Return to CreateDebate.commrwaltergeography • Join this debate community

Mr Walter's Geog Page


Debate Info

85
18
I agree because.... I disagree because.....
Debate Score:103
Arguments:45
Total Votes:165
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree because.... (34)
 
 I disagree because..... (11)

Debate Creator

pwalter1(9) pic



Wealth Is Important In Deciding How Devastating A Natural Disasaster Is

The destruction and devestation caused by a natural disaster varies according to which country it hits. Countries that have a higher GNP are less likely to have a high mortality rate from the disaster and less likely to suffer a large economic impact.

I agree because....

Side Score: 85
VS.

I disagree because.....

Side Score: 18
4 points

The healthcare system in MEDCs is better than in LEDCs so they will be better equipped to deal with a large scale emergency.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

And also not as many people will be injured in MEDC's as the buildings are of higher quality and will not crush people like in an LEDC country

Side: I agree because....
ClaudeI(13) Disputed
1 point

But which one is more costly, how much money do you think must go into the medical aspects in MEDC hazards compared with LEDC harzards.

Side: I disagree because.....
AnthonyK(22) Disputed
2 points

The healthcare system is already present, as is the equipment that would be used to treat these extra wounds. It is not the money that is the issue here, more having enough tie to treat everyone before they die.

Side: I agree because....
4 points

MEDC's have better health care and better emergency services then the LEDC's which shows they have more money.

Side: I agree because....
4 points

i agree because medc's can recover quicker from natural disasters because of their wealth and economy, where as ledc's can't really afford the costs to help recover from the disaster and will suffer because all their money will have gone to re-building etc and will not have enough money for other supplies.

Side: I agree because....
4 points

MEDC's have better building structures and better hospitals health and medical care therefore if there was a nataraul disaster then it wouldn't be as bad if it was in an LEDC which have less sustainable buildings and poor health care.

Side: I agree because....
4 points

MEDCs have better healthcare and emergency services so in the event of a natural disaster they are better equiped to deal with the damage than LEDCs.

Side: I agree because....
3 points

Medc's have more sustainable buildings than Ledcs meaning they will be able to stand the impact of natural disasters and cause less damage.

Side: I agree because....
3 points

MEDC's will recover better from a natural disaster because they can afford resources to rebuild there buildings.

Side: I agree because....
3 points

MEDC's have better built buildings because of the matirials used with in the structure. As well as better health care than MEDC's because they have more money.

Side: I agree because....
3 points

I agree because if a country has little wealth (LEDC) then they do not have the money to develop buildings that can hold against a natural disaster, an earthquake for example. A magnitude earthquake in an LEDC will cause masses of lives to be lost, however, a little amount of damage in terms of money will occur. This happens due to cheap housing being built. People are trapped and crushed by the falling debris, but the housing is so cheap that the economy is not effected much. The is also poor health care in LEDC's, which could be disastrous if a natural disaster strikes as people won't be able to get treatment for anything easily, and could die from just a scratch, further adding to the death toll.

A wealthy country (MEDC) does have the money to develop buildings that are hazard proof, such as having gyroscopic stabilisers underneath buildings to prevent them from collapsing during an earthquake. This saves lives, and consequently, very few people die in MEDC's. However, the buildings cost lots of money to create, whether they are hazard proof or not. People's lives are saved at the expense of a great deal of money. Lives can't be measured in money though, so it is my belief that LEDC's take natural disasters harder than we do as lives are actually lost.

hehe, longest argument on the board :D

Side: I agree because....
2 points

I agree because in MEDCs they have well-built buildings and better healthcare, meaning people are less likely to suffer as well as the economy. In LEDCs they have worse healthcare and badly built buildings, meaning that fatalitys are more likely.

Side: I agree because....
2 points

MEDCs have better emergency services so will be better equipped to deal with the disaster.

Side: I agree because....
2 points

MEDC's have better built buildings (structual wise). Also they have better health care than LEDC's

Side: I agree because....
2 points

MEDC's have better healthcare and are better prepared for natural disasters and the devastating effects they can have. Therefore when a natural disaster strikes the amount of fatalities and the damage/impact the natural disaster has on the surronding area is lower. This is the opposite to an LEDC, as LEDC's have poor healthcare, aren't very well prepared for natural disasters and are often overcrowded. So when a natural disaster strikes an LEDC there are more fatalities, the cost of repair is higher and the impact the natural disaster has is often catastrophic.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

You're absolutely right Tim. Let's not forget of course that the buildings are poor quality and they're easy to destroy, which is why the cost of the repair is higher.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

MEDCs have better equipment and more sustainable buildings as LEDCs. MEDCs also have better health and medical care for emergency services.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

MEDC's have the money to do something about the hazards, healthcare in MEDCs are higher than in LEDCs making it easier for them to fill the needs of people.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

If a country is wealthier it has a better response to a disaster. For example the Hati earthquake because this place was a LEDC it had to get help from MEDC such as the UK to deal with the disaster. We sent rescuers to help people from the wrecks of homes. But in a MEDC they don't always rely on this help from other countries as they have more money invested into their own emergency services, health care and early warning systems so the aftermath is not as bad as a LEDC.

Side: I agree because....
AnthonyK(22) Disputed
1 point

So what your saying is, if a country is poor, it will recover quicker because it has the help from several countries, so therefore has a better response to disaster? way to back up your argument that richer countries have a better response

Side: I disagree because.....
JamesC(39) Disputed
1 point

To be fair, he didn't say an LEDC will recover quicker. He said they rely on MEDCs to help. The UK donated quite a large amount of money to help the earthquake victims, because Haiti is an LEDC. They're still not fully recovered from the earthquake.

"If a country is wealthier it has a better response to a disaster."

"But in a MEDC they don't always rely on this help from other countries as they have more money invested into their own emergency services... so the aftermath is not as bad as a LEDC."

Side: I disagree because.....
1 point

i agree because wealthy countries have teams ready for action if a disaster occurs and these countries can also afford medical expenses. They can afford to redevelop and rebuild any structures that are destroyed and practially put everything back to how it was before the disaster.

Side: I agree because....
0 points

MEDCs have better healthcare and emergency services so in the event of a natural disaster they are better equiped to deal with the damage than LEDCs.

Side: I agree because....
4 points

Yes, amazing arguement. You are so cool. I wish i could be as good as you.

Side: I agree because....
SamB1 Disputed
1 point

no you dont you

dont have a argument.............................................

Side: I disagree because.....
-1 points

MEDC will be able to provide better warning systems so more people will be able to get awy from the area of hazard

Side: I agree because....
2 points

The warning systems are more to prepare for the event than to get away from it as the majority of hazards can happen really quickly.

Side: I agree because....
Dellis(1) Disputed
1 point

Early warning systems in a natural disaster such a a Tsunami would warn the people in that place to get to safe high ground. Without an early warning system the death toll would be greater than if they're was not a early warning system. Thus an early warning system is more to save lives and get away from the disaster than just to prepare for it.

Side: I disagree because.....
1 point

I disagree because although the wealth of the country may help recover quicker from a hazard, the location also matters, for instance if an MEDC is on a plate boundrary it is more likely to get affected often by hazards more often, so can still be devastating.

Side: I disagree because.....
JodieF(1) Disputed
1 point

If an LEDC was on a plate boundary, it's still likely to suffer more damage than an MEDC in the same position, as the buildings aren't build to withstand natural disasters and the economy can't support the damage.

Side: I disagree because.....
1 point

We also have to consider the physical location of a country. Some areas are more prone to large disasters and therefor the consequences will be more severe. Also countries in these hazard zones might be subjected to more frequent hazards. For instance the pacific ring of fire and Indonesia.

Side: I disagree because.....
AnthonyK(22) Disputed
2 points

That may be so, however some countries are better prepared due to their wealth. Japan was hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake last year, with 15,000 deaths, yet a magnitude 7 earthquake hit Haiti where over 230,000 people died. There is also the difference in economic loss. It cost Japan $235 billion, where as it only cost Haiti $14 billion, a significantly lower figure. Japan is an MEDC, where as Haiti is an LEDC, and the difference that this has made is clearly shown.

Side: I agree because....
1 point

I disagree because even if a wealthy country is prepared for a natural disaster, the deaths may be a lot lower but financially there will be a massive hole in the economy.

And also, if the wealthy country is not prepared for it, and the earthquake was around magnitude (Can only spell that because of pokemon ;D) 8.5-9, it would completely confuse the area in which it struck, leading to the downfall of what area it hit. Also, if it hit a highly populated area, or a city, the damage done, and the money used to clear the damage would be so large that it would probably put the country into a bad situation with money.

Side: I disagree because.....
JamesC(39) Disputed
2 points

Japan recieved a Magnitude 9 earthquake in March last year. After the earthquake, a huge tsunami battered their main power sources. Although they were confused at first, they overcame the crisis pretty well, and I think that was mainly due to them being classed as an MEDC. They've managed to get back on track and the Yen becoming a bit weaker over the last year, the rest of the world is also a mess so in global terms, they're not doing too badly.

Side: I agree because....