- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
For me it'd be volcanoes. They may not have as bigger destruction radius, but if a volcano goes off near you, there is no chance your getting away from what ever is coming after you, if its pyroclastic flow, lava, chucks of flying rock, its going to hurt.
Also, financially the volcano would do more damage, due to the fact that anything in its path is destroyed, and then covered in either ash, or rock.
To add another point, we aren't ready for volcanoes, i mean you see earthquake proof buildings, tsunami proof buildings, but not volcano proof buildings.
One final point, as seen in the not so distant past, the volcano in Iceland (which is impossible to spell) was able to completely stop air travel in a entire continent, we have yet to see a earthquake do that, if it even is possible.
But please take to account, my argument depends on what type of volcano we're on about, and i also understand that earthquakes happen more frequently, but in my opinion, volcanoes are worse.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!