False premise #1: The Kansas tornado destroyed things that were wood.

Truth: That particular Kansas tornado destroyed everything regardless of the kind or quality of construction.

Quibble allowed: The only thing left in the town was the grain silo, which may or may not have been mostly filled - i.e. it's possible that at least part of it may have resembled rammed soil. It's a weak argument though, at this time of the year.

False premise #2: Trees have all been cut down for paper.

Truth: For quite a long time, at least in the US, the only trees "cut for paper" are new growth trees harvested as a crop that are a renewable resource, with a minor contribution from old, and usually degenerate "pulp wood" trees that people want removed for other reasons.

Questionable assumption: That other kinds of construction are "miraculously better" than common wood frame.

Properly constructed, wood is about as good as one can get for smaller structures like homes, especially when they must be built in large numbers to house a stupidly expanding population. Special-built structures to withstand one emergency commonly are subject to disasters of other kinds. There is an advantage in using well-known materials and construction to achieve a consistency in construction quality at affordable prices. There is a necessity for the establishing and enforcement of building codes to regulate the materials, methods, and locations used when population density is sufficient that any one structure could pose a hazard to adjacent ones.

Okay. Now continue with your reasoned exposition of the alternatives.

John