A debate on a provocative topic.

To my esteemed opponent: While this debate has been wonderfully entertaining, there are a few flaws in your analysis and logic. While you have sustained your humor throughout this round, humor isn't enough to win. I realize that this topic is absurd in itself, but I ask that you take this seriously. You still present arguments, and I will now begin to refute these. You say that the world's population is going to be huge in fifty years, conservatively. My first point here is that even if it is huge, you have yet to prove that this is going to be large enough to cause over population. I'm from wyoming. The fifth largest state in america, yet the lowest amount of population in america. Wyoming has only 500,000 people in the entire state. So right there is land to live on. Also, taking into account the fact that much of the arctic and tundra regions are also quite uninhabited for the most part, overpopulation is hardly a worry to most people. In fact, if you google overpopulation, you will find that most people believe that overpopulation has already occurred. If this were the case, then people would be dying off by the hundreds of thousands all over the world. This simply isn't the case. When we look to the example of fruit flies, we see that overpopulation happens when an organisms number has overstretched the ability to live off it's environment. When that happens, the organism dies off until it reaches a sustainable number. This means that even if overpopulation happens like you are saying, it's not the end of the world. People are going to die no matter what. Overpopulation solves itself. Not only that, but there are exponential amounts of ways to feed people. Take for example many countries around the world whose people eat mainly rice. Rice is cheap to produce, doesn't take a lot of farmland, and feeds mass amounts of people. You are thinking that farm land is crops like corn and potatoes and beans. While in america this is mainly true, most countries around the world have found rice to be the best way of feeding citizens. It solves for starvation. And your entire premise about being kidnapped by ghosts is childish and stupid. Now I don't think you are childish and stupid, just that argument. The biggest flaw of your argument is "We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population." This is entirely unbased. There are alternative ways to feeding people that don't involve killing someone. Rice for example. And population has yet to become overpopulated, and if it ever does then it will solve itself. Just like nature intended. And your wikipedia article says that WILD yaks are vulnerable to extinction. If we were to begin eating yaks, it would be similair to how "harvesting" cattle works. There would be places that raise yaks and then kill them and process them etc... And if you can show me how many modern vikings there are then please be my guest. And you don't tell me which cultures burn slaves, so I can't really believe that until it is proven. Cannibalism does not address overpopulation. You don't know how many people would eat other people. You don't know who would be chosen for eating. All of the semantics are gone out of your contentions. You say that people are overpopulated. Then there is nothing we can do about it, it's solving itself as we speak. If it's happened then it is fixing itself. And yaks aren't endangered. You just misread your article. And you completely missed the point about the grieving process. There is no argumentation whatsoever. I realize that you consider your wit to be one of your best qualities, but it only goes so far. There is a time to leave your wit behind you and actually start presenting arguments that are going to stand in a round. Even if the round is a fun round. If you would like to have a humorous debate with the winner being the funniest, then specify that. This isn't one of those, so please focus on your argumentation and logic from now on. Thank you and I wish you luck...even if you don't need it.