The Instigator
Ziang
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
124275
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

That Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ziang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 359 times Debate No: 91303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Ziang

Con

Welcome, ladies and gentleman. The topic for this debate is that Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster. As the speaker for the negative side, I will soon provide you with some satisfactory and convincing points to state that there will be more benefit if Australians stayed in their property during a natural disaster. My points for today’s speech are that the average response time for emergency services are far too long and unsafe for citizens. And my second point is that there is often be too many people in the evacuation centres.
124275

Pro

Everybody has a right to defend their property if it is being threatened. Even if it is dangerous, it should be their decision.
Debate Round No. 1
Ziang

Con

Ladies and gentleman, do you know the average response time for emergency services? Research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the average response time in Metro areas of Australia is between that of 20-30 minutes. Some places in Australia such as Canberra do not have medical staff located at base at all times. Furthermore, there are times during which the rescue equipment are offline. They need maintenance, too. These conditions will delay the response time, which means the people suffering from the natural disasters will be put on with more risks. Is that what you want to see?

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

Pro

124275 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ziang

Con

Ziang forfeited this round.
124275

Pro

I forfeit
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ziang 1 year ago
Ziang
It can be worldwide if you wish. I live in Australia, so when I wrote the topic I only wrote Australia. Please inform me if you are going to accept the debate if I change the topic to worldwide. Thank you.
Posted by TheDom275 1 year ago
TheDom275
Why only Australia?
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Yeah, that sounds incredibly dangerous. I have ridden out hurricanes in a trailor, but sure as hell would not ride out a wild fire
Posted by Oromagi 1 year ago
Oromagi
@ wylted- I think wildfire has been the most devastating of natural disasters in recent memory...for which sheltering in place would likely be a very hazardous choice.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Kangaroo attacks.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
What types of disasters are moest common in Australia?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
Ziang124275Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
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.