We Need to Cull At Least 1 Billion of the Population

It's evident you really tried with your arguments. It's unfortunate that almost all of them are either invalid or ill-judged. I'll go through it point by point. You begin on a weak foot with a statement I already debunked in the very first paragraph of my initial debate. You say you are "reiterating" the issue with morality, when I see no point earlier that you originally expressed it. How is this "reiterating"? However, when I say I "debunked" it I am referring to: "If you're only thinking in moral terms then this topic is not for you. In fact, I would go as far in saying that debating - period - is not for you. Have you actually done any academic study? Created a register of advantages and disadvantages? I doubt so. I hope that my opponent will consider all these things when formulating his own argument. " I was hoping I wouldn't need to quote myself yet obviously I do, as you have done none of these things. The only objection you've given is a moral one, which is not even a direct response to my argument. Please read the title once more. It is "We NEED to Cull At Least 1 Billion of the Population". Stating: "Most people, I imagine, would agree that murder is wrong. .. " is not an argument against the need to cull. This makes the need no less. Thus, argument is invalid. You then go on to say that war is horrible, recognising historic figures such as Hitler and Mao Zedong as, I quote, "some of the most horrible people ever. " However, you fail to give evidence or example on what exactly occurred post these events. After the veterans returned home from war the famous baby boom of the 40's happened. The US and several other countries saw a birth-rate spike unequalled until this point in time. Thus, if your only argument here is that planet Earth saw a comparably shortage of humans for a small time, you truly haven't constructed anything close to solid. Although all of this is invalid for the debate I initiated anyhow, I will humour you for the time being. You spoke of Mao Zedong and I assume you were getting at the "Great Leap Forward. " If I am mistaken and you have no idea what this is, I apologise. Between 1958 and 1962, a war surged between the peasants and the state; it was a period when a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation. This is naught more than tyrant rule. If my plan was implemented, it would be nothing like this except for the fact that the population issue would gradually be diminishing to a point where future human life might actually be possible. Although you think the outcome is worse simply because of the number of people that will perish, there will be no war to reach this outcome and no political imbalance. Again, intentions that differ drastically to anyone like Hitler or Zedong. However, again here I will just press that I need not argue this point, as it is not an answer to my debate question. Using historic examples of potentate command and pasting them to my register is a feeble attempt at debate. If you can give no further argument than "This should illustrate just how morally bankrupt my opponent’s position is. ", then in my mind you have already lost. You threw up a hasty list of past injustices over a mere century's stretch, giving no reason why these are important and what evidence they show us. However, since you raised it (although argument is invalid) here are some more numbers for you. According to a new UNICEF report, almost 2 billion babies will be born in Africa between 2015 and 2050. The two main driving forces behind this surge in births and children are continued high fertility rates and rising numbers of women able to have children of their own. By the end of the century, 40% of all people will be African. By largest increase, the top 10 African nations will be: Niger, Zambia, Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Gambia, Somalia, and Malawi. 6 of these 10 countries are on Business Insider's most current "25 poorest countries in the world" list. Thus, in less than a generation's time 40% of all human life will live in the most necessitous of the third world. To me, this doesn't exactly seem like a step in the right direction for Earth's preservation. Yet applying this to your "moral" logic, all of these terrifying numbers are "better" or "kinder" than the deaths of 1 billion purpose-serving humans. What a shame. You attempt to raise the point of alternative method. ". .. as terrible an act as killing a billion people is, any other way of preventing the effects of overpopulation should be chosen. " Okay, any ideas as to what this "other way" might be? Have you done the research and brought us a feasible response? I suppose not. Even so, I guarantee whatever you surmise will be incalculably more time-consuming, which, when we get down to it, is what this matter relies on. Time. You then mention the source I used, attempting to plaster hollowness to my argument by showing how we arrive at different conclusions. "My opponent uses this as evidence that the greatest massacre in history must be performed, yet his/her own source comes to a different conclusion about what to do about it. " Do you mind explaining to me how this remotely matters? You do realise what "sourcing" information means, don't you? I'm not disclosing only what I want you to see, and attempting to hide all the rest. The conclusion the page comes to on this matter is of no interest to me. If you scroll up and perhaps read a touch more intently you'll see I used the source simply as a statistic carrier. It explained that the sustainable number for human life on Earth is 2-3 billion. This was all I needed to know/show. I then went on to provide weight and vitality to this simple statistic (which again is alone what I used the source for) - which is inarguably a lot more than you have done thus far. In your lacking conclusion you stamp me as "hypocritical", stating I will be robbing a seventh of the world of the status I so describe. It worries me that this is at the close of your argument, as it shows me you clearly are still not clued in on what it is I am debating. You are once more stemming from a moral standpoint, which here I can say is a tad more appropriate, as I myself mention things such as love and growth. Yet this is why the issue is so much more vital than you can see. Yes a seventh (at least) will not live full lives, because they are creating lives in doing so. Billions and billions more. You can view above the future of our race - billions bogged down in a corner of the world, scrambling for resources, food, and in turn, life. Thus, if the only argument you can muster revolves around you taking the moral high ground, I can easily assure you that the fate you are condemning for them is far more harrowing. You ask me if I would volunteer my life in the midst of this world-saving program. If your profile is truthful and you are indeed 19 as you say, I can presume you don't currently have children. For them, for the children of thousands of unspoken generations to come, yes. Yes I would. I'd just like to mention now that there are a supposed 5 rounds to this debate. I doubt we will need them. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.