That Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster.
Debate Rounds (3)
My second point for tonight is that if all people in the natural disasters leave their property, then there would simply be too many people in evacuation centres. This often means that there will be people suffering from starving or dehydration. Moreover, they will not have a personal area as too many people are crowded in the centres. Of course that staying in their properties does not necessarily mean that people will be silly about it like stand right below the fan and wait to be it in an earthquake or stay in a room that can be easily caught on fire during a fire. If people are well-educated and the house designs are improved, then their houses can be a little evacuation centre for those who are living in them. You can hide under a table during earthquake and stay in a room with least possible flammable items during fire. Your life is not risked and you can stay and defend your properties. Isn"t that a good thing?
124275 forfeited this round.
Ziang forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wrote only "I forfeit" in round 3 so not sure if that was a concession or a one-round forfeit. Either way, con forfeits less rounds than pro. Pro argued that everyone had a right to defend their property during disaster, which was the wrong side of the argument as pro was supposed to justify the ban of staying and defending property in Australia. Con argued that there were also few medical staff at the base and that evacuation centers would be overloaded if everyone arrived at the time of disaster. Pro didn't rebut. Spelling and grammar was decent on both sides and neither of them used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.