The world is not yet overpopulated and population will stop growing (eventually)

Evidence that the human population is expected to grow in the immediate future,http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...http://www.prb.org...http://www.earthportals.com...http://www.susps.org...http://rainforests.mongabay.com...The Pro claims that you need a 2.1% fertility rate to maintain populations and that current fertility rates are dropping. The current world fertility rate is 2.5%http://www.google.com...You might also notice on that graph that in recent years fertility rate on average (according to the CIA) from year to year has only dropped by about .02%..... this means that at the current rate of drop in fertility rates, it would take another 90 years for it to fall to the 2.1% levels..... Until then human populations will only continue to grow and continue to increase the strains of overpopulation on the world....The Pro clarifies that over population is "to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities" Overpopulation is literally defined as any area with so many people that available resources are strained, if you look at any major city anywhere in the world, you will find that because of the vast number of people living in those cities that those cities have had to expand very far outwards for resources needed to sustain life there. Had those cities not had the ability to acquire more resources outside of the city itself, then the people living there would quickly starve to death or die from lack of water. Not one single city in the world can sustain its population with food and water, they must always be brought in from the surroundings. If these supply routes were compromised then the cities would quickly starve to death. As for China and the one-child policy, that policy itself was the most controversial population control method ever implemented in history, if you are implying that the world can simply adopt this measure to stop overpopulation then you concede that the world does have an overpopulation problem but ignore the fact that such a policy would not be easily adopted in most, if any, countries in the world. As for the Africa argument, I have shown that Africa cannot even feed itself, and the idea that Africa can produce enough food and have the tools to logistically move millions of tons of food overseas to feed the other 5 billion people in the world is laughable, since the Pro has absolutely no evidence to suggest this is possible or probable. He is only implying that it is possible for them to do this if Africa "if they get enough workers and enough crops. It has a huge potential and if need be get moving and feed the world"which I think we can all agree will not be happening anytime soon since the last time Africa had the potential and resources to feed the world was......... neverIn the carrying capacity argument the Pro has not addressed that human technology always allow for the human population to continue growing with no cap limit and he even mentions how Africa and India will continue growing in millions of people.After the Pro decided to stick with the UN statements showing how the world population in projected to add another billion people in the coming years and dropped his idea that world populations will immediately decline..... That shows how the human population is only going to continue to grow at a very fast pace. With the 97% argument (after he redefined his own definition of over population that he gave in the first round) I translated it into English and hes arguing how in cities the quality in life has improved then they were 300 years ago. While quality of life has increased that means that now people will now be living much longer than they did before, and longer lifespans combined with an ever exploding population growth only adds to the fact that overpopulation is indeed a problem. As for the water argument the Pro provided, Water filters do filter water, thats sort of what it means Pro, but you would need thousands of them to help get water to millions of people (expensive water filters may i add) and not only that, but water filters dont help if you dont have water in the first place. Secondly the Pro only meantions how fresh water is easily fileterable...... no duh. The problem is that 99.7% of the world's water isnt fresh and isnt available for consumption which the Pro seems to have ignored.In the study the Pro miscited, he claims that the survey only shows that "People could fit there, obiously not get fed" which conflicts with his own (redefined) definition of overpopulation which he himself claims is "the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash". and if you have 7 billion people living in one place and not have any food, i think that qualifies as an impaired quality of life. So to finalize this entire debateFertility rates: I have shown that fertility rates in the world are still very high, only falling by a very small margin, and that fertility rates does not stop overpopulation, only the rate of which we continue to add to it.Food and Population: I argued that population puts an increased strain on food supplies in a situation where a population suddenly loses access to food supplies which is exacerbated if the population is very large. Pro didnt even argue this oneOne Child Policy: For this one my argument was that overpopulation was a problem in countries decades ago and that in the past populations severely harmed the surrounding ecosystems which according to the Pro's definition of overpopulation qualifies as overpopulation. The pro dropped this argument.UN Predictions: I have shown that the UN believes that world populations continue to grow in vast numbers, Pro completely ignored this one and stuck to his own hypothetical unfactually based randomly cited studies he found on the internet that he doesnt even elaborate on. Population may even decline: Again, forecasted to increase in hundreds of millions of people in a matter of years...Most of the world is empty: I argued that most of the world cannot even be inhabited (oceans, deserts mountainous regions, arctic tundra, etc.) and that the few parts of the world left over have to hold 7 billion people.... Pro ignored thisWater: I showed how a vast majority of the world's water is undrinkable or is inaccessible and that countries who need water the most do not have the financial means or location to access water to support its population. Pro claims I conceded this argument to him even though he dropped them completelyFood production: I showed how Africa does not have the means, manpower, technology, or even luck to handle the task of feeding the entire world when they cannot even feed themselves. Pro only argues that it is possible even though I have shown it literally isnt. People can fit in the world: Pro used a poor example he himself miscited to show how the world can fit comfortably in the US when in reality a good majority of them are crammed in the slums of India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa, etc. which again by the definition of overpopulation implies the world is indeed overpopulated...I'll let the voters decide who dropped whose arguments, and whose grammar was better too.....