Instigator / Pro

Humans Carry the Responsibility for Population Control in the Case of Overpopulation


Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 618 / 5,000

Rounds 1 and 2 are for presentation of arguments, Round 3 rebuttals only.
Some definitions:
Humans: Homo-sapiens
Responsibility: the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something
Population Control: a policy of attempting to limit the growth in numbers of a population
Overpopulation: the condition of being populated with excessively large numbers.

Burden of Proof lies on both pro and con

Forfeiture results in a loss, so don't forfeit.

Note also that this is not a debate of current affairs. It is a hypothetical situation and merits responses with that in mind.

Good luck and lets have some fun

Round 1
It would appear I was unclear in providing the total meaning of what I meant as the prompt. As the contender and I disagree and I wouldn't want to have my opponent debate something they don't feel they accepted, I'm going to go ahead and simply forfeit the debate. I'll go ahead and start a different one that better specifies what I'm going for. I apologize, feel free to give the conduct to Con, it was my mistake. I'll do better next time ;)
Thank you, MonkeyKing, for this debate. I regret that Pro has chosen to forfeit the debate, which I take as a full concession. That is unfortunate, for I’m sure that Pro had arguments to present, just as I have occupied the time to prepare arguments. I will still present them, regardless of concession by Pro:
Pro indicates that this topic is hypothetical. I accept, but Pro should be warned: hypotheses still require a certain defendable logic. Theories are not valid when presented as pies-in-the-sky. Theories must have some basis in fact on which to build theory. Therefore, I declare it incumbent on Pro to start with a logical foundation. As stated by topic, this may prove to be difficult. 
I would have first present argument for my BoP, then present rebuttal to Pro’s R1 arguments. However, as there are no Pro arguments, there is nothing to rebut. Therefore, my arguments:
1. Declining world human population
a.    For meeting a logical foundation, I find it curious to bring up an issue of hypothetical human over-population when, at present, Earth is experiencing a decline in human fertility, and a resulting population that is decreasing at rates that, by the end of the century – the 21st-  may alarm and hinder some countries from meeting employment needs, among other issues.[i]
b.    The list of current countries experiencing declining populations is long and distinguished, including population leaders such as China, India, and the United States, currently, the three most populated countries on Earth, but many, many other countries, as well. Observe the decline list from a 2021-reporting source.[ii]
c.     I therefore challenge Pro’s topic/resolution declaring a responsibility/accountability of human population control to address over-population. On that necessity, source ii   is utterly silent, given the contributing factors described as root causes of population decline worldwide with very few exceptions.
d.    The decline factors of demographic change include: aging, emigration, fertility rates below population replacement, rising death rates by violence and disease, and deliberate population control by limiting pregnancy and birth rate.[iii]
e.    I declare, based on the above factors, that the topic cause and effect is not a valid statement.  To wit,  we do not have a world over-population crisis and any theory, hypothetical, or not, simply does not have logical foundation.
2. Human responsibility for human population control
a.    I perceive this beginning phrase of the topic to be a truism which is, in effect, non-debatable. What other animal species on Earth could potentially be responsible to control human population growth, even if the issue were an actual crisis requiring control?  By argument 1, above, I successfully rebut the necessity.
b.    Perhaps we ought to consult the aardvark, the first Earth animal on the list of animals by alphabetic sequence.[iv]  This animal, at least, will not be responsible for natural inclination to remove members of humanity simply for dietary concerns. What, then, would be their removal criteria, and would we be willing to accept those criteria by any aardvarkian motivation?
c.     Would it even be prudent to ask any nation of humans, or any combination of nations, to take such responsibility, and would the rest of us be willing to accept their motivation for choices for elimination? Economic, educational, religious inclination, or random? 
d.    One must address, however, and I have in rebuttal below, the topical drift, or migration, Con has suggested in R1 that such population control include control of all non-human animals. One need merely observe the attempts by humans in the early 20thcentury to control the wolf population by lottery-style license to kill wolves.[v] The effort was begun in the misguided opinion that wolves were decimating deer and elk populations, ignoring that humans, too, preyed upon these animals, both for food and trophies. We discovered when actually settling to investigate the matter that wolves, all on their own, manage to control their own population, without our “assistance.”[vi] That “discovery” was evidence of humans finally engaging the responsibility of our “dominion.”
e.    It must be noted that, at least by biblical injunction, humankind is mandated to have dominion over the earth and her creatures. That does not mean we have carte blanche to do whatever we are inclined to do. It means we manage with prudence to assure all creatures have worthwhile existence.
f.     The absurdity of the proposal to artificially manage non-human animal populations without first researching if these animals do so largely on their own without our intervention, being a truism, is thus exposed, and the topic statement, even in its migrated condition is, therefore, defeated.
g.    Even as concerns the scope of the debate, limited to human population, our historic approach to control from fertility manipulation through creatively justified genocide is patently absurd because those who decide such means never, ever include themselves as worthy of contributing to the control menchanisms.[vii]  It is the classic environmental denial: “not in my backyard.”
3. The hypothetical situation
a.    Pro engaged the debate as a hypothetical situation and not a debate of current conditions. “Hypothetical” could mean just about anything, such as the possibility of a manufactured virus that increases fertility rate to population explosive levels.
b.    This potential is why I cautioned against hypotheses that have no reasonable basis in plausibility – an illogical foundation.
I conclude as mentioned at first: Con has conceded/forfeited the debate.


Round 2
I agreed with Pro by message to cancel this debate and start a new one so that the other animals could be included in the topic, but Pro had to initiate that request to a Moderator; no one else could do it for him. I regret that Pro has chosen to forfeit the debate, which I take as a full concession. That is unfortunate, for I’m sure that Pro had arguments to present, just as I have occupied the time to prepare arguments. Two of three rounds have now been forfeited. That, being over 50% of rounds, by policy, and by Pro’s stated rules for even a single round, is a loss. 
Nevertheless, I hereby stand on my R1 arguments and pass R3.
Round 3
I regret that Pro has fully forfeited the debate. As there are no arguments by Pro to rebut, I will forego any rebuttal. Further, given the rule to have no new argument in the third round, I will stand on my R1 arguments and proceed to a review of my arguments and a conclusion.
1.             In R1, I presented argument that there is a declining world population represented by many countries, specifically the leading population countries: China, India, and the United States. I declared, therefore, that the need of population control by any other means necessary than by the natural decline in fertility across the globe has been rendered unnecessary.
2.             R1 also acknowledged the argument that human control of human population is the most logical species to expect to manage population if it were needed, but, given the condition of 1, above, it is not necessary. 
3.             I conclude, therefore, lacking any argument from Pro, that the topic is sustained by these arguments. I declare the debate victory, and request your vote of that conclusion. Thank you for your attention.