- 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.
In my opinion I think a earthquake can be much more hazardous. Albeit It relies entirely on the earthquakes magnitude and a volcanoes size. While an argument can be the fact that an earthquake will do only as much damage as a structure will let It. An earthquake can do things such as landslides, tsunamis to sea/ocean near areas ,and even liquefaction.
And again It relies on It's magnitude. Then we move on to volcanoes. Their power relies so much on It's size and amount of gas and magma. Now lets bring actual history Into the matter. In 1815 the deadliest volcanic eruption occurred. This resulted in about 92,000 deaths and some most of them was due to starvation! Now we move on to earthquakes. It's deadliest occurrence was in 1556 Shaanxi ,China. This event resulted In nearly 830,000 deaths. While I doubt my rambling of a madman had any affect on your stance on this argument, I hope you just consider what I've said. or typed.
You did not address the question. Also you used no evidence to back up your "argument".
Furthermore In my opinion why would you want to even consider taking a job opportunity in either locations. If I was somehow forced to take said opportunity I would choose the volcano as Its chance of eruption would be significantly less frequent as compared to the daily earthquake.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!