CreateDebate


Debate Info

42
41
Let 'em STARVE FEED 'em
Debate Score:83
Arguments:59
Total Votes:99
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Let 'em STARVE (27)
 
 FEED 'em (29)

Debate Creator

excon(4381) pic



Right wingers think the world is OVERPOPULATED.. What's their solution??

Hello:

If we DO feed 'em, do you think you'll go without??  Or, do you think the world ISN'T overpopulated?

excon

Let 'em STARVE

Side Score: 42
VS.

FEED 'em

Side Score: 41
3 points

Let nature's natural selection process proceed unhindered and the parasitic looney left leeches would become extinct without being kept alive artificially by handouts from the innovative hard working centre/right of centre citizens.

Not only would the oversized world population crisis be solved but the remaining inhabitants would be of superior stockl thus increasing the prospects for survival of our species.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
2 points

Let nature's natural selection process proceed unhindered

I'm all for that one, buddy. But the problem is we'll have to throw out your artificial capitalist system and live by the law of the jungle, in which I get to crack open your fascist skull simply because I am bigger and crazier than you are.

Side: FEED 'em
Antrim(999) Disputed
2 points

Was that really the best you could do?, Man, man oh man.

If it was, you'd have been better not to have responded all.

The advancement of the human species has long since replaced physical strength with intellectual superiority and in this context I doubt if you had sufficient intellect to crack open a soft boiled egg with your pea sized neanderthal brain, metaphorically speaking.

So, you disagree with the capitalist system of free enterprise and the right for individuals such as Henry Ford and Bill Gates being allowed to proceed unfettered with the development of their innovations and imaginative concepts.

What's your alternative Einstein?

Any fool, even one as thick as you can criticize, but it takes brains and sound powers of reasoning to present a credible alternative.

Well come on, let's see your detailed viable and practical replacement for capitalism.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
Chinaman(358) Disputed
2 points

Didn't capitalism provide the computer you spew your nonsense from ? Wait could be government built your computer under a capitalism name !Possibly the government owns all the stores that provide you with consumable goods !

Side: Let 'em STARVE

Socialist hungry, socialist eat your finger...

Socialist caveman say yummy.

Side: FEED 'em
2 points

BWA HA HA HA !

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level

Global Footprint Network data shows that humanity uses the equivalent of 1.7 planet Earths to provide the renewable resources we use and absorb our waste.1 If all 7+ billion of us were to enjoy a European standard of living - which is about half the consumption of the average American - the Earth could sustainably support only about 2 billion people.

It is crucial to understand that the longer we continue consuming more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, the less able the Earth can meet our resource needs in the future - and the fewer people the planet can support - long-term.

Evidence of unsustainable resource use is all around us. Global aquifers are being pumped 3.5 times faster than rainfall can naturally recharge them.2 Eventually they will run dry and hundreds of millions will suffer. Topsoil is being lost 10-40 times faster than it is formed.3 Feeding all 7+ billion of us will become increasingly difficult. Oceans are being overfished, and a primary protein source for over 2 billion people is in jeopardy.4 Worldwide, we have lost over half the vertebrate species in the air, water, and land since 1970.5 How many more species can we lose and how many more ecosystems can we destroy before humanity’s own existence is threatened?

It is important to note that the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, metals, and minerals that make a European standard of living possible are not included in Global Footprint Network data. This includes all the tons of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, and hundreds of other minerals and metals that make modern life possible. Taking these non-renewable resources into account suggests 2 billion people living at a European standard of living may be the upper limit of a sustainable global population.

Climate change will only add to the strain on the planet’s ability to support all 7+ billion of us. Climate scientists are warning us to expect lower crop yields of major grains such as wheat, rice, and maize.6 Rising sea levels could create hundreds of millions of climate refugees. And climate disruption is likely to create increasing levels of resource conflict and civil unrest.

Adaptation to climate disruption will be much easier with a much smaller global population. We can achieve a smaller global population tomorrow by beginning a dramatic reduction in births today.

All of us want a viable, sustainable global home. If we allow overpopulation and overconsumption to continue, the evidence is mounting that billions will suffer and that we will leave future generations a much harder, bleaker life.

Reducing birth rates now can save us from the likely increase in death rates that awaits us if we do nothing. Solving overpopulation is essential in building a sustainable future.

Site Clown you are an idiot and keep up your nonsense i enjoy tearing it down.

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3timessustainable

Wake up fool BWA HA HA HA

Side: Let 'em STARVE
2 points

I feed me and my family. You and your family are you and your family's problem.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
1 point

Since when was Malthusian-mindedness a right-wing trait? In my estimation it's more associated with environmentalism which in turn is more of a left-wing concern.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
1 point

The left thinks the world is overpopulated, so it calls for planned parenthood and population control, the right thinks the opposite, they think they can just breed forever and we will never have a problem. The solution? Natural selection is whats missing now adays, the problem is human society is designed to make you weaker and stupid slave and let the weak keep reproducing, if we where natural living these woulfn't exist

Side: Let 'em STARVE

We should give everyone a test and purge the bottom 3rd. And/Or we could purge everyone that doesn’t believe in birth control. And/Or, we could purge all the Muslims and Jews. Nature does that weeding out but we think we are better than Mother Nature. So we allow weeds to take over the garden. It’s man’s arrogance that has led to this situation- good planning could have avoided this situation, but it’s really too late now. We may not survive - the earth may do us in.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
1 point

The majority of governments throughout the history of mankind were conservative in so far as they were all about authority, rules, and whatever dominant religious belief prevailed in their location. And for most of human history if your family faced hardship and starvation you were simply F'd. The concepts of Constitutions, human rights, public welfare, etc., are all very recent in human history.

