No!
If something can be prevented and you don’t prevent it then it is not an accident.
If you let your kids play in a busy street and they get hit by a car it wasn’t an accident - it’s your fault because you let them play in a busy street.
If you let them play on a quiet side street with a 20mph speed limit and a dude come ripping around a corner squealing tires and hits one of them - that wasn’t an accident either. But it was the fault of the speeder.
If you’re tearing down an old building and pull off a board with nails in it and you drop it on the ground nails up and somebody steps on it and punctures their foot it was not an accident because you caused it when you could have prevented it.
There are real accidents but most “accidents” could have been prevented. So tripping on the stairs would seem like an accident to the one who tripped - but it was caused by the lazy person who didn’t move the cord.
Be aware of what you are doing, notice what’s around you and there will be fewer “accidents” around you.
You have now switched the debate terms to accidents and “accidents”. But putting quotation marks around the word does not change its meaning. So, you are now saying that “accidents” can be prevented but accidents cannot be prevented. Is that public school logic or public school grammar?
So tripping over an electrical cord when someone saw it on the stairs and did not remove it is not an accident. Ok. Then why did you say not removing the electrical cord could cause an accident? Read your own reply. You said not removing the cord could cause an accident or did you mean “accident”?
By your logic not removing the cord could cause someone to trip. This trip is not an accident because it could have been prevented.
Your same logic also means that if the cord is removed then a trip does not occur. But the trip had it occurred by your own words would not have been an accident. So therefore removing the cord does not prevent an accident but it does keep a trip from occuring.