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

Also, I clicked "submit" by accident and posted my last round without double-checking for errors. I meant to say "360,000 people die each day", not "360 people die each day" for instance. I do apologize for any confusion pertaining to my last round. Population Growth My opponent here says that birth rates have been on a decline within the past 12 years. This is a red herring[1] logical fallacy, as it has no bearing on the resolution we are discussing. Even if birth rates have been on the decline, that would not mean that homosexuality does not help to aid the population growth problem. For example, if I have money problems, but my money is actually starting to increase, does that mean that an extra $1000.00 is not an asset, or does not help? Of course not. Even if the problem is starting to be solved, that extra money is still an asset. Similarly, even if birth rates are decreasing; homosexuality is still an asset because it aids in the decrease of the overall population. This section from Con does absolutely nothing to undermine my argument. I am not arguing that homosexuals are essential to the overall thriving of the human species, just that they are an asset. An extra good player on my Chess team is an asset, but we can do well without him, so he is not essential. Regardless, lets take a look at my opponent's first chart here: You will notice that way more people are being born than are dying. Thus, even if birth rates are decreasing, the population itself is still growing at a staggering rate. Therefore, this section from Con is rather trivial. "Despite lower expected fertility rates, [the world population] is likely to reach 9.1 billion by 2050, with most of the increase taking place in developing countries. .. "[2]The point the above quote is trying to get across, is even with a decrease in birth rates, population growth is still out of control. We Definitely Do Need Population Control My opponent completely ignored all my arguments in favor of the need for population control. Con never addressed the statistical evidence that population growth causes the percentage of poverty around the globe to rise. He never addressed my evidence that food and oil companies cannot keep up with the global population growth, and that our finite resources are being lost at a staggering rate. Con never addressed my evidence that population control is the best way to lower Co2 emissions, and did not object to my claims about finite habitable land. Con just pretended like my arguments did not even exist, and presented a lackluster case against the notion that we need population control. He quotes one person who seems to disagrees with me, but he did not post any statistical evidence to back up his claims. Lets delve into the arguments for the need for population control a little further shall we? Fossil FuelsOil is a finite resource that our entire economy depends on[3]. Con probably just wants people to forget about this, however this problem will not go away unless action is taken. We are losing way too much of our oil at the hands of the growing population: People are being killed in the middle east over oil. I do not believe people should die over oil. The human species cannot thrive with wars over finite resources. This scarcity problem is largely due the population growth problem. This seems to suggest that it is fanciful to view population control as anything less than needed. People are going to extreme measures to obtain this precious substance, when we do not have to fight over oil. All we need to do is keep the population down. Also, Petroleum is declining at an average yearly rate of between 2% and 6%, maybe nearer to 4%[4]Food and WaterFamine and shortage of water is going to be a huge problem in our future, as there are too many people to feed the world already. It is also commonly known that overpopulation is the cause of famine in many counties[5], and that population growth and famine are inherently linked[6]. These are irrefutable facts. Here is an illustrative chart regarding population and carrying capacity: Also, take Ethiopia. It is quite known that they have a famine problem, and it is also known that population growth is the culprit[7]. I am sincerely baffled as to how Con cannot argue with a straight face that we do not need population control. Additionally, there is a clear correlation here with regards to population growth and water shortages: PollutionAreas with the most people have the most pollution[8]. Pollution harms human beings, and hinders the flourishing and thriving of our species[9]. This further demonstrates the need for population control on a massive scale. ConclusionCon mentioned a birth rate decrease, but not a population decrease; thus his argument with regards to my "Population Growth" section is a red herring. My opponent does not contest the fact that the population is growing at an alarming rate. Against the need for population control Con provided no case, and no statistical evidence. He simply quoted a man who disagrees with me. I provided overwhelming evidence in favor of the need for population control. My opponent also did not contest the fact the if population control is needed, that homosexuals would be an asset. Due to the fact that I sufficiently supported my case, and Con had a rather weak rebuttal; it is safe to say that the resolution has been affirmed. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Sources[1] . http://www.nizkor.org...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://unfccc.int...[4] . http://bravenewworld.in...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://www.jonathonporritt.com... [7] . http://www.straight.com... [8] . http://www.jstor.org... [9] . http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com...*Chart Source* - . http://www.paulchefurka.ca...