That's not to say one or the other is the right way. You can have a society be too harsh and another be too generous. Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot where life is actually worth living.

But with overpopulation raging and nations entrenching to protect what's theirs and make sure the rich get the most then let's just say the sweet spot is passed and probably not coming back in our lifetimes.

Side: Let 'em STARVE
1 point

Through every medium available to propagate their intent.... Guide the people into getting addicted to drugs, movies, video games, or other vain and useless idols. Allow them to grow too isolated and socially inept to reproduce or too morally decadent to have a stable family. Watch as they fall into wickedness. Use their idols to guide their beliefs and actions. Normalize through culture and education behavior and philosophy that is destructive to the self and society. Classify them into different categories. Reinforce those categories through cultural influence and education. Actively take part in reinforcing the division among these categories and stir dissent between them. Allow people's sin to aide in thinning the population.

Corral people up into large housing projects in cities. Encourage them to eat food that is definitely not kosher in order to poison their bodies and rob their wealth. Get them to willingly carry around devices made to spy on them. Make it illegal or extremely difficult to work without being registered and monitored through the system. Make it illegal or extremely difficult to own or rent property without being registered and monitored through the system. Capture children by undermining or destabilizing the family. Take the place of family. Consolidate power, wealth, and authority in order to gain total influence. Give population control to the robots.

Then we can all live in happy free technocratic commie land and experience whatever reality we desire. They'll give us whatever we want.

Or you know, we'll find out that there is some vast eugenicists conspiracy to influence the evolution of people through selective breeding.

Keep listening to the luciferians. They have your best interest in mind. Your best interest is our best interest. Our best interest is their best interest.

Look away, nothing to see here.

Side: Let 'em STARVE

I don't care if the world breeds like rabbits, but if they do, their offspring are their responsibility, not mine. Is it my fault that Pakistanis think having 15 children is responsible? Nope. You have 15 kids, you'd better have 15 kids worth of clothes, food, shelter, etc. Hump responsibly. This message has been brought to you by the Bronto network. Cheers...

Side: FEED 'em

At last, an actual proper right wing troll post from a wannabe right wing troll.

Good going this is actually consistent with right wing mentality I will upvote you.

Side: FEED 'em
1 point

The rights answer (at least at this time, with this ... um... "leader"), is to NUK'EM! {or at least cruise-missle'em}). THAT will kill them both inside AND outside the womb and do away with the godless sexual predators that impregnate them! ;-)

Funny, on the other hand, they take "sexual predators" like Mr. Duggar and give him a reality show to support his "habit". Add to that the Evangelical objection to birth control and you have a confusing , but fruitful, situation. Strange people, these righties. They should , at least accept "gays", as a deterrent to abortion as well as a source of adoption for those "survivors" of left wing aborters and sick ... mothers ...(if you will). Obviously, what we need is more "gayety" and less "piety" .... problem solved WITHOUT nukes. ;-)

Side: FEED 'em
1 point

Actually, progressives believe in overpopulation, while conservatives think undepopulation is a problem. Get your facts straight.

Side: FEED 'em
1 point

Hello again,

Ok.. If we don't have enough food, is that because we don't have enough food, or we don't manage our resources well?

If it's a physical impossibility, then we should, of course, do away with the bothersome hungry people.. But, if it's simply MANAGEMENT, then we should MANAGE instead of STARVE.. Wouldn't that be better?

excon

Side: FEED 'em
1 point

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

Side: FEED 'em
-1 points

The Left's answer is to kill them in the womb. Of course to any thinking human being, this is no different then killing them after being born.

So rather than teach common sense responsible moral values to help reduce the promiscuous sex creating all these unwanted children, the Left's answer is No Restriction abortions.

Funny that here in America there is a shortage of people to fill the jobs or pay taxes. Our classrooms have shrunk from the small families.

This sky is falling talk about overpopulation is easily fixed without exterminating children.

It boils down to common moral values, not having sex without birth control, self control, etc. etc.

When third world nations choose to have sex like animals, not worrying about getting pregnant, they will have huge problems, huge food shortages, etc. etc.

It's their choice to live in misery, or learn.

Side: FEED 'em
Mint_tea(2531) Disputed
1 point

No, the Left's answer is to promote sex education and try to provide free contraceptives. Why is the Right so against that?

Side: Let 'em STARVE
FromWithin(5476) Disputed
1 point

HOGWASH, the Right has little problem with sex ed other than to say no parents should be forced to have their children take it.

The problem the Right has with sex ed. is when abstenence is not the first message and first priority in these classes. Children are not responsible or mature enough to handle sex. They have been taught a thousand times about condoms, yet many are still not responsible enough to use them.

Birth control would be the secondary message for children too irresponsible to refrain. They should be taught how birth control is not 100%, does not prevent diseases, and that teens in no way shape or form should be having sex. They should be taught how teen sex is unbelievable irresponsible.

It should never be taught as being an acceptable thing.

Side: FEED 'em
1 point

The left is evil the left is bad the left the left the left....

Sorry I was trying to see if he gets some kind of rush out if typing that.

Side: FEED 'em