The Instigator
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Death23
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Hiroshima Was Not Nuked

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Death23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 85930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Kirigaya-Kazuto

Pro

Hello and welcome to my Outlaw Tournament Debate.

Full Resolution: The city of Hiroshima was not hit with a nuclear bomb.

BoP is clearly on me for this one.
No semantics
No "Kritiks" or however that's spelled.
Con waives the right to any define any terms.

Hiroshima - A city of southwest Honshu, Japan, on the Inland Sea west of Osaka

Hit - for the purposes of this debate it will be "Directly or indirectly destroyed by object in question.

Nuked - Hit by Nuclear Bomb

Nuclear Bomb - A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, a combination of fission and fusion (thermonuclear weapon).

First round is for acceptance and if you wish arguing.

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.
Death23

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Pro

Okay so before I start any arguing I would like to point out that my opponent is planning on breaking the rules as stated in the comments.

"Yeah, I saw that before I accepted the debate. However, his rule said "Con waives the right to any define any terms". I don't interpret that as preventing me from challenging his definition as inaccurate by showing how reputable sources have defined it. Showing how other people have defined it isn't the same as Con defining it. I also intend to advance a kritik argument against the stupidity of the whole thing."

I am going to consider this as a break in the rules hereby forfeiting all 7 points to me.

A new debate will be up shortly.
Death23

Con

Pro thus far hasn't presented any argument in support of the resolution. The burden of proof is on Pro as Pro has brought the claim, and, additionally, Pro has explicitly stated that the burden is on him. Since Pro hasn't advanced any argument in support of the resolution and the BoP is on Pro, I am winning by default. What's in the comments section doesn't count for conduct purposes; It must be posted in the actual debate. Additionally, I didn't even break any rules, as Pro himself admits that what I posted in the comments merely indicates a plan to break the rules.

Pro had plenty of time over to post an argument in support of the resolution, and he didn't do it. Pro has flaked.

Since I don't have any argument to argue against, I'm going to have to get creative. When I accepted this debate I imagined that Pro's argument would go something like this:

"An atomic bomb did detonate over Hiroshima, but this wasn't a 'nuclear bomb' as defined in round 1, because 'nuclear bomb' was defined to mean only nuclear weapons that use fusion."

Pro's definition from round 1 is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and there is no good reason for it to be accepted. The fact that it is inaccurate is a good reason for it to be rejected. Sure, it would be a rule violation for me to "define any terms", but my challenging of Pro's definition as inaccurate and unsubstantiated isn't exactly Con defining a term, now is it? Had Pro's rule been "Con accepts these definitions as binding for all debating purposes and waives any right to challenge them", then perhaps what I'm doing here would have been a rule violation. Lets see how others have defined the term "nuclear bomb" -

Collins Dictionary -

a bomb whose force is due to uncontrolled nuclear fusion or nuclear fission

http://goo.gl...

Wiktionary -

"A nuclear weapon". "Nuclear weapon" defined as "A weapon that derives its energy from the nuclear reactions of either fission or fusion."

https://goo.gl... & https://goo.gl...


I haven't defined anything, I have merely challenged Pro's definition as unsubstiated, inaccurate, and I have shown you how others have defined the term.

Debate Round No. 2
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Pro

Con has now started to use semantics as well forfeiting 7 points to me again. As previously stated I shall bring a new debate up again shortly.
Death23

Con

1. Rule violations would appropriately award conduct points, not all 7 points inclusive of spelling and grammar, arguments, and sources.

2. Pro has advanced an intentionally inaccurate definition for the term "nuclear bomb". This is deception and it is a greater conduct violation than semantics. Pro should be penalized for this deception by awarding me conduct points.

3. The burden of proof is on Pro and Pro hasn't advanced any argument in support of the resolution. I should be awarded argument points unless Pro argues that the resolution is true without any convincing refutation from me.
Debate Round No. 3
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Pro

Kirigaya-Kazuto forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Pro

Kirigaya-Kazuto forfeited this round.
Death23

Con

Pro has forfeited multiple times and hasn't put forth any argument in favor of the resolution. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
strength of opponent- You get 8 points here. I happen to know Death is pretty good.

strength of arguments- 0 points, none presented.

humor- the outburst was hilarious- 3 points

total points- 11
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
You're sh!t
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
I wish I would've voted, neither deserved the win.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
"A new debate will be up shortly." "As previously stated I shall bring a new debate up again shortly."

http://www.debate.org...

Where is this "new debate" ? Oh wait, you lied. No surprise there.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Yeah, I saw that before I accepted the debate. However, his rule said "Con waives the right to any define any terms". I don't interpret that as preventing me from challenging his definition as inaccurate by showing how reputable sources have defined it. Showing how other people have defined it isn't the same as Con defining it. I also intend to advance a kritik argument against the stupidity of the whole thing.
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Yes, it's a trap. Pro defined nuclear bombs in such a way that the Little Boy bomb is not included. Pro's definition requires a nuclear bomb to be a thermonuclear bomb. It's a ridiculous definition, of course. You might win the debate by arguing that his definition is unreasonable, though technically you accepted the rules and waived your rights to do so.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
I suspect a trap. I'm going to jump in it.
Posted by FreckledSatan 1 year ago
FreckledSatan
Could I participate in this debate?
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
By the way, your definition of nuclear bombs is incorrect. It seems that you imply that a nuclear bombs must have mechanisms of both fission AND fusion, while in reality, it can also use only fission. I.e. Little Boy was a nuclear bomb, even though it didn't use fusion for its mechanism.
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Why 5 rounds? Isn't 4 rounds enough?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Kirigaya-KazutoDeath23Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Kirigaya-KazutoDeath23Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Kirigaya-KazutoDeath23Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 FFs by Pro, so Conduct goes to Con!
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Kirigaya-KazutoDeath23Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.