I never thought id have to ban someone, but if your not going to debate by the official rules, which are actually usefull, then you arnt allowed in here.

http://flynn.debating.net/genguide.htm

Incidentally this argument can be classified as 'understanding'.

I like your theory, but this would just lead to a situation where everyone claims not to be working under their own intentions, (the nazis at nuremberg all claimed just to be following orders) and deliberate acts are disguised as accidents.

Your telling me there are more of these videos that lack evidence?

I dont bloody care if there is 900billion videos! They started off with an assumption and no evidence.

You dont have any evidence to believe what you believe. You have become knowledgeable in myths and foolishness because of an inner psychological need to have a spiritual world, despite the fact that none exists because there is no evidence for it.

Experience is subjective and not evidence. Your experience is effected by how illogical you are, and your illogical because your mentally ill and want to believe in a fairytale world.

Once you made an argument saying just because something is that way now doesnt mean it will continue to be. It is called a thin end of the wedge fallacy. This is the same here.

No, i will not assume that 3bn of those people will have 2 kids each because the international population stats show that most countries dont even have that.

The population growth is 1.1% per year.

"In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

1.) Yes but I gave evidence for my claim.

2.) Subjective arguments are illogical and thus wrong from the outset anyway.

3.) You dont get to make up your own definition for ad hominem.

Simply saying that if i take a point away from you, you will do it to me, means that you will never learn anything. It does not mean you are right, if anything it means you lack humbleness or the facility to evaluate the evidence ive given you against your own evidence.

Accumulating points this way is a loophole in this system. I have debated in a formal setting outside by the standard rules and believe me, there is no point accumulation for later. That is just some craziness.

They say insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome. You using your points to attack instead of logic is exactly that.

I understand the lack of evidence and inadequacy of your description. Both things debating is supposed to teach you.

Bill gates is wrong.

He uses statistics pertaining to exponential growth.

Anyone who is a population scientist should know humans dont grow exponentially.

The remaining fears are over non-renewable resources expiring. Which is inevitable and not to do with the amount of people. Its just an ideology based on thinly veiled depopulationist ideology.

Their science does not stand up.

Your getting allot of votes which arnt associated with any comments.

I accuse you of multiple voting fraud.

Because your dumb enough to do that to try and make your flawed arguments look valid by tipping the scales.

It doesnt win if it doesnt argue.

It doesnt win if it doesnt do logic.

You cant have perception without the prerequisite of being conscious.

Your just a bullshitter.

But consciousness =/= everything.

Merely the perception of it.

Even if your first theory was true: everything is frequency. You have no reason to believe YOURSELF when you then say a human or cat can interface with that, because there is no known method or mechanism for this to happen and be proven under scientific conditions.

You are not a quantum physicist. So dont pretend like you understand it and its connections.

You have some kind of mental disorder, and if you keep this up, im going to work out what it is.

You said i didnt understand.

I gave a video containing lots of evidence from sources that exist in the real world, like the birth rate of countries.

And you ignored the entire lot, didnt even try to disprove it. Because it wasnt comfortable for you. It is that comfort zone we have to fight as good debaters. Because it is that which is bias.

Then, you said i dont understand. Unlike my video, you gave no evidence to back this theory up.

"Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself."

http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/