The world would be better off with less people.

Your previous pre-argument comments are unneccesary to this debate, and I therefore banish their possibility to be used as arguements. Carrying on, As for argument #1: You say that if there are less people, there wouldn't be as many people to make/harvest the foods. I simply argue that there are thousands upon thousands of unemployed peoples throughout the world. When these job spots are open, there will be people to fill it. Also, there wouldn't need to be as many farm workers because demand would be lower. As you can see from the following, your argument doesn't hold, and my arguement reigns supreme in this sceneario. Argument Number 1 goes to padfo0t. As for argument #2 You said that the air "won't get any better. This is simply not true. Well-read people know that almost all plants on earth, and the whole ocean ecosystem absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The reason the air is currently (2008) getting worse is because the burning of fosil fuels is creating more carbon than the biosphere can take in. When there are less people on the earth, there will undoubtedly be needing less energy, burning less fossil fuels creating less carbon dioxide, leading to a positive growth in oxygen:carbon-dioxide ratio meaning better air. Argument Number 2 goes to padfo0t. As for argument #3 I understand that you believe if there are less people, the unemployment rate will stay the same. This is also untrue because there will still be jobs for people to do, but less competition for those jobs. It is, however, true that the number of positions in jobs will be needed- mind you not much less- as the job opportunities today are endless. Argument Number 3 goes to padfo0t. "Argument 4" was merely a gesture of playfulness, because I believe humour makes every debate a little bit better. (reminder to opposition, you do not need to argue that point for it is irrelevant) "If my opponent means many people were gone, then that wouldn't be beneficial to EVERYONE. Is he offering his family to have cleaner air? It would not be beneficial to everyone. Also think of all the now domestic animals like cats, dogs hamsters, mousters, and all the other pets people enjoy, that can't survive in the wild very easily. Many of them don't have homes, and have to be put to sleep." Please do not interpret the topic incorrectly. In no way do I mean that half the people on earth should just vanish and die. I stated "less people", and you can conclude that that means the population never got that high in the first place. Also, you simpathyze with poor animals that "would be left on their own", but these animals would not have come to existence if the people's population were never so high. As i have clearly rebutted all of your points, and explained again why mine are superior, I would like to add some points that you shall have to rebutt: i) It is easier to please the masses, if they aren't so massive. ii) There would be more space to build facilities iii) You might suggest there would be less brains to think of inventions and the like, but students would get more individual attention, become more educated, and succeed in life. vi) It would help save species from being hunted to extinction v) There would be less waste as a result of human activity. I advise you reasonably argue these points, and come up with some of your own so this may be a fun debate with no more "WTFs". Good Day!