The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points
Dont get more then 1 kid
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 2/5/2018 | Category: | Science | ||
Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 607 times | Debate No: | 107592 |
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)
Pro
The replacement rate is about 2.1 or 2.2 kids, depending on the source you use. (By replacement rate, I mean how many kids you need to keep a constant population and not make it go down.) You need to stay above the replacement rate, otherwise the diversity in the gene pool will suffer, and eventually, humans could go extinct because it is necessary to have two humans to reproduce. If you only have one kid, you will be way below the replacement rate. |
![]() |
Pro if no human gives birth in the next 120 years, the human species will be extinct, no need to kill anyone to depopulate to save ourselves and still keep living the sweet life we do
"we need to make it go down, our natural dependence on machines are destroying the planet, and we cant live without machines.." First off, machines are not destroying the planet. Secondly, even if they were, how would having just one kid fix the machine problem? "if no human gives birth in the next 120 years, the human species will be extinct, no need to kill anyone to depopulate to save ourselves and still keep living the sweet life we do" How does our species going extinct in 120 years help us in any way whatsoever? Where did you even get that number? I still don't get how having kids is going to mess up "the sweet life." Summary: Your argument is complete nonsense. If you are going to debate something, please make sure you can give a good argument with plenty of facts to back up such an absurd claim. After all, the burden of proof is on you. |
![]() |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
>Reported vote: Arganger// Mod action: NOT Removed<
3 point to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively addressed all of Pro's claims. Con said," Your argument is complete nonsense."
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is allowed to award conduct in instances where one side is insulting, forfeits a round, or violates a rule. Stating that an argument is "nonsense" is not an insult directed at an individual, and therefore does not meet the standard.
************************************************************************
You made multiple grammar mistakes in that sentence.
1. You didn't capitalize the first letter of the sentence.
2. You spelled check "tjeck" which is wrong.
3. You didn't put any end punctuation at the end of that sentence.