The Instigator
Fogofwar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Makhno
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Hiroshima and Nagasaki; did the US have a choice?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
Makhno
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,102 times Debate No: 17276
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (3)

 

Fogofwar

Con

In this debate; both sides must bring forth compelling evidence to defend their claims.

Pro will present their argument that the United States could have resolved the war by less catastrophic means that would have resulted in the timely unconditional surrender of Japan. Pro is free to argue that success could have been achieved without unconditional surrender.

Con will present the argument that the other alternatives for the United States would not have been less catastrophic, and would have resulted in prolonging the resistence of Japan; leading to either a delayed; or avoided unconditional surrender of Japan.
Makhno

Pro

I would like to thank the Instigator for issuing this debate. I hope this will be a fun debate!

Did the US have a choice? Of course there were plenty of options on the table. The catastrophic proportion of such deed is only one of many criteria by which we can judge available options, also I will argue justification, morality, legality, and strategic necessity of this act.

1. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism.

Terrorism - violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit crime or not.

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Dr. Leo Szilard


3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary.

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"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." Fleet Admiral Chester W.

4. Unjustified.

How can one justify a terrorist act? 200,000+ civilians were targeted for extermination, just to prove some political point.


http://members.peak.org...
http://books.google.com...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Fogofwar

Con

To start, I would like to propose that we look at the defining nature of the word "choice" to see whether or not the US did in fact have said choice.
Choice is defined by the meriam-webster dictionary as the act of choosing; or care in selecting. Another definition taken from thefreedictionary.com adds additional definitions as: A number or variety from which to choose; or an alternative.
Two of the most common synonyms for choice are option, or alternative.
While I in no way intend to state that the US did not have other strategies in which may have been deployed; I do intend to define, as mariam-webster defines: care in selecting; that to choose an alternative tactic that would create extremely worse consequences; prolong fighting; and increase the number of casualties; was in fact, no choice at all. If a choice exists that is poorer in judgement; is it even really a choice at all? From this definition; I will seek to prove that the US had no alternative but to use nuclear arms.
In order to address this issue; I will give a brief description of the historical events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
From February 19 to March 26, 1945; the United States began the invasion of the Japanese homeland isle of Iwo Jima. The US began phases to invade the homeland of Japan. This would start with the invasion of Iwo Jima; and the Battle of Okinawa from April to June of 1945. Despite unbeatable odds; and knowing fighting meant certain death; the Japanese soldiers did not waver.
The 22,060 Japanese soldiers entrenched in Iwo Jima would face off against 70,000 US troops. Of the 22,060 Japanese, 21,844 either fought to their deaths or committed ritual suicide to avoid the dishonour of capture. Only 216 Japanese were captured.
Okinawa would see 183,000 US troops land in territory held by 117,000 Japanese soldiers. Only after some 95,000 were killed; did the Japanese lose this island to the US might.
Because of the tenacity of the Japanese code of honour; and their determination to never fail; the US issued the Potsdam Declaration; calling for immediate surrender.
On July 26, 1945, President Harry S. Truman, Sir Winston Churchill, and chairman of the Nationalist Government of China, Chiang Kai-shek issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan. This outlined the terms of surrender for Japan.
August 6, 1945, eleven full days after issuing the Potsdam declaration; Hiroshima was atomically bombed. Japan still failed to surrender. August 9, three full days later; the United States dropped the second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. It took six full additional days for the Emperor of Japan to announce to the nation of Japan that they would surrender.
Despite the decision of the emperor to surrender; there were many within the Japanese military command that disagreed; and staged a military coup d'etat from August 12 - 15).
Japan formally surrendered on board the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945.
First; I will address what pro states:
1. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism.
In order to determine this; we must first look at the definition of terrorism. If we use the definition presented by pro; then we must compare this to the actions that occurred in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We shall continue to break down pro's definition in these terms.
Pro defines terrorism as 'violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public…' - however the intent was not to create fear in the general public; but to send a message to the government of Japan that it would face 'prompt and utter destruction' by the US if it refused to surrender. We can see this in the Potsdam declaration presented to Japan by the US. Among the terms of the declaration were:
-the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
-"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
-"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
The closing remarks of the Potsdam declaration read:
-"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
So here we can see, that by pro's definition of the term terrorism (violent acts which are intended to create fear [terror] in the general public) is not the case; as the declaration was 'intended' to demand the surrender of the government. He further goes on to define (deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants [civilians])
I propose to show in the next round that this was not the case. Unfortunately; room does not permit me to do it here; so I will wait until the next round to discuss this in further detail.
2.The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit a crime or not.
For this to be evaluated properly, I call upon pro to define the term 'unethical' as it pertains to this matter. I also call upon him to provide evidence that these nuclear bombings were illegal. As he is the one making this accusation; the burden of proof is on him.
3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was militarily unnecessary.
For this; pro uses a quote from then General Dwight D. Eisenhower. However compelling this may seem coming from a combat experience general; Eisenhower makes no effort to claim this was anything more than his opinion:
"first on the basis of my BELIEF that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…"
Eisenhower had no involvement in the Pacific theatre; which was commanded by his senior and mentor General Douglas MacArthur. Eisenhower's best guess however; has been proven wrong by simply looking at the statistics from above; coupled with the stories of US Marines fighting Japanese soldiers into the 1950s in Pacific Isles because they refused to believe their mighty empire would surrender. Add the attempted coup from the military; and the fact that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (SCDW) refused the emperor's idea of surrender up to, and including the day of the bombing of Nagasaki.
If pro would like to argue the military necessity of these attacks; I ask him to provide substantial evidence to verify the terms of the Potsdam declaration would have been accepted without the nuclear bombs; not an opinion from an invalid source. The fact remains that the SCDW refused to surrender; even after the USSR invaded between Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and even later still. Again the quote from Chester W. must be supplemented with fact; as Japan's negotiations for peace were with the USSR; not the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. Unjustified.
"How can one justify a terrorist act? 200,000+ civilians were targeted for extermination, just to prove some political point."
In the next round I propose to show, not only how it can be justified; but by comparing the casualty statistics of the nuclear bombings to the casualty statistics through the alternative means; as well as through the continual Japanese fighting method; that all other options were less justifying; leaving the US with no acceptable alternative to the nuclear bombings.
Makhno

