The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

America was not justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 49963
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Since I am pro, I will define the terms. Justified means were they right to drop the bombs without fair warning.

I believe that the US was not justified in bombing Japan. If they had given Japan proper warning before dropping the bombs, and Japan had refused to make peace, then the US could have dropped ONE bomb, not two. Around one hundred thousand people died as a direct result of the bombs. Even though millions more died during the war, that does not condone killing more. This is why I believe America was not justified in bombing Japan.


As the negation I will first being going over issues with the affirmative's definitions, establishing contentions, and then refuting my opponents case.

First of all, my opponents definition falls short as it does not adhere to the true meaning of justified. For something to be justified, it has to appeal to the said society's ethical values. With that, I will be upholding the societal value of utilitarianism, simply meaning the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Although I win in the case of definitions, through refutation I will also win on my opponents.

Contention 1- Dropping the bombs was the only means in which America could achieve victory.
Sub-point A: American soldiers were spread to thinly.
During World War 2, American soldiers were spread around the world. From Guam and Okinawa, to Germany and France, the United States did not have the means to continue sending troops around the world. Spreading the forces too thinly would have been detrimental to the war effect. Instead, America took the most sensible route and preserved soldiers' lives.
Sub-point B: Japan is too fierce of an enemy to take by any other means.
Japanese soldiers during World War 2 held far too much pride to be overtaken on the home field. Japanese soldiers held the samurai code of bushido close to their hearts and fought with it in their spirits. The Japanese were taught to fight to the death as seen in their Kamikaze tactics. I do not intend to be racist with these claims, only to highlight the institutionalized pride within the Japanese forces at the time. Because of this, Americans could never attack by any other means. American forces had taken Okinawa with nearly as many casualties as the Japanese during the battle. Attacking the homeland would only cause more bloodshed and ultimately cost the people more. Officials within the United States Army had actually calculated the casualty rating for a land attack as opposed to dropping the bombs and found that dropping the bombs caused significantly less losses for both sides.

Contention 2- President Harry Truman's decision was dire and untimely but he chose what was best for the people of the United States.
As the United States entered the war, they were struck hard by the sudden death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Proceeding him was Harry Truman. Truman was put in an extremely unlucky position as he was forced to, within the first few months of his presidency, to make the decision as to whether or not to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. Beforehand, Truman was completely unaware of the bombs' existence. He had to make a spur of the moment decision, and as president he did what he felt was the best for the American people. Therefore, Truman was justified in his actions.

Now moving on to refutations:
My opponent's case relies on the idea that America did not warn Japan of their intent to drop bombs. However, this is completely false as the United States gave Japan a warning to surrender six days in advance. Despite this warning, Japan would not give in. Because of this, the United Sates dropped their first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 5th. They again asked for surrender but Japan continued to refuse. America dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki prompting a Japanese surrender. Under my opponents guidlines, America was justified in their actions. Under mine, America was justified in their actions.

Therefore, through casework and refutation, I believe that I have successfully proven that America was justified in dropping the bombs in Japan.
Debate Round No. 1


greencanon forfeited this round.


Extend my contentions and refutations through this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Logi 3 years ago
We had hacked their coms and they were discussing our broadcast for peace over the air. They said it was a sign we were weak.
Posted by Windwolf1 3 years ago
Just pointing out, radio connection may not be working properly or communication may have not been clear.
Posted by Logi 3 years ago
You do realize we warned them....... Twice. Then after the first bomb they made a radio broadcast speech to never surrender
Posted by XenaXIV 3 years ago
Since the US DID warn Japan about the atomic bomb, your arguments are kind of... invalid.
Posted by greencanon 3 years ago
I will reactivate this debate to allow people to accept.
I will simply use the same argument that I used this time.
Posted by jmonte 3 years ago
I believe The United States of America was justified in the bombing of Japan. The United States of America was limited in their options on what to do about the Pacific tour. It was nearing the end of the fall and would be winter soon which would provide harsh conditions to continue a front. Also, The Allies were lacking in resources to begin a invasion on Japan. If the allies had put off the invasion this would have allowed Japan time to build its military resources and fortifications killing more allied forces. If the United states did put off the invasion this would have allowed Japan another chance to strike The United states in their land again potentially with a more devastating affect.
Posted by lenamaria1123 3 years ago
America told the Japanese to surrender, they discussed it at the Potsdam Conference, demanding that Japan be the ones to end the war, America even went as far as handing out LEAFLETS to the Japanese. When they continues to refuse, they were bombed. Other nations had been building their own bombs, America was merely the first to finish and detonate theirs.
The second bomb was not needed, however during times of war things aren't exactly about what's moral, they're about what will win and keep your people safe, your country safe, and keep YOU in control. War isn't meant to be kind. Although the second bomb was unnecessary, it was a superlative strategy and using the second showed the world that America would do what it takes to defend their people and come out on top. It also showed that they were capable of producing these bombs, multiple at a time and quickly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually gave serious arguments and refutations, and Pro ended up forfeiting.
Vote Placed by DerKing 3 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.