The Earth Is Not Overpopulated

I will provide my defense, and head onto to the voting period. Thanks for the debate! !! DefenseBurdensPro says that I misunderstood my burden. Pro says that it is not about some cities overpop. , it is about the whole world overpopulated. The definiton of the debate is overpopulated- a certain area not overpopulated. So, the debate is, "There is no overpopulated area in the Earth, if you paraphrase it, not what my opponent said. My opponent didn't make anything about burdens, and changing it in round 3, in the middle of the debate makes the debate change, and my opponent needed to argue about it in round 2, which he didn't making my burden, and the burdens the same, and if I prove that there is a excessive population in one place, then I win. 1st and 2nd argumentMy opponent does not rebut my 1st and 2nd argument, only saying they aren't related to the resolution, and don't satisfy my burden, and she drops it. She drops it. However, I have shown that my burden that I said is actually right, according to my opponent's definitions, and it is ridiculous to change it in the middle of the debate. Therefore, my arguments actually make an impact in my burden, and as my opponent didn't rebut them, I tell to extend my arguments, and vote for Con. I'll now go onto my other arguments which my opponent does rebut. Population TrendsMy opponent says that the population is starting to decline. This is really ridiculous, as I shown in my graph, and other graphs. See again here: I am shocked how my opponent can call this declining from the 1800's. 6 billion people were borned in that time, and how is that declining? That is not, and my opponent's rebuttal is false. My opponent says that we can provide things for 11 billion of people, but that is false. The Earth can only fill 10 billion calculating the water, as my source in round 2 said. My opponent does not rebut this at all, and my opponent's rebuttal is false. And 40 years against D-Day is quite not that far away, therefore the Earth is overpopulated. My opponent fails to rebut my argument. PollutionMy opponent says that he denies that there is lot's of pollution, and I don't provide a source. I am shocked that my opponent denies this. This is a logical fact, and I thought it needed no source. Look at all the sources here- . https://www.google.fr...My opponent says that this does nothing to do with pollution. More pollution means more people, as I shown, and that there is a lot of pollution, there would be a lot of people. My opponent doesn't rebut this, therefore it is dropped. Global WarmingPro says that this cannot be argued that the Earth is overpopulated. I've shown it. My opponent doesn't rebut it, only saying it is false. Why? My opponent doesn't explain. Hence, you shouldn't buy his rebuttal, therefore please vote Con! !! ConclusionProAll of my opponent's case was not explained of the other animals, and they are part of Earth, if my opponent's resolution was about humans, it is a good case, but it is about the Earth, and he doesn't explain about animals, therefore his arguments are all wrong. ConMy opponent fails to refute any of my arguments. He drops my 1st and 2nd argument completely. Population Trends argument was false. Pollution and GW, my opponent said it is false, but doesn't say why, so they are bad rebuttals. Therefore, you have to vote Con, as there is no other choice. Vote Con. Thanks for the debate.