The Instigator
BillyTheKids
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Hiroshima Was/Was not justified.

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 1 vote the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,971 times Debate No: 29737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

BillyTheKids

Pro

The first round will be for acceptance. I am for the bombing! I hope you like the debate.
tmar19652

Con

As pro, you will have the burden of proof. I will argue that the use of the Atomic bomb on hiroshima was not justified.

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.

After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.

As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Civilian authorities, especially Truman himself, would later try to revise history by claiming that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers. But there is simply no factual basis for this in any record of the time. On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped." The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

But if dropping the bombs was not driven by military needs, why, then, were they used?

U.S. leaders had long hated the communist Russian government. In 1919, the U.S. had led an invasion of Russia - the infamous "White Counter Revolution" - to try to reverse the red Bolshevik Revolution that had put the communists into power in 1917. The invasion failed and the U.S. did not extend diplomatic recognition to Russia until 1932.

Then, during the Great Depression, when the U.S. economy collapsed, the Russian economy boomed, growing almost 500%. U.S. leaders worried that with the War's end, the country might fall back into another Depression. And World War II was won not by the American laissez faire system, but by the top-down, command and control over the economy that the Russian system epitomized. In other words, the Russian system seemed to be working while the American system was plagued with recent collapse and a questionable self-confidence.

In addition, to defeat Germany, the Russian army had marched to Berlin through eastern Europe. It occupied and controlled 150,000 square miles of territory in what is today Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin demanded to keep this newly occupied territory. Russia, Stalin rightly claimed, had been repeatedly invaded by western Europeans, from Napoleon to the Germans in World War I and now by Hitler. Russia lost more than 20,000,000 lives in World War II and Stalin wanted a buffer against future invasions.

At this point, in February 1945, the U.S. did not know whether the bomb would work or not. But it unquestionably needed Russia's help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. These military realities were not lost on Roosevelt: with no army to displace Stalin's in Europe and needing Stalin's support, Roosevelt conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. This is where timing becomes critically important. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. May 8 plus 90 days is August 8. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible.

This issue of territory in east Asia was especially important because before the war against Japan, China had been embroiled in a civil war of its own. It was the U.S.-favored nationalists under General Chiang Kai Shek against the communists under Mao Ze Dong. If communist Russia were allowed to gain territory in east Asia, it would throw its considerable military might behind Mao, almost certainly handing the communists a victory once the World War was ended and the civil war was resumed.

Once the bomb was proven to work on July 15, 1945, events took on a furious urgency. There was simply no time to work through negotiations with the Japanese. Every day of delay meant more land given up to Russia and, therefore, a greater likelihood of communist victory in the Chinese civil war. All of Asia might go communist. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U.S. to have won the War against the fascists only to hand it to its other arch enemy, the communists. The U.S. needed to end the War not in months, or even weeks, but in days.

So, on August 6, 1945, two days before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. There was no risk to U.S. forces then waiting for a Japanese response to the demand for surrender. The earliest planned invasion of the island was still three months away and the U.S. controlled the timing of all military engagements in the Pacific. But the Russian matter loomed and drove the decision on timing.

Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all." Except that it drastically speeded the War's end to deprive the Russians of territory in east Asia.

The story of military necessity, quickly and clumsily pasted together after the War's end, simply does not hold up against the overwhelming military realities of the time. On the other hand, the use of the bomb to contain Russian expansion and to make the Russians, in Truman's revealing phrase, "more manageable," comports completely with all known facts and especially with U.S. motivations and interests.

Which story should we accept, the one that doesn't hold together but that has been sanctifiied as national dogma? Or the one that does hold together but offends our self concept? How we answer says everything about our maturity and our capacity for intellectual honesty.



(http://www.commondreams.org...)

