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

The graphWhere is it from? Can't trust uncited evidence. Will refute when it is cited. It also proves thet fertility rates will fall, therefore slowng population growth, also:A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. [1]So if the rate falls below 2 then population will shrink. "Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history." [2]I need to do this in word it keeps deleting, this is my 5th draft. Hungerby definiton if we where ovepulated we would be all in hunger as overpopulation wold et up food and water reasaorces. But you concede we are not all starving, therefore he basically concedes. ChinaHe also concedes again the one child policy will drastically cut populations, regionally and world wide.He also uses a falacy if a country was overpopulated 4rs ago how is the world not overpopulated. imabench we argue world overpopulation not regional. America is not overpopulated obviously, and some are are under populated, but the thing is those regions fully affect the whole world. The killings in rowanda or the anarchy n somalia doesn't affect us as is reigonal. SO my opponents argument here is a fallacy. AfricaMy first source says europe will lose millions population, my seconsays america will lose some too, and another source will prove brazil will some: http://www.google.com...This graph shows the popn fertility under 2, 2.1-2 is what you need for a stable popualtion. So their population will decline. My opponent once again says that regional changes will affect world problems. At first it will over time the countries and continents I have mentioned proves you wrong. Top outMy opponent says my reaons are false and population will grow, which is false according to UN estimates:A UN PDF link is provided (3rd source) they say around 2300 or 2100 populationw WILL STABILIZE and top out and maybe even decrease. So the toping of is gonna happen no mater what, wether we will flat line or go down is the question now. [3]other predictions:But Haub said the observed increases in industrialized-world fertility rates will have a relatively minor effect overall - populations are expected to decline over time if average fertility rates remain below 2.1, which demographers consider the stabilization rate, absent net migration. "Developed countries have largely painted themselves into a corner now," Haub said, referring to the likelihood that their low fertility will result in smaller populations in the years ahead. "All the growth will come from developing countries." [4]and another: Linked to 5th source.Population will flat out. Also the site shows japans population will hit near 0. So sure india and africa will keep pumping out babies, but the rest of the worlds population decline will make it flat line. UNI picked a side. I picked the UN, if you do to then thanks for the debate. But please don't let it end up like our fetus debate lol. 97%I will define overpopulation again:the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash http://www.merriam-webster.com...dang it d my explanation. basically I said the worlds cities only take up 3% an al areas take another few percent and that life is better now with higher pops on that 3% then in 1700. And called your arnother minor fallacy. Watera few things:1. water filters filter water2. most water that frwch is drinkable after filtration which most water goes through now. (that is universal I provided no source as all of the goverments in the world [well most of them] have city wide filters). 3. Salt water can be frashened easily [6]They can also ship the water to these countries.Africaeasy to explain. Only ertian areas have acces to foods and those areas can feed the world. Tos pictures are from dar-4. Dar-4 has no reasources, just starving people and desert . poor people :( africa CAN sistain the whole world with right tools and transportation. will provide more proof:a video for those who wan't to hear the tanzanian president: http://www.aol.com...Now real not just links *looks at you* jkAlso it sn't have the corps to feed it's nations, but what I meant was it had the potential to. [7] It has the potential to feed the whole world and 9 billion people+ if they get enough workers and enough crops. It has a huge potential and if need be get moving and feed the world. [7]lol so now they struggle but they have the POTENTIAL to feed the world. SO if one co can then we're ok. survey.I did you mismy arguments. It said in any one of those places all 7 billion people could fit. So 80% of america is not occupied just any single one of those states. Sorry for the problem in that argument. Also imabench you ignore the study. People could fit there, obiously not get fed. It said it is possible they could all be there temporarily. They would need another state to feed themselves. But the point of that was basically 7 billion people spread out don't take up much space, strengthening my other arguemnt (97%). ==conclusion to rebbutals==my opponent made weak rebuttals to my case with none of his own, the BOP is split 50-50 as I stated first round. I also challenged him to provide evicence, whic I see none. I also chalenged him to provide evidence that we absolutly could not sustain current populations (as he needs to prove a. we are currently overpopulated, and b, never gonna stop growing) he has not fufullehis bop. I recomend he make a case next round before attacking my arguments. Vote con as I have evidence. add on to arguments:C1: fertility ratesmy opponent gave that to meC2: food and overpopulationgave that to me tooC3: china one childgave that to me tooC4: UN predictionsproved aboveC5: population will stop growingproved above, no significant rebuttalC6: populaiton may even declinefairly proven, but i will add a little. But now there is a growing consensus among demographers over a new forecast: that women in nations with 80 percent of the world's population will begin to limit their families to two children or fewer. Before the century ends, the number of humans likely will start to shrink, reckons James Chamie, director of the United Nation's population division. That will be a "momentous" reversal in direction. [8] low on room that's all I can do. C7: most of the world is emptyno signifacant rebuttal here and after saying that it was untrue argues it like I was right but somehow tried make it pro him. C8: waterprovenC9: food productionno rebuttalC10: fit the worldproven, poor rebuttal==conclusion==he basically conceded my arguments or didn't refute. Vote pro ad my opponent has not t his BOP nor dos he have arguments. The world is not overpopulated, and populations will top off. https://www.cia.gov... [1]http://www.census.gov... [2]www.un.org/esa/population/publications/.../WorldPop2300final.pdf [3]http://www.worldwatch.org... [4]http://wmbriggs.com...; [5]http://ga.water.usgs.gov... [6]http://online.wsj.com... [7]http://www.csmonitor.com... [8]