The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,109 times Debate No: 108189
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)



The Bible says that God wants 144,000 people to be superior. Thus we should start a purge and reduce the human population down to 144,000 people.

Reducing the human population down to 144,000 also would solve the problem of overpopulation and global warming, don't you think?

Vote pro.

Round 1: Acceptance
Rounds 2-4: Debates/Rebuttals


You're Hitler, aren't you?
Debate Round No. 1


God never intended for the world to be overpopulated. Also, the world is overpopulated right now, and did you know that the max carrying capacity of planet Earth is 144,000, according to the Bible? I'm assuming you're a Catholic, which is a denomination of Christianity.

Read Revelations 7, and you'll see what I mean. God intended for 144K people to live on the Earth.

Let's hear what you have to say.

Oh yeah, and to answer your question in the first round, no I am not Hitler.


The max carrying capacity of the world might have been 144,000 in the bible, but their science, as we all know, was off and we're doing OK with seven billion people- we should start worrying once we get to about, say, ten billion. Also, the Bible was written when there were only about 144,000 people and they couldn't imagine the population being any bigger. You shouldn't live your life according entirely to the bible, sir. It's pretty restrictive. You say you're a Christian- where in the Bible does Jesus say to kill everyone past 144,000 people? I don't think he does.
Debate Round No. 2


God never wanted us to have big families or overpopulate the world. Find me one verse where it says that big families are good; God never said that big families are good. Instead, they are sinful (or haram in Islam), beecause they pollute the environment and kill polar bears.

So how do we achieve God's Great Commission? Kill off everyone who is inferior by my standards: South Asians/Indians, drug addicts, prostitutes, ugly people, obese people, poor people, excessively rich people, homeless people, single parents, orphans, babies, bullies, Muslims, criminals, terrorists, the physically and mentally disabled, the depressed, diabetic people, Gypsies, polygamists, homosexual people, transgender people, people with eating disorders, as well as people with IQ's of below 85. (My IQ is 172).

There, what do you think? And please see this debate and tell me what you think of my debate:


I'm surprised you're tolerant of Islam. I might not be able to find a verse where God says that big families are good, but you can't find one where God says big families are bad. I don't think God would ever kill anybody based on their personality, and I don't think he cares about what the world population is. You've still failed to provide a verse from the Bible where Jesus or God says to purge all the people on the world until they reach 144,000.

That list of people you just mentioned is probably everyone. You're suggesting a mass genocide, you sicko.
Debate Round No. 3


Well if we reduce the human population down to 144,000, you know what? That's right, overpopulation will be solved.

That is right: Overpopulation will be solved if we have a mass genocide, killing off everyone that I believe to be inferior.

Before we go, let me ask you one question:

Who do I hate the most out of these four?

A. Blacks
B. Irish
C. Indians
D. Jews

If you answer correctly, I will let you choose our next debate topic. This is debate #15 this year. Next debate is #16 this year.


If we reduce the human population down to 144,000, overpopulation might be solved, but we'll have loads of guilt on our hands and we'll have murdered billions. We're not going to do that. There are more practical solutions to overpopulation.

You hate all four equally.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asta 1 year ago
I don't think he's being serious.
Posted by asta 1 year ago
I do.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
I don't detect a hint of sarcasm in his absurd statements.
Posted by asta 1 year ago
Or sponge bob jokes. He says a bunch of stuff I don't think he actually believes. He is different.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
Right. Like a person who jokes about cancer.
Posted by asta 1 year ago
I think he is funny in a stupid way.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
If you consider cancer funny.
Posted by asta 1 year ago
The bear is funny.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
There's no reason to hate anyone.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
I hate Indians the most.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to provide any direct Biblical evidence for his contentions, and so there's no support provided for Pro's claims within the text of the round. Just telling me to go read Revelations is not sufficient, as the evidence needs to be introduced inside the debate itself to count. Con could've done a better job by just saying that the commandment "do not kill" would seem to Biblically preclude outright any proposed purge. Con didn't make this argument, and so I don't count it, but Con takes the arguments points anyway, largely because Con's responses to the Bible in R2 go unaddressed by Pro and because there are no sources used to support Pro's claims, leaving Pro without a case. While I certainly sympathize with Con's abject disgust at Pro's suggestion that some human beings are inferior to others, calling Pro "Hitler" in the debate is a breach of conduct. That said, Pro's views are horrific. This debate was bad; it lacked clash and the issues were under-debated. I vote Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.