Debate Round No. 1
BillyTheKids

Pro

August 6, 1945, "The Day That Shook The World", a day that many Japanese and Americans will remember; a day of death for many, but also life, a day that few today remember. After many years of war and bloodshed, there was finally a stop, with the dropping of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb, tested on July 16, 1945, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, finally gave the United States an answer to the end of World War II. After six years of fighting, the war in Europe had ended. The only thing left was the Japanese. Invasion or the bomb were the two options and President Harry S. Truman said, "Invasion would end up being like an Okinawa from north to south." Invasion was not the answer. Great scientists had found the answer at the end of The Manhattan Project. The U.S. was about to make a decision that would change the lives of thousands in an instant. Harry S. Truman made the correct decision in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, a decision that was and always will be justified.
On July 16, 1945, the United States military tested the world"s deadliest weapon, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, at 5:29 AM. After four years of hard work and research, some believed that the the bomb could have destroyed the world, by causing a continuous nuclear reaction. Though that wasn"t the case it was not far from it, when the bomb had dropped from the pole it hit the ground at a speed of 100 MPG, causing an awe inspiring explosion described to by the sun. When the smoke had cleared the metal cage that was holding the bomb had melted, and the sand at the explosion was glass! The United States of America had successfully created the most deadly weapon known to man, The Atomic Bomb.
Japan was ready for an invasion, with the US blockading their resources and frequent bombings on major cities they were preparing for the worst. The military wanted to continue to fight, calling this Operation Getsugo. This was being used by training the civilians how to defend against the homeland. For example, the students were learning how to fight for have of their school day. Young children were being taught how to fight with a sword. Other adults were being taught how to use a gun and had been advised to keep a weapon with them at all times for safety. Many people were being taught how to become suicide bombers, and throw themselves under tanks. The Japanese were getting prepared for the worst.
President Harry S. Truman made the correct decision in not invading for many reasons. The main reason was because if we had invaded there would be a predicted 1,000,000 death toll for both sides. American casualties would be far less than japanese but there would still be well over 100,000 American deaths. The total deaths of the war before this had been around 71.5 Million, and with Hiroshima it became 71.8. If we had invaded the death toll could have been as great as 72.5 Million deaths! This would also create a hatred between the U.S. and Japan, and that could have lead to further warfare. If Harry S. Truman had not dropped the bomb at Hiroshima there would have been many more casualties.
Another reason that we should not have invaded was the USSR (Russia). If we have had invaded the USSR would have invaded the north and there would be a communist north and democratic south. This could have lead to something like North Korea vs. South Korea but in Japan. The U.S. already had growing tension between the USSR and if we would have invaded there could have been another major war that broke out. Harry S. Truman could see this coming and so he chose not to invade, keeping the U.S. out of another war and another debt. Also, when Harry S. Truman had decided to bomb the Japanese he was keeping the USSR from invading and this would ultimately lead to less war. There could have been a civil war that broke out if japan tried to converge to Communism. Another reason why the bombing of Hiroshima was very justifiable.
People today complain about taxes but back then if we had invaded, taxes would be higher than they are now. Invading would have cost the U.S. about 500 Billion dollars. This amount of money would come out of not only the U.S. but the citizens living in it. There was a huge cost of invading that would have put the U.S. into a huge debt. This would add up over time through other wars and then it would become to great to handle. Because we bombed Hiroshima the cost was much less and the U.S. was in less of a debt than if we had invaded. The benefits from bombing were much better than the invasion that had almost no benefits at all.
The other than the total benefits for financial and deaths, there was also many other benefits. One major benefit was that Hiroshima was a large industrial city holding the Emperor"s Second Army and many industrial sites where they built weapons for the Japanese. Also, holding one of the largest armies in Japan. If we had bombed another sight it would have been less effective making us have to drop more than two bombs. Because of the effectiveness Hiroshima almost made the Japanese quit the first time.

Kristof, Nicholas D. "HIROSHIMA; Justified Bombings? A Survivor's Reply." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Aug. 1995. Web. 15 Jan. 2013.

Miscamble, Father Wilson. "Prager University: Hiroshima -- Why America Dropped the Bomb." YouTube. Prager University, 22 July 2012. Web. 08 Jan. 2013. <;.

"Politics Opinions." Was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? "�� Debate.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.

Aplerovitz, Gar. "The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima." The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima. CounterPunch, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.

"World War II:" Why Did the United States Decide to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Instead of Berlin?" Quora. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2013.

"Nagasaki Today." 長崎. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jan. 2013. .

I hope that you like this argument, it is the beginning of my 8 Grade research project, first 2 pages. Vote Pro ;D
tmar19652

Con

Here are my contentions that the atomic bombings were not justified
1.They were war crimes (1,2,3,4)
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".
In fact, the court case of Ryuichi Shimoda v The State even decided that the US had violated international law by using the Atomic Bombs. Considering that the same international laws brought members of the Nazi SS to justice, saying the Atomic bombs were justified is like saying the Holocaust was justified.
2.The Japanese had already asked to surrender(5,6)
By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms, but the US would only accept an Unconditional surrender. "Unconditional Surrender to the Empire of Japan meant that the US could force its brand of Victor's Justice on the Imperial Military (they feared a Treaty of Versailles style of disarmament), depose the Showa Emperor, and force the Empire of Japan to be exploited by the US".
3.The US did not have the moral high ground because of pearl harbor (7)
Japan had to attack pearl harbor in order to keep a steady/stable oil supply. Pearl Harbor's death knell was sounded on July 26, 1941. This is the day President Franklin D. Roosevelt cut off the Japanese empire from American oil in response to Tokyo's aggression on the Asian mainland. This left the Imperial Navy with just 18 months supply of fuel.
The Combined Fleet was the Sword of Empire. And like the Royal Navy was for Britain, the Imperial Navy was Tokyo's military trump card in any face-off with the United States. Despite being a major target, Pearl Harbor was not the primary objective. Burma, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) were. Because this is where the oil was. This is particularly true with the latter. In 1941, the Dutch East Indies was the world's fourth largest producer of crude. In addition, the Dutch colony was the world's largest reservoir of pepper and quinine and contained more than 30 percent of the earth's rubber.
Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo's six carriers crippled the U.S. Pacific Fleet so the United States could not interfere with Japan's aggrandizement of the resource-rich Southeast Asia.

4.The Atomic Bombs were a show of force to the Soviet Union
With the end of the war nearing, the Soviets were an important strategic consideration, especially with their military control over most of Eastern Europe. As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, "It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union." However, this idea is thought to be more appropriately understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

So I have shown that the atomic bombs were war crimes, unnecessary, defiant of Japanese plea"s for surrender, and a simple show of force towards the soviet union. I have proven that their use was not justified.

Sources:
1.http://www.guardian.co.uk...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://members.peak.org...
5.http://killinghope.org...
6.http://en.wikipedia.org...
7.http://www.thehour.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BillyTheKids

Pro

When an atom bomb is dropped, you cannot avoid the killing of civilians. It is a mass destruction weapon and therefore cannot be controlled. Even though the weapon itself is dangerous, we need to consider why it was used. By itself, it may be a dangerous thing, that"s true, but how justified it is depends on the user, and why it was used " am I correct? Many people think that, all other factors aside, it isn"t okay for militaries to kill non-combatant civilians. Pearl Harbour was, yes, an attack by the Japanese military upon the American military, but it was in response to a series of blockades and provocations, whilst Hiroshima & Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror by the American military against Japanese civilians. And yes, they may be right " all factors aside. But what people fail to see is that all factors need to be present in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. What some don"t understand is, though America had destroyed a lot of civilian lives, war is, in the end, a thing that focuses on winning and losing, not the number of lives lost. And, (with all due respect to the civilians that were sacrificed in the process of the war) one must admit that military lives are, in the case of war, more important than the lives of civilians, because they have a bigger contribution to war during a war period. Many people think Japan was ready to surrender soon anyways. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. But what they didn"t consider was that Japanese soldiers were trained to never give up according to their warrior code " the Bushido. They worked directly under their emperor, the Kamikaze, and are infinitely loyal to him because they believe that he is actually a God inside a human man. That"s why they have no fear of death. A lot of debaters arguing in favour of Japan have said that a demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbour would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people, working a bit like a warning shot from a rifle. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki. But even though 3 days isn"t enough time to do any physical kind of action, isn"t it plenty of time to make a decision between swallowing their pride and shortening the war by surrendering and saving a lot of lives rather than losing many lives? Of course, the bomb was used partly to justify the 2 billion dollars spent on its development, to test out if 1. The bomb was worth all that money, 2. It worked well and 3. It was possible to further develop the atom bomb and "modernize" it so that it would either cause more or less damage and 4. The exact extent of the weapon was as predicted. But it was built for the purpose of shortening the war, and therefore was mainly used as a method of shortening the war. The testing of the bomb and the 2 billion dollars spent on it were just minor pro"s that were achieved on the way, not the main reason it was used. The two cities that America bombed weren't of major military value, that part was true. The civilians living in Hiroshima had outnumbered the troops in the ratio five or six to one. However, it made sense for the Americans to drop bombs on the civilians rather than the militaries. Japan"s military was already weak " but civilians, they had plenty. What better way to diminish the spirit of Japan than killing as many civilian lives as they can? The bombing of Hiroshima was morally incorrect, that"s true. But isn't everything in war immoral? Since when was fighting right, even if it was for peace?

Research that I have posted before. I also have a couple of questions for my opponent.

1. You state that it is a war crime, however, the UN sees that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary and therefor not a war crime, so how can it be a war crime if the people who made these rules do not see it as one?
tmar19652

Con

My opponent begins by making the false assumption that we cannot control weapons of mass destruction, this is wrong because we can control them by choosing not to use them, or by mutually agreeing to non-proliferation treaties (1).

My opponent then concedes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror against civilians, later they also concede that the bombings mere not morally correct.

My opponent then argues that anything is justified in war because it is all about winning and losing. If this is true, then why do we agree upon rules of war, such as the Geneva convention, the Hague conventions or the hundreds of other conventions on the rules of war (2,3,4,5).

My opponent then argues that military lives are more important than civilian lives in war, but they provide no reason for this, so this argument is null.

Then my opponent continues to propagate the fallacy that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender without being shocked into it. However, I have already shown that the Japanese had offered to surrender, but the US was to narcissistic to accept anything but an unconditional surrender.

In the end, my opponent then states that the UN does not recognize the use of the Atomic Bombs as a war crime. This is true, but unless the United States consented to considering the Atomic bombings war crimes, then they could not be considered war crimes. The US is part of the security council (6), meaning no motion can pass without their approval. So even though the Atomic bombings violate the various conventions on war (2), they are not considered war crimes by the UN.

So I have shown that the atomic bombs were war crimes, unnecessary, defiant of Japanese plea’s for surrender, and a simple show of force towards the soviet union. I have proven that their use was not justified. Vote Con!!!














Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1899)
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1907)#Hague_Convention_of_1907
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
BillyTheKids

Pro

My opponent continues to state that the Japanese were willing to surrender, though in many cases they were but on much different terms. The United States changed the surrender terms before dropping the bomb to see if the Japanese would surrender to that, however the Japanese refused and did not surrender and even further readying themselves for the invasion plan. Without the surrender of Japan, invasion was the only other option open to United States. With this invasion there would have been many more lives lost. This would have become a worse outcome for the war. Without the atomic bomb and the outcome of what happened, people today might be still using this weapon of mass destruction. The atomic bomb also helped lead research in nuclear power.
We kept the USSR out of Japan keeping Japan a democratic country. If we had not dropped the bomb, we would have invaded and all of the good outcomes would be changed. Hiroshima, though through the eyes of many is not justified, will always be the best decision. Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop this bomb because he could see that this would be the best for the Allied Forces and the Japanese. Without this the people of the world would have probably not learned this power, and would have abused this bomb. That is why, Harry S. Truman made the correct decision in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, a decision that was and always will be justified.

