Homosexuals Are An Asset To The Overall Thriving Of The Human Species

We Definitely Do Need Population ControlPoverty"1. Like I stated before when a population is decreasing the country faces many problems. Like lower employment and a bad economy. " - ProMy opponent did state this, but backed it up with nothing. Thus, it can be disregarded. I provided statistical evidence and facts proving the need for population control. He completely ignored the notion that the more people there are, the higher percentage of poverty arises. I will show this chart[1] again: Table 4-1 World Population 1950-85: Key Facts Size and Rates 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 Total Population (billions) World 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.4 4.8 More developed regions 0.83 0.94 1.05 1.14 1.17 Less developed regions 1.68 2.07 2.65 3.31 3.66 Annual Growth * (per cent) World 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7 More developed regions 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 Less developed regions 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.0 Urban Population (per cent) World 29 34 37 40 41 More developed regions 54 67 67 70 72 Less developed regions 17 22 25 29 31 Co2 emissions"2. Co2 has been proven not to get the world hotter. .. " - ProThe above is false, and virtually every climate change scientists agrees with me. "It is the major greenhouse gas produced by humans, which is having the single greatest effect on climate change. "[2] I think my opponent just simply needs to get his facts straight. The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to Co2[3]. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human actions like deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. We have increased Co2 concentration by 1/3 since the Industrial Revolution started. This is the most crucial long-lived "forcing" of climate change[3]. Here is another chart showing how temperature rises in correlation with Co2 rising: "The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. " - Andrew Lacis[4]Andrew Lacis did not just commit a bare assertion, but science proves his statement. My opponent talks about a "bouncing" effect but without non-condensing greenhouse gases, clouds and the vapor of water would not be ale to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect[4]. It seems as if my opponent is simply mistaken. It has been proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that human beings and Co2 are the reason for the temperature rising. This is the general consensus in climate change science, and it is bascked up by an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. Fossil FuelsMy opponent says that because of free energy, oil will not be that important. However, this just seems like fantasy in the short term. The US and other major nations still rely on oil, and will for many decades to come. Therefore, as long as this is the case, we need the population down so we can all thrive. Saying that we can solve the oil problem just by getting free-energy universally is a cop out, as its easier said than done. Our economy is too dependant on oil at this point to take my opponent's objection here seriously (at least in the short term). Regardless, I mentioned other finite resources and fossil fuels that my opponent just ignored. Food and WaterMy opponent completely ignored my evidence that the food and water supply cannot catch up to population growth. This alone shows a need for population control. Since homosexuals help the problem by not reproducing nearly as as often as straight people, they are an asset (even if only a small asset). HomosexualsMy opponent says that homosexuals have nothing to do with the birth rate. This is obviously false, as homosexuals cannot produce children together naturally. Also, adopting children does not aid in population growth, as they are adopting children instead of having children. This means, homosexuality aids in population control, not population growth. If they were straight, they would have just reproduced instead of adopting a child that already exists. "Homosexual men marry much less frequently and have far fewer children than their unambiguously heterosexual counterparts. " - E. O. Wilson[5]ConclusionI have shown that population control is needed. Even if it is not needed (which it is), at the very least I showed that it would help many of our problems with regards to the flourishing and thriving of human beings. If it can help, then homosexuals can help because they have fewer children than straight people and stabilise the birth rate more. This means that even if they are only a little asset, they are still an asset. My opponent's objections seem to consist of mostly misinformation, and ignoring much of my argument. Therefore, the resolution seems to have been affirmed. Sources[1] . http://www.un-documents.net...[2] . http://climate.nasa.gov...[3] . http://www.climatechoices.org.uk...[4] . http://joecrubaugh.com...[5] . http://www.nasa.gov...[6] . http://www.probe.org...