The Instigator

Pro (for)

Winning

12 Points

The Contender

Con (against)

Aerogant

Losing

1 Points

The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

Do you like this debate?No Yes+0

Post Voting Period

The voting period for this debate has ended.

after 3 votes the winner is...

masterdrave

Voting Style:	Open	Point System:	7 Point
Started:	7/30/2014	Category:	Politics
Updated:	7 years ago	Status:	Post Voting Period
Viewed:	1,182 times	Debate No:	59741

Debate Rounds (5)

Comments (9)

Votes (3)

Pro All problems in the world, AIDS, influenza, natural disasters even, are all caused by overpopulation. If we eliminate simply the children, the mentally retarded and the disabled people in our society, the population would swiftly be reduced down to 4 billion. This is the amount of people the world requires to function stably. We need to begin killing. Report this Argument Con No, we need to kill stupidity and negligence. Killing people will not solve the problem. The problem existed far before it could existed, but people ignored it and places feelings over facts; stupidity over sensibility. Want a better shaped world? Well then, you better shape the mind. Right now, it looks like my mother's cooking! Report this Argument
Pro First of all, when replying or in your attempt to make a point, please try to structure your sentences in a way that is grammatically appealing. "The problem existed far before it could existed." Great, thanks Daffy Duck. Secondly, you're all fools if you think that birth control or another slow and "sensible" way of reducing our population will work. Birth control can be shirked and contravened, but eliminating half of our population, bringing it under the 4 billion mark, is an efficient way of dealing with the problem. If you're still too ignorant to understand the risks and exponential qualities of population growth on our planet, simply take a look at the first picture on this website http://www.susps.org..., exactly. It was only in the 1800's when the population hit 1 billion. Now, a mere 200 years later, we are at 7 billion. What do you think our world will be like in 100 years, 500? Most probably nearing extinction. The time to act is now, and if we just choose to sit around and keep living in denial, there won't be a future for any grandchildren, great grandchildren, or simply our ideals for the future of the human race to live in. Report this Argument Con All I have to say is one thing, Pro, "let's start with you" - and immediately, your entire argument is destroyed as it being solely a delusion built on your hatred towards people, while hypocritically denouncing your own issues. Report this Argument
Pro Oh my... he's got me. What can I do? I yield! I have to yield! Oh please save me! SAVE ME! Report this Argument Con Now see how easy it is to cloud your ocean? Always keep the water and the sky clear from delusion. Report this Argument
Pro masterdrave forfeited this round. Con Your icon is distasteful. Report this Argument
Pro Your entire argument is "distasteful". And your lack of understanding in regards to sarcasm is also "distasteful". I really can't be bothered completely destroying such a fool like you, but I will say this. I would happily be first in line to go if it meant preserving the generations to come. This world is meant to be lived in, not brought down piece by piece. If we do nothing, sitting around and pretending like everything around us is okay, then your terrible metaphor about oceans being "clouded" will instead have a literal meaning to it. This world will die, with the entirety of humanity along with it. Report this Argument Con The funny thing is, I knew it was sarcasm. You're all so gullible and all you do is condescend all day every day because there's nothing about you that amounts to anything, hence why you continue to keep repeating the same redundancies as per the First Round of acceptance, when you've already pressed the bloody accept button, second you always cry resolution and BOP, when they don't apply to debates that involve philosophy, lastly, there's just so much hypocrisy in everything you do - you understand nothing of actual discussion, because you're not here to reason; you're here to rationalize. Report this Argument

Post a Comment

9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.

Posted by NiamC 7 years ago

"Your icon is distateful"
lol

Report this Comment

Posted by Preston 7 years ago

that doesn't even apply! his arguments are untouched any your just spewing random things that you don't understand.

Report this Comment

Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago

It's a logical fallacy - one cannot say one thing without resorting to a butterfly effect.

Report this Comment

Posted by Preston 7 years ago

its not a logical fallacy, my goodness, you committed the fallacy, an appeal to fear, it doesn't address the argument it addresses the opponent, and he sarcastically responds. you haven't even refuted his case.

Report this Comment

Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago

Perhaps you missed the part where I picked up on the logical fallacy of his by applying him to his own equation, which no longer works because one cannot want to kill, without promoting the idea that others can kill them as well.

Report this Comment

Posted by Preston 7 years ago

no refutation against pros arguments so far... the forfeit gives con conduct but not arguments

Report this Comment

Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago

We don't really need to begin killing. Forced birth control would probably work just as well, and it would be called murder by far less people.

Report this Comment

Posted by Eggsample 7 years ago

More reasoning and sources would be nice

Report this Comment

Posted by mit 7 years ago

The super rich...The morbidly rich, the Biderbergs, Rothchilds, evil bankers, war profiteers, corporate fascists - they'll live. The rest of us? Expendable...Blamo! Population problem solved. I'll miss everyone...*sniff*

Report this Comment

3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.

Report this Vote

Vote Placed by saboosa 7 years ago

	masterdrave	Aerogant	Tied
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:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: con was very rude

Report this Vote

Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago

	masterdrave	Aerogant	Tied
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:	5	1

Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff'd. Pro had a source. Pro had an argument for the resolution based on health, Con attempted to show hypocrisy and failed.

Report this Vote

Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago

	masterdrave	Aerogant
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	0

Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several unsupported assertions. Con made contrary assertions. Then the debate spiraled into nonsense. I'm nulling this vote. As always, I'm happy to clarify my RFD.

Big Issues

The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half