CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
23
yes because no because
Debate Score:42
Arguments:40
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes because (15)
 
 no because (18)

Debate Creator

Kittiana(154) pic



We need to regulate the human population.

yes because

Side Score: 19
VS.

no because

Side Score: 23

Sterilize everyone at birth, unsterilize them as needed. That's not practical yet, but it will be that way in the future.

Side: yes because
1 point

Is government bureaucrats deciding sex and family life something of desire? That is frightening.

Side: no because
2 points

Who said that bureaucrats would decide anything?

Side: yes because
1 point

its as easy as castration and separation. . And your thinking is so diluted that you would condemn everyone to this fate. Who's going to propagate,

The next generation

I see no comprehension

Your logic is twisted and sadistic

Under your way we would all be a statistic.

Side: no because

Is that rap? The next generation will be propagated by...the people. I'm not saying that no one can reproduce, just that we don't want people to have unwanted babies. It's called birth control.

Side: no because
2 points

Population out of control is a bigger problem than global warming.

Possible methods are improving ~__ worldwide

~Contraception, access to.

~Education, and access to.

~Healthcare, esp. maternal.

~Women's rights.

~Employment.

~Housing.

~Sanitation.

Side: yes because
1 point

With a growing population, the world's turning to shit! The bigger the population has become, the more problems we have had!

Side: yes because

yes because the quality of life must be prioritized over its quantity.

Side: yes because

Regulation of the human population should be through voluntary birth control.

Side: yes because
2 points

We don't need to regulate population. We need to change the way we all live together. We need a reality check. The entire population of the world could easily stand shoulder to shoulder in an area the size of California. The only problem is the system we live in takes on more area then it's worth. Every building is ment to occupy an area, every road, every base and in any case these areas are designated dead space. Nothing is allowed to grow there. It is maintained by the system to make sure that is exactly what happens. Plus if humans had any sense they would know that population is not a problem, with some self control and will power the entire human population could be cut in half in one generation. 7 billion into 3.5 billion using the whole 1 child per house hold method. This is all theoretical, because people die for stupid reasons every day.

Side: no because
2 points

I like this, I never thought of it that way, if we put some more thought into our living situation, and tried to live smaller, all connected, spaces, this perhaps would go a long way in solving the issue.

Side: no because
1 point

Thanks man, I'm glad you have some belief in that perspective. I seriously hate the demonic propaganda calling for euthanasia and genocide. It's for these reasons; this perspective I abide. Catch you on the flip side.

Side: no because
Elvira(3446) Clarified
0 points

the entire human population could be cut in half in one generation. 7 billion into 3.5 billion

Uh yeah... if our lifespan was under 25 years.

Side: yes because
1 point

What does lifespan have to do with it? . be it 100 or 25 years the formula works.

Side: no because
2 points

Nature is actually remarkably good at doing that itself. The world our burgeoning population is contributing to may not be one that is hospitable to human beings but nature is quite indifferent. Any effort we make to regulate our population would be a farcical attempt to emulate a process more complicated than anything we could ever implement ourselves. The ego associated with the proposition is incredible, and more likely than not we would fuck things up even more for ourselves than we already have in the attempt.

Side: no because

No, we need to let some predators get at us. Right now the biggest predator to humans is other humans, and even other humans are shutting down those other predator humans.

We don't need to regulate our own populations, we are a part of nature, even though we like to think we're above it. When we get to be too big to support ourselves, we will wane, it will be devastating for some, a lot probably, but it will be a humbling thing for humanity.

Side: no because
2 points

I agree here, though I have been contemplating lately that perhaps the more advanced we get the easier it is to pull more resources out of littler sources, Imagine us obtaining the technology to manipulate matter chemically, and atomically, to create any resources necessary... I just had the thought just now that in doing so opens us to a world where we could start to quickly consume all the resources of the universe truly, at least after some period of time could that become very dangerous... then again by the time we are that advance maybe we would be wiser and allow a well built "give and take" system with the universe.

Anyways I like your opinion, as I feel no matter how powerful anything gets, it will not be able to escape the threat of itself, in a way we are all truly our own enemy aren't we? I find it odd how seemingly overlooked the possibility of crumbling from our own power is.

Side: no because

Regulation of human population is unneccessary because given most people who are responsible humans determine the right amount of litter is best for them.

Side: no because
1 point

What about the detrimental effects of over population in a small country? How would they be able to sustain their people if they cannot feed them?

Side: yes because

If there was a need for it, we'd be dead by now. Think about it.

Side: no because