Pro

1. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism.

“however the intent was not to create fear in the general public; but to send a message to the government of Japan that it would face 'prompt and utter destruction' by the US if it refused to surrender.”

Con talks about it as they were sending an SMS massage. The massage itself was pure fear in this case. If one meets you in dark valley, and shots you in a leg, to send a message that he means business, and you better give up your wallet or you will be dead, and you do so. Don’t you think this would be considered as you acted out of fear?

“So here we can see, that by pro's definition of the term terrorism (violent acts which are intended to create fear [terror] in the general public) is not the case; as the declaration was 'intended' to demand the surrender of the government.”

Here Con confuses means and goal.

So argument stands.

2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit a crime or not.

I think Doctor Leo Szilard better than I formulated this argument, given that English is not my first language. Simply put it is unethical and not legal for military to select as its target the civilian population. And if this were done by our enemies, we would certainly have condemned them.

3. Militarily unnecessary.

“Eisenhower makes no effort to claim this was anything more than his opinion.”

Well, of course it was his opinion, after all, he was a general and strategist. I doubt that there were some significant nuances known to us, but not known to Mr. Eisenhower. I also doubt that any of us understand the strategies and details of that time period better than he did.

Curious to note how Con completely ignored the quote from Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

However, it is interesting to know what our good General MacArthur did think about it.

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 70-71.

Wow! However, it may be our good General did not know all the details too. What about politics?

"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

4. Unjustified.

“In the next round I propose to show, not only how it can be justified; but by comparing the casualty statistics of the nuclear bombings to the casualty statistics through the alternative means; as well as through the continual Japanese fighting method; that all other options were less justifying; leaving the US with no acceptable alternative to the nuclear bombings.”

I’m looking forward to 4th round.


Debate Round No. 2
Fogofwar

Con

1. Dropping Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of Terrorism:

Pro argues that I confuse means and goals. I do not. Here pro clearly confuses total war with actions taken by a military against a nation which has declared a formal state of war; and cost the lives of tens of millions; with an act of attacking civilians in relative peace in an attempt to stir some emotional response out of fear. The use of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act to force Japan to surrender.

Pros reference to an SMS message; or a mugging in a 'dark valley' is makes no sense in the case of war. We must consider the actions that occurred before this man shot you in the leg. If the man shooting you in the leg and demanding your wallet had been jumped from behind by you; and stabbed repeatedly in an attempt to destroy him before he can act; then had his money stolen by you; his actions of shooting you in the leg and demanding money would be more accurate to this scenario. Pro clearly forgets the past four years before these bombings; which saw the Japanese uninstigatedly attack the US for the objective of expansionism, invade oceanic islands; as well as China; and even sign the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany, in a plot to control the world.

Any actions taken to end a war cannot be construed as terrorism; as terrorism is not an act to bring about closer to war; but an act of disrupting a social pattern in attempts to sabotage it. Clearly the United States had no intent on inflicting terror among the Japanese people for this intent; as the Potsdam declaration stated:

"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

For this argument to stand; I would ask pro to show evidence that the US intentionally targeted civilians; and did so with the intent of spreading fear among the citizens; and NOT an attack against the government.

2. The act was Unethical and Illegal:

"Simply put it is unethical and not legal for military to select as its target the civilian population."

Since my opponent failed to provide evidence of this being illegal in international law; I would like to address the legality of such actions in warfare.
As a soldier; it is my duty to know and understand the law as it pertains to war. There are several legal codes we must follow in combat; The Geneva Conventions; the Law of Armed Conflict, the Code of Conduct; the Rules of Engagement, and the national judicial system which every civilian in the nation applies to. We must adhere to all of these laws; and failure to do so would mean an act of crimes against humanity; or a war crime.

The Rules of Engagement are a set of doctrines; or rules in which give us the specific actions we are to take in what situation. They are not necessarily international law; but they must adhere to them. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)governs the actions within combat among combatants. The Code of Conduct serves to extend the LOAC. The Geneva Conventions are on the ethical treatment of Prisoners of War and non-combatants. Because this is the question; it is the only legal code that pertains to my opponent's argument.
The Geneva Conventions state it is illegal to deliberately target civilians; or to intentionally cause collateral damage (by targeting civilian areas; etc.). I would ask that my opponent take the time to read up on the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to understand fully how this law did not apply.
Hiroshima was the home of the 2nd Army, and Army Marine Corps, whose Headquarters were Hiroshima, Japan. Reports told word of there being more aircraft lining the runways outside the full hangars than the US Navy had left in service. The city was also a massive depot for military supplies, and was a strategic centre for shipping. It was here that the atomic bomb fell.
Nagasaki was an industrial city; which was the main production centre for Imperial Japanese Navy warships. This is what the atomic bomb targeted.

So; despite what my opponent claims of the legality of these bombings; science the attacks were not directly targeting civilians; they were not illegal. Tragic yes; but not illegal; and all too necessary. Sometimes the best course of action is not a pleasant one.

3. Militarily Unnecessary:

Pro mentions of Eisenhower:
"Well, of course it was his opinion, after all, he was a general and strategist."

Unfortunately none of his strategic information involved the Pacific. In this regard; he had no more information than his Captains serving under him.

"I also doubt that any of us understand the strategies and details of that time period better than he did."

One can say the same of Eisenhower; except one major difference:

I KNOW for a FACT that Eisenhower did NOT understand the strategies and details of the Pacific campaign of that time period better than MacArthur; the General in command.

Eisenhower's opinion is based on zero information of the topic. Such a statement of his 'opinion' shows nothing more than he neglected to trust his senior; General MacArthur, and that he was apt to pass judgement without seeking the information beforehand. For his quote to have any relevance, I ask that my opponent please provide indisputable evidence that Eisenhower was right; and Japan was defeated before dropping the atomic bombs. So far; the evidence points 100% to the contrary.

In regards to the Admiral Nimitz quote; I ask that my opponent go back and reread my previous round; as this was addressed; and he still has not provided evidence to verify what Nimitz said as true.

Yes; MacArthur was not in favour of dropping the bombs. MacArthur however did follow through with the actions. One does not have to favour an action for it to be necessary. I ask that my opponent please address the fact that the Japanese negotiations among the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (SCDW) continued to; up to the very day Nagasaki was bombed; stand against the Emperor's decision to surrender. As a Shogunate system; the Emperor was not in authority to make such a decision. Please address the fact that Japan refused to surrender before Nagasaki was bombed.

"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons…"

I ask my opponent to explain why Japan did NOT surrender if they were in fact ready to? There were more deaths in the fire bombings of Tokyo than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; yet this did not deter the SCDW from refusing to surrender. