precedent over this one.

2. I've argued that sterilization can be dangerous, specificially in places where there is a lot of poverty and low standards of health care to perform these procedures.

3. I also pointed out that we don't have enough doctors in the world to implement this unnecessary endeavor. Pro says "[A doctor shortage] would change upon the drop in population because, less people=less consumption= less doctors needed which further exemplifies the benefits of mandatory sterilization." But this is illogical. A smaller population also means a smaller pool of doctors providing care. Furthermore this stands contrary to Pro's opposite contention. If diminished resources lead to starvation and death, then population shouldn't be a problem since there would be a low life expectancy meaning less living people, right? And most importantly, this response doesn't address that there aren't enough doctors NOW to even theoretically reduce the future population.

4. I've asserted that both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy; this is not limited to women. Neither sex should undergo forced sterilization.

5. Next I argued that bodily autonomy is the proper moral standard. Pro says that the rights of our children (future generations) to exist and presumably survive trump our right to bodily autonomy and individual freedom. I contest this on the basis that we don't grant future people rights. To do so would be nonsensical. Further, why should their rights trump our rights? Pro has not explained. He claims that nobody should have the right to "endanger" a child, but everyone has the right to have children regardless of the type of lifestyle the parents can afford. We cannot know or presume who will be able to provide for their children now let alone generations from now.

6. One of my most significant arguments (which Pro completely dropped) is that there are other, greater threats to humankind than overpopulation. Global climate change, loss of biodiversity, the decline of bees and bats, a pandemic of disease, biochemical or nuclear warfare, terrorism/war, super volcanos, asteroid, the rise of machines and even a zombie apocalypse are greater threats to humanity than overpopulation. Since we are not taking proactive measures to address these things, why should sterilization be our priority given the imposition on rights and problematic effects? Pro has not explained.

7. My opponent claims that my proposed alternatives to sterilization are not sufficient. However my point is that they are superior alternatives to Pro's proposition.

8. He also claims that we have no reason to assume the birth rate will continue to decline, because that is only seen in Japan. However that's simply not true. Millennials' birth rate is dropping to historic lows across races, specifically among Blacks and Hispanics [1] however it's a widespread problem all over Asia [2] and in the West [3]. In fact Italy's government has started providing money to people for having kids, since their population is declining [4].

9. Research shows that we may be facing a DECLINING population problem [5] and in fact it is directly related to fertility [6]. Many books have been written on the biological shift toward infertility [7] and some of the causes, such as those I detailed in the last round.

10. Please extend my argument that forced sterilization is a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to health, that are supposed to be protected by international treaties. This is to show that this standard would likely be impossible to actually implement around the globe. Therefore only some would have their rights inhibited (if this were tried) while others would not which is unfair. People around the world recognize the right to procreate as not only an extension of their bodily freedom but religious freedom; another argument that my opponent dropped from the last round (again).


Conclusion

Pro has failed to prove that the world is overpopulated and will continue on a progression of overpopulation that is unsustainable. He's also not explained why the rights of potential future beings matter more than the individual rights and bodily autonomy for those of us already in existence. I've given alternatives to deal with the (alleged) population problem and explained how Pro's proposition is problematic. Not only is it morally questionable, but arguably unnecessary and probably not possible. We don't have the resources to allocate toward this endeavor. We have more important things to worry about, as I've highlighted and Pro ignored.

Thanks.


[1] http://www.cnbc.com...
[2] http://www.eastwestcenter.org...
[3] http://www.forbes.com...
[4] http://www.nation.co.ke...
[5] http://www.slate.com...
[6] http://brilliantmaps.com...
[7] http://www.amazon.com...

Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
Thanks to Tej and Solon for making sure this debate was voted on!
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@dude
That is what the debate was for. If you feel so strongly about it, start a new debate on the same topic with refined arguments. Right now you are trying to continue your arguments in the comment section, which is precisely "attempting to argue in the comment section" in spite of any denial of it. Voters are not allowed to weigh what you post in the comment section, they must do it based on what is inside the debate.
Posted by dude100 1 year ago
dude100
I'm not arguing with people in the comments section, I'm adding extensions to what should have been in the debate. It would be helpful for the viewers to read these because I wasn't clear enough. I just wanted to make it clear to the viewers that I have PROVEN we don't have enough food for 10 billion people. You can't argue with math because math never lies. It is the one source of all logic that is irrefutable yet con would deny this. I'm NOT doing this for more votes, it's clear that i'm losing. I'm doing this to clarify that we ARE consuming more food than we have and I have proof, yet in the debate you may have overlooked it because con behaved as though I did not have proof.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Sidenote: vote cast on behalf of the Voter Union.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@dude
Attempting to argue in the comment section does zero good for your argument, it just ruins your credibility.
Posted by dude100 1 year ago
dude100
to give you real life projections of these numbers and seriously freak you guys out, it takes 500 years for the earth to produce 1 inch of topsoil. The USA is eroding at a rate 10 times that. Even worse in other countries you can see why there's no incentive to sell crops to other countries. I guess when you think about it America really is top dog because everyone else will starve. The worlds topsoil could be gone within 60 years. WE WILL SEE THESE THINGS HAPPEN WITHIN OUR LIFETIME, but we will only see the beginning of it. WE ARE CONDEMNING FUTURE GENERATIONS TO DEATH. OUR GRANDCHILDREN AND OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WILL EXPERIENCE HORRIBLE THINGS. THE SITUATION IS MUCH MORE DIRE THAN YOU REALIZE. LISTEN NOW WHILE WE STILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO CHANGE THIS. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT?!!!!

http://www.fewresources.org...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Posted by dude100 1 year ago
dude100
Our current projections of "producing enough food for 10 billion people" is a fake number because it rests on the assumption that it will remain that way. IT WILL NOT. Ill give you an example, If i can grow 1000kg of food per year, and need to consume 1000kg of food per year it's impossible to feed myself forever if the topsoil erodes at a rate of 1 in per year and said soil was 12 in deep, and the earth "creates" new topsoil at a rate of .5 in per year. This means that I'll be able to eat for 24 years before I can only grow 500kg of food per year. In which case I'll begin to starve to death because I can only produce enough food to feed half a person. Do you understand? I've proven this concept. 10 billion is incorrect. Cons argument is... I can take out a loan I CAN'T afford, whilst telling the bank I MIGHT afford it. What? exactly, it's complete nonsense. You can't say, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO AFFORD SOMETHING I CAN'T PAY FOR. It's completely illogical, Con is trying to argue with concrete mathematics. You can't argue with mathematical facts you will always lose. I'm very sorry I should have been more clear my mistake.
Posted by dude100 1 year ago
dude100
You needed to read the details of my statements

I never argued that overpopulation is the root of all world hunger I argued that It WILL BE EVENTUALLY, though not this second. I've successfully proven that we are consuming more food than we are able to produce WITHOUT A RENEWABLE DEFICIT. In other words earth can't keep up with our consumption and eventually we will NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH FOOD TO EVEN SUPPORT 10 BILLION PEOPLE, we will only be able to produce enough food for far far less. In short I've proven that the rate earth renews resources is much slower than the rate we consume them. This is a fact and has been since 1970. I DID NOT NEED MANY SOURCES because I WAS able to prove that humanity's production can't sustain itself. This trumps cons biggest argument. I schooled con. I should've made it more clear, it's a slam dunk because con argues that we may or may not be able to feed our children. My source is scientific evidence that proves that is a false statement, yet con completely ignores this and continues to suggest otherwise. I never said that this concept was feasible merely that it's better to do "this" now rather than later when the public has to wait for due process. second child sterilization is an inevitable concept of the future because I highly doubt that a 1st world country would tolerate the mass murder of billions of people to COMPENSATE FOR THIS DEFICIT. Reducing population levels is an inevitable fact of the future, one way or another its going to happen. Whether it comes from war, anarchy, crime, or second child sterilization; population reduction is factually inevitable. This is not a debate of truth merely a statement of fact, the REAL DEBATE is whether we should start now or wait until the proverbial poop hits the fan. In which case humanity needs to suffer the YEARS OF VIOLENT ADJUSTMENT. The moral dilemma is in between now and later. Ill be more clear next time.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Conduct: Missed round, but polite about it to the point where I'm opting to not include it.
S&G: For pro I advise in future breaking apart your paragraphs here, online presentation is different than other types. For con, it would be great if you were to highlight quotations with bold or something.
Arguments (CON): One line summary "Just because more food could be available does not necessarily mean the food would actually BE available."
Sources (CON): In short con schooled us. I discount the book sources (as I am unable to verify them), but that cited international doctor shortage, proved the proposal (good or bad) is simply infeasible (yeah the US sterilizes parents, other countries are unable to, thus we hit the same level anyway).

My RFD's include reactions and advice, rather than a strict mathematical formula... In this case, I am finding it to mostly be advice for pro; to start, were this a shared BoP debate you would have done better (still not won), but as is the effort of implementation and costs of doing it, have not been proven worth the benefits.

Pro's opening analogy was ok, but con immediately caught his reasoning would only apply to the poor. Turning around the claim that it's safe and effective, with death rates from it, was a wise move which greatly contributed to sources. "theoretically if applied to american standards of health, the risks are greatly reduced" is not an sufficient rebuttal, because basic sense indicates (everyone with a whole brain was probably thinking this) "However why should we assume that American standards would be utilized all over the world?"
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Pro's R3 line "we are overgrowing crops to the point where we need to put non-organic chemicals in the soil," was a nice high context pathos appeal, but it only carries weight if a voter brings in their bias from phobia of GMO's, otherwise such a point would need to be supported... The source about current resources being used up was a good touch, but it was not a slam dunk.

"If we hold the wealthier countries responsible for all living people on this earth, then the food we produce could be distributed in accordance to the people who need it around the world." It's an interesting ideal, but again, you need to support your most heavy claims. You assume it's self-evident, but even you catch the obvious question against that "One might argue that it's not our responsibility, does that make it any less unethical? If we can, we must because it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then how can you live with yourself?" This was a great opportunity for you to source philosophers who would support you, that say things like 'if you have one kid, and another family has three, you should give that family your extra rations.'

Con's source quote "It is the failure to put ideas that work into practice on a broad scale" could have been flipped, it would have been greatly strengthened by an explanation that pro's idea would not work on a broad scale (which was later introduced).

"Do you honestly believe that it's YOUR right to endanger the welfare of your children?" Outrage only appeals to the worst voters. Con had already answered that, so you'd pretty much have to prove it would be con's children starving (easy if con lives in Africa, hard if con lives in one of the world's food producers). But your WHO quote about fertility rates was a very effective counter. Con did ok defending it with more sources, leaving her questionably in the lead on sources.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
dude100DanielleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eSkul8t16V6cu8IsZLmoiroO0wk5f3vVZ1bsOPIJZ6w/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
dude100DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main contention was essentially that overpopulation leads to hunger and death, proving that an pro ballot is necessary. Con's defense against this is pretty great, where there is a direct turn to the pro claims where we have *more than enough food for everyone*. While shifting the ground, pro makes it an 'in the future' scenario, to which con essentially nullifies by proving that there can be nothing bad from overpopulation (though I do have my suspicions). While it is not necessary, con's points about autonomy and the health of women and men around the world are essentially dropped, and where they are talked about they are just a ~permutation (of sorts) of including men & women, not just women's health so "that fixes everything?" - I see no proof that the world of the pro is better than the neg in which many women are dying, even if you also sterilise men or have a limited amount of good doctors. Therefore, con gets da points. I didn't vote on conduct b/c just a mistake.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
dude100DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
dude100DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments