The Instigator
Zealotical
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/20/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,960 times Debate No: 13728
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Zealotical

Con

I will be arguing that Earthquakes are more dangerous. Whoever my opponent is will argue that Tsunamis are more dangerous. I will let my opponent make their first statement.
FREEDO

Pro

== INTRODUCTION ==

I thank my opponent for instigating this fine debate. I feel a proper presentation of definitions is in order. (let it be a note to my opponent that he should always lay out definitions first or his opponent my use it to win a semantical victory. Lucky for him, I'm not going to do that. I could have easily found a truck or something named an "Earthquake" or something like that.)

Tsunami:
tsu�na�mi
noun
pl. tsu�na�mis
A very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. [1]

Earthquake:
earth�quake
noun
A sudden movement of the earth's crust caused by the release of stress accumulated along geologic faults or by volcanic activity. [2]

== ARGUMENT ==

My case is that tsunamis are always accompanied by earthquake(and/or volcanic eruption), but earthquakes are not always accompanied by tsunamis.

Saying earthquakes are greater than tsunamis is like saying that 2 is greater than 2+2.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.

== SOURCES ==

1. http://education.yahoo.com...
2. http://education.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Zealotical

Con

I want to thank my opponent for challenging me and for their kindness.

== Opponent's Argument ==
"My case is that tsunamis are always accompanied by earthquake(and/or volcanic eruption), but earthquakes are not always accompanied by tsunamis." "Saying earthquakes are greater than tsunamis is like saying that 2 is greater than 2+2."

== My Counterargument ==
Very interesting however, I don't see how your argument proves that tsunamis are more dangerous. When you accepted this debate, you agreed to argue that tsunamis are more dangerous.

== My Argument ==
Earthquakes and tsunamis are both calamities. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis and other calamities as well whereas tsunami can't cause other calamities as my opponent stated.

Earthquakes are the nature's most dangerous calamity. Earthquakes can hit any place, at any time and at any extreme level. There is no way to stop an earthquake.

The earthquake that occurred in 2004 brought along with it tsunami, in the western coast of Sumatra and took away almost 2,055,000 lives. If it wasn't for the earthquake, that tsunami would not have formed.

== Source ==
http://www.interestingfacts.org...
FREEDO

Pro

== RESPONSES ==

//Very interesting however, I don't see how your argument proves that tsunamis are more dangerous. When you accepted this debate, you agreed to argue that tsunamis are more dangerous.//

It shows that they are more dangerous because tsunamis ARE earthquakes PLUS a colossal wave of water. Any amount of danger designated to earthquakes must also be designated to tsunamis, except that tsunamis ALSO have whatever danger is designated to behemoth walls of water.

// Earthquakes and tsunamis are both calamities. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis and other calamities as well whereas tsunami can't cause other calamities as my opponent stated.//

FALSE. Here is a list of "calamities" that tsunamis cause which earthquakes do not:

Famine.
Disease.
Flooding.
Among others.

And besides these things, an earthquake is something that just happens and it's over(with the exception of causing a fire), whereas a tsunami has lasting destruction, continuously making things worse, especially with the immense and lasting flooding.

== SECOND ARGUMENT ==

The vast majority of earthquakes are absolutely harmless. Only about 1/5 of earthquakes can even be felt at all. [1,2]

Whereas tsunamis always cause devastation and are accompanied by very large earthquakes, or else there wouldn't have been a tsunami.

== SOURCES ==

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://earthquake.usgs.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Zealotical

Con

== Responses ==

//The vast majority of earthquakes are absolutely harmless. Only about 1/5 of earthquakes can even be felt at all. [1,2]
Whereas tsunamis always cause devastation and are accompanied by very large earthquakes, or else there wouldn't have been a tsunami.//

According to my opponent's logic, tsunamis are always accompanied by very large earthquakes. This tells me that whatever damage that tsunamis cause, earthquakes indirectly cause.

//FALSE. Here is a list of "calamities" that tsunamis cause which earthquakes do not:

Famine.
Disease.
Flooding.
Among others.//

Since tsunamis are caused by earthquakes which is what you stated earlier, it would only be fair to give credit to earthquakes as well.
If tsunamis cause famine, disease, and flooding among others and earthquakes causes tsunamis than earthquakes would also be responsible for the calamities that tsunamis cause.

//And besides these things, an earthquake is something that just happens and it's over(with the exception of causing a fire), whereas a tsunami has lasting destruction, continuously making things worse, especially with the immense and lasting flooding.//

This is false.

Earthquakes cause more than just fires. Here are some of the calamities that earthquakes cause:

Landslides
Avalanches
Flash Floods
Fires
Tsunamis

== My Second Argument ==

My opponent stated that tsunamis are caused by large earthquakes. By this logic tsunamis wouldn't happen if it wasn't for earthquakes so whatever damage is caused by tsunamis, earthquakes would be responsible indirectly therefore earthquakes are more dangerous than a tsunami.

== Source ==

http://articles.architectjaved.com...

This website that I used as a source has a saying, "Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do." If it wasn't for the earthquake, the buildings wouldn't of been able to kill anyone.
FREEDO

Pro

== RESPONSES ==

//According to my opponent's logic, tsunamis are always accompanied by very large earthquakes. This tells me that whatever damage that tsunamis cause, earthquakes indirectly cause.//

Yes, Indirectly caused by LARGE earthquakes, which are a very small minority of all earthquakes. Whereas all tsunamis are large and destructive.

//Since tsunamis are caused by earthquakes which is what you stated earlier, it would only be fair to give credit to earthquakes as well.
If tsunamis cause famine, disease, and flooding among others and earthquakes causes tsunamis than earthquakes would also be responsible for the calamities that tsunamis cause.//

Not quite, the things I stated are a consequence of the majority of tsunamis. Whereas earthquakes rarely have any consequences at all, even though SOMETIMES it may have those. All the time is a lot more dangerous than an insignificant fraction of the time.

//This is false.

Earthquakes cause more than just fires. Here are some of the calamities that earthquakes cause:

Landslides
Avalanches
Flash Floods
Fires
Tsunamis//

Again, I repeat myself: How often will an earthquake cause these? A rare minority of the time. Whereas tsunamis will always cause devastation.

//My opponent stated that tsunamis are caused by large earthquakes. By this logic tsunamis wouldn't happen if it wasn't for earthquakes so whatever damage is caused by tsunamis, earthquakes would be responsible indirectly therefore earthquakes are more dangerous than a tsunami.//

Yes, we have gone over this. How is that a new argument? It's precisely one of the many reasons why tsunamis are more dangerous. They are started by DANGEROUS earthquakes, which are a very small minority of ALL earthquakes.
This debate is just like asking: "Which is more dangerous, dogs or dogs with rabbis?" Sure, dogs with rabbis are still dogs but they are a more dangerous sub-group of dogs so it would be correct to say they more dangerous than the generalization of all dogs. This debate is the same exact thing. Just like the vast majority of dogs will never harm anyone, so will the vast majority of earthquakes never harm anyone...but the tsunamis are the dogs with rabbis.

I rest my case. VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
I mean if it happens near coast or middle in the sea. Not if an earthquake occurs middle in US for example.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Big earthquakes do not always cause tsunamis.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Its logic actually, big earthquakes ends his destruction always with a tsunami...
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
I thought so too at first, but I liked Pro's dance on that one.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
This is a trap - earthquakes cause tsunamis, so they must be more dangerous.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
ZealoticalFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 6 years ago
Zealotical
ZealoticalFREEDOTied
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 
Vote Placed by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
ZealoticalFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
ZealoticalFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
ZealoticalFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06