I had a great time with this debate and I hope that my opponent did too. His arguments were very well written and were very germane. Everyone who reads this hopefully will get something out of it, because I know I did.

Thank you, to everyone. Vote Pro ;D, ツ ( If you didn't know this is a japanese character)
In the mood of Japanese, ありがとがざいます (Thank you (Formally))

Kristof, Nicholas D. "HIROSHIMA; Justified Bombings? A Survivor's Reply." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Aug. 1995. Web. 15 Jan. 2013.

Miscamble, Father Wilson. "Prager University: Hiroshima -- Why America Dropped the Bomb." YouTube. Prager University, 22 July 2012. Web. 08 Jan. 2013. <;.

"Politics Opinions." Was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? "�� Debate.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.

Aplerovitz, Gar. "The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima." The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima. CounterPunch, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.

"World War II:" Why Did the United States Decide to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Instead of Berlin?" Quora. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2013.

"Nagasaki Today." 長崎. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jan. 2013. .
tmar19652

Con

Once again, my opponent ignores the fact that the US was unwilling to accept anything but an unconditional surrender from the Japanese. In fact, the Potsdam declaration on July 26 1945, said that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally or face continued bombardment. The US did not "budge" once from this position, and Japan feared another treaty of Versailles type treaty that would destroy the country (1). In addition, the Japanese had to prepare a counter-invasion plan because they did not want the Americans to destroy their country under an unconditional surrender. The US had the option to call a cease-fire to negotiate terms of surrender, but they decided to "flex their muscles" and show off to the USSR and the world by forcing Japan into unconditional surrender. If the US had been willing top negotiate terms of surrender, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives would have been saved, as the Japanese had shown attempts to surrender.

My opponent argues that the Atomic Bombs kept Japan democratic. But they did not prove that this is superior to any other form of government. Also, how do we know this is true, that Japan would not have stayed democratic without the atom bombs? My opponent does not elaborate on this, and therefore their point is moot.

My opponent has provided no real case as to why the Atomic Bombings were justified. They conceded that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror against civilians, later they also conceded that the bombings mere not morally correct. I have however provided a logical, factual case as for why the bombings were not justified. My opponent had the Burden of proof, and they did not satisfy it. I went above and beyond what I had to prove, and therefore you should vote con.

Suggestions for my opponent:
  • Please use paragraphs! I know the DDO text entry system can mess up what you write, but paragraphs make reading easier, and the voters will be less likely just to skim your case if you use them to break up monotonous text.
  • Please use web sources for some of your arguments. You used many book sources, but no opponent could access book sources within the short confines of these debates. I was unable to check if your sources were valid, and they supported your claims (I will assume they did), but adding a few web sources will add to your credibility.





Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BillyTheKids 4 years ago
BillyTheKids
Yes, I do agree that my opponent did a good job, and hopefully you will vote me, but vote who believe if anything &#12484;
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I got distracted and forgot to finish my comment. I meant to continue on thusly:
However, after reading the arguments in the first two rounds, I'm no longer convinced that such a show of force was necessary at all.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I was of the opinion that the use of the bomb was a necessary show of force, but the manner in which it was used was immoral. I think the point could have been made without the loss of civilian life, and certainly without bombing Nagasaki (which is outside the scope of this debate).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
BillyTheKidstmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 has come up with some pretty convincing information indicating that the use of the atomic bomb was not necessary in order to win the war. I was already of the belief that the implementation of the show of force was abhorrent and immoral; Con convinced me that it was even more so due to it being unnecessary. Even if Pro's refutations and rebuttals are true, it doesn't necessarily follow that we had to bomb a city. We could have chosen a different target that would have demonstrated the power of our new weapon without such needless loss of life.