The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Flying on Commercial Airlines is Safe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,623 times Debate No: 5796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Regardless of what you may think or feel, flying on commercial airlines are by far safer than driving.
You're more likely to get hurt, let alone die, in a car than a commercial aircraft.


ok, being the con side of this resolution means that all I have to prove is that flying on commercial airlines is not safe. However my opponent carries the burden of proof, meaning that their arguments must prove that airlines are indeed safe.

7 October 2008; Qantas A330-300; near Learmonth, Australia: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Singapore to Perth. While in cruise, the aircraft reportedly experienced some type of sudden and unexpected altitude change. The crew issued a mayday call before diverting the aircraft to the airport at Learmonth, near the town of Exmouth, about 1100 kilometers or 680 miles north of its intended destination of Perth.

About 36 passengers and crew members were injured, with over a dozen severe injuries. Reportedly, several occupants were slammed into the ceiling during the event. Most of the injuries were to passengers and crew in the rear of the aircraft, and at least one person was carried off the plane in a stretcher. About 13 of the most seriously injured were flown to Perth by four aircraft from the Royal Flying Doctor Service. One flight attendant was hospitalized with suspected head and spinal injuries. Other serious injuries included fractures, lacerations, and a concussion.

with this single point I have proved that airlines are not always safe
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

First I'd like to clarify that my real resolution was that air travel is safer than travel in cars. Yes, aircraft crashes actually
do happen, they aren't 100% safe;
But they sure are close to 100% safe.
(sorry guys for the confusion on my true contentions)

If air travel were 99.99% safe, there would be four fatal aircraft crashes every single day in the United States, with no survivors on all the aircraft. In reality, air travel is 99.9999996% safe. (Yes, that's six nines after the decimal). Here's another safety statistic, in all aircraft crashes, 80% of the time, not a single passenger or crew member is injured.

Now, in the example you used about Qantas Airways A330 where passengers were injured, that wasn't a crash. It was an in-flight emergency. The passengers were obviously that unfortunate 20% who were injured. For the passengers that slammed into the ceiling during the event, they were most likely not wearing their seat belt's. Even though the captain or first officer may turn off the fasten seat belt sign, they always recommend during the safety announcement that you should always keep your seat belt tightly fastened around your waist if you're seated, incase of any unexpected turbulence, which was the case in the Qantas Airways in-flight emergency.

Now, Think about 80% of the car accidents that happen in the United States just today. I think it'd be safe to say that in more than half of the car accidents, somebody, either the passenger or driver, sustains a serious injury, or even death.
Many people dread flying on airplanes due to the fact that they fear the aircraft will crash.
But ask yourself this: Do people fear even more the actual drive to the airport?
I think it'd be safe to say, no. Statistically, you're more likely to crash and die on the way to the airport, than to be injured on your flight that day.
You're also more likely to get attacked by a shark and killed while surfing, than be injured during air travel. You have a greater chance of winning the super lotto than being injured during air travel.

I feel my round of debate is sufficient and I now nobly pass debate on to my contender

thank you again for those who pointed out my unclear contentions with this debate I hope I clarified things for you


batman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


mhuisenga forfeited this round.


batman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago

i have talked to mhuisenga about clarifying his true resolution, what he had meant to put forward.

and he will be doing so in the next debate rest assure.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mk sounds good, don't forget though

-i will remind you :P
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago

I will tell you but only after this debate is finished :-)
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
Cons running the wrong argument. I think we established that the debate is about what is safer, planes or cars...
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
im curious as to the lightkeepers reasoning

do you mind telling me why you think commercial flying is more dangerious than driving a car

Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
I was standing in line behind this nervous-looking woman at the check-in desk a while ago. When it was my turn to check-in, she returned to the desk and asked the check-in girl if she could have another seat, as she had inspected her boarding card and noticed that she had been allocated seat number 13K. She told the girl that she was a little superstitious and wondered if she could have a seat in the row behind as the number 13 brings bad luck.

Before the girl had a chance to say anything, I turned to the woman and told her that I would take the seat in row 13 and get the bad luck instead, but added that when the plane plummets out of the sky and my seat in row 13 ploughs into the ground at 700mph, her seat in row 14 wouldn't be far behind!
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
ehhh, I would have run it on its merits. I think flying commercial airlines is much less safe than driving a car.... anyway, too late now :D
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
I think I could run this one :)
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
I see you're new around here. As such, ya get a free pass on the necessity of semanticaga, since I noticed your newness... I highly recommend you change the resolution to what you are actually arguing-- "Flying on commercial airlines is safer than driving, " or "flying on commercial airlines is a relatively safe activity," or "Fear to fly on commercial airlines for safety reasons is irrational..." something among those lines. Because for it to be safe in an absolute sense, as it presently states, is absurd-- 9/11 proved it wasn't absolutely safe. Neither is eating a steak :D.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
oh. thanks for clearing it up
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mhuisenga 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70