People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

I think instead of the term ‘ignorant' a more diplomatic and appropriate response may have been along the lines of "my opponent seems unaware", or "my opponent fails to take into account". That aside I would like to ask him upon what this contention is based? I have already posted links that show that not only is the world's population over 6 billion (it is fact closer to 7 than 6), it is also growing. As we are in fact supporting over six billion people, and supporting more people every single day, in which way can it be argued that we do not have enough resources to support six billion, nor as my opponent adds ‘even half a billion‘. In the latter case the world's population has been half a billion and higher for the past 400 years and yet we still enjoy a surplus of resources. Is my opponent seriously arguing that we have been unable to support our population for over 400 years? My opponent also states that, "We are destroying the environment 200 species are dying each day" My opponent has failed to provide evidence for this claim, in any case I feel it is actually irrelevant to the debate unless my opponent can demonstrate that this is linked directly to the size of the global population and that this is actually a problem. Maybe he would like to name a single species that has died during this week and explain how this has impacted mine and his quality of life. "The society is more important than one futile non labouring non productive petty citizen. " I could equally claim that society should serve the individual, in any case my opponent has ignored the extensive evidence of people remaining productive beyond their 55th birthday. Furthermore my opponent is not actually calling for the cull of non-productive citizens. He is calling for the cull of all citizens over the age of 55 on the basis of the false assumption that they are non-productive. My opponent states that, "Now we could use the power and violence of the state and make a government program called universal reduction of human population in society where we could promote friendly ideas like "The Voluntary Human Extinction Act" . http://www.vhemt.org....... " However this spoof site is humorously arguing for the extinction of the human race by refusing to breed. It is not arguing for solving supposed problems of ‘overpopulation' by culling the elderly. By supplying this link my opponent is now arguing against his original premise! In summary, the burden of proof is upon my opponent to show that the world's population is ‘too high' and is ‘unsustainable'. He must also show that culling those over the age of 55 would significantly reduce the world's population and would maintain it at sustainable levels (which he claims would be below half a million). Conversely I have shown that the world's population is neither too high, nor unsustainable. The cull would fail to reduce the world's population to the levels my opponent deems acceptable, and as birth rates would continue to outstrip the death rate the world's population would continue to grow. Until my opponent makes his case and offers a rebuttal to my points the case for PRO is negated.