We’re going to do the debates one at a time, on a first come first served basis. Gaia and Joker got their act together, so down the chute they go. I would strongly suggest an odd number of judges, for reasons I hope I don’t have to explain. “One” is an odd number - just to make a suggestion. Anyway, it doesn’t have to be twebty-four hours - any reasonable time frame will do. But it looks like a short delay would be helpful here.
But please state the final version of your rules.
If you’re still looking for a third judge I’d be more than happy to volunteer…
It’s an interesting debate. I am caught on the fence.
Uncontrolled population growthwould solve our natural selection problem… but many would die…
We could control it all and less would die… for awhile… then we could be devastated by germs or something more explody.
we could get caught off guard and be set back like 50 generations…
In either case the risks are big and the benifits are big.
I must admit that uncontrolled population growth is the best bet, but the gain is lessened by the cost.
On the other hand, the gain is great, but so too is the risk.
I would need more information i guess…
Okay my list of judges are:
Gaia
Hume
Wonderer
Moderator:
Faust (again, 
)
Do we have a final statement of the agreed-upon rules?
What does the house believes, I think it should be stated to limit the area of argumentation don’t you think?
Number of posts should be limited, at least. Also, please, judges, just give a collective verdict at the end, so we can wrap the debate up. You can all blather all you want on the discussion thread as to why you chose the way you did.
Let’s just start, it’s taking too long.
Do you have rules? I saw some that Carleas suggested. I didn’t see any that the participants agreed to.
I think you’re taking too long, myself. As it is, you’ll have to wait for the current debate to end.
Rules were: No smileys. Logical statements based on credible sources with the omission of sarcasm and wit to which Ios agreed.
I’m uncertain that there’s any interest in the topic. He’s probably right and I’m probably wrong. Nevermind.
Is this going ahead?
I don’t think so. Why?
Just curious. I can clear my calender now.
Is this challenge alive and kicking? I’m about to suspend the current debate for lack of interest. Please let me know, and we’ll launch this one.
just a few minutes ago i was thinking about how limited babies would be beneficial for the planet and thereby us as a whole…
Eh?
I would be happy to take this uber long challenge. Any takers? But I am only available on a Saturday though (a Friday night on your part of the rock).
Anyways in my country a ship sunk and 700+ died, then someone commented that such tragedies are a better method than condoms. What an a-hole.
So here are some assumptions first:
And please if you believe that the world is better without (not few) humans, I am not interested.
Yea i apologize. i was thinking more or less that the uncontrolled growth would destroy us completely due to global warming, but that isn’t objective of me at all.
The funny thing is that i do think the world is better off without humans, but you know me, i can adopt the perspective of “what is best for humanity” like a son 
I just don;t fancy humanity too much is all
Too bad, I can’t have a debate with you as we have attributed different values on the existence of humanity and that is another debatable topic which I am sure I will lose. Haha.
Now I am curios why are you in invisible mode? 
Good question. I guess it’s so that 'm not expected to respond in instant message like conversations (i had a bad rut of that a few months back.
but heck, here goes nuthin!
Oh ok.
Well I have a class now, ciao. 