Instigator / Pro
Points: 3

the best way to stop global warming its to radically reduce the human population


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 7
let the bodies hit the floor
Round 1
resolved by any means necessarry the human population must be drastically reduced the less people the less consumption and the planet will survive as will some of us at least
The Counterplan

Con asserts that the better way to stop global warming is to non-radically reduce the human population.

Con asserts that rather than killing everyone fast, we must slowly manipulate the media and status quo to believe that there are actually 7+ billion people on the planet and that this is simply far too much. This will be a great non-radical way of ensuring that the places that are poor and ignorant of the brainwashing will keep reproducing fast, in order to stay impoverished and extract minerals, run farms and many other things for the evil Western Corporations. Meanwhile, those in those Western nations are being told to fuck less, pay more tax and that the world is coming to an end fast because NASA says so. I think this will be a much better way to non-radically reduce the human population with many added benefits too.

By doing it this way, you can randomly give it a facade of radicalism to appease the anarchic types. Perhaps a girl with autism who feels passionately about it, you could give her a mouthpiece and say anyone who in any shape or form is harsh on her or her views is bullying her for her autism. You can also do similar things with others, having everyone advocating for it etiher be a well-respected scientist that you'd be an ignorant fool to defy, or have most of the other advocates be female, homosexual or some other easy-to-play-victim category that you then can silence the opposition with for discriminating against. At times, you'll have a white, heterosexual well-off male advocating for global warming and ways to reduce it, in this scenario your fallback plan can be to associate anti-global-warming with far-right ideas, perhaps hire a goon to act like a madman on television with a channel like 'info battle' or 'bimbo wars' or maybe something mixing those two... When he's served his purpose, you can make him redundant by simply using the offensive and outrageous things you made him say to associate being anti-global warming with being an ignorant bigot... No one would be any the wiser, or those who would be, could easily be silenced as radicals.


The Checkmate Burden of Proof Endless Loop

The entire reason to seek global warming's reduction is to improve the world for the humans both in it and the future generations. To radically cull the species and leave behind either the executioners or people terrified and enslaved to them is doomed to not only ensure those who remain will brutally get revenge and fuck each other as much as possible to hyperpopulate and raise rebels to fight the agenda but in turn means that either it ends with a shit future for barely any future generation (if the radical eliminators win) or a brutal global-warming-catalysing series of events (if the radical anti-human-elimination side wins). It's also much less likely you ever will win, because the other side is having a lot of sex and refusing to kill each other off... You're going to be outnumbered in no time and it takes only a few sympathisers, which will be plentiful as you'll be killing many family and friends of your regime's staff, to coup from within.

If the end-goal of preventing global warming, in the first place, is to create at better, brighter future for our species, then you're securing that it defies the very purpose you're stopping it for when you do it in this way.
Round 2
Radical reductions in population can be achieved by means other than genocide or compulsion  , i never said i wanted to extreminate or castrate anyone or even coerce anybody we can get the results we want by doing what Europe or Japan has done completely voluntarily Japans population is shrinking fast no one is being gassed or surgically altered the Japanese have just stopped breeding.. and the rest of us can do the same , no ham no foul
So far, no proof that it's the best, only that it's an option.



radical adjective (SUPPORTING CHANGE)
believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change:

rad-i-kuhl ]

  • of or going to the root or origin; fundamental:a radical difference.
  • thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms:a radical change in the policy of a company.
  • favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms:radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
  • favoring, supporting, or representing extreme forms of religious fundamentalism:radical fundamentalists and their rejection of modern science.

I support non-radically manipulating the population of the world to produce less children and conform to whatever you tell them to do to stop global warming. It's working so far, exactly as planned.

Round 3
billy boy 
Round 4
Round 5
That's the way.
--> @SupaDudz
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to RM
>Reason for Decision: "Forfeit is bad conduct"
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voting policy allows for conduct points to be awarded with no substantiation when a user forfeits more than half of the rounds, awarding argument points still requires justification.
"In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."
You may award argument points when more than 1/2 the rounds are forfeited, and a simple "Pro did not contest Con's CP, the semantic debate, or the "endless loop" argument," will suffice. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but I do have to enforce the Voting Policy.
--> @K_Michael
--> @RationalMadman
May I say, in the highest amount of respect possible, that you are possibly the most Slytherin person I know?
no this is just stop breeding debate you know like the japanese and the grmans have
Oh god is this going to become a "Purge" suggestion debate.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Conduct to con for forfeitures.
Pro never once tried to argue that the best way to stop global warming its to radically reduce the human population. he merely states that it is possible and can be done humanely. This means that Pro hasn't met his burden of proof to prove that the best way to stop global warming its to radically reduce the human population. He never proves it will be the best in any way.Con states that we ought to stop global warming via the media and how it is better because it is more subtle.
In short, Con provided evidence, Pro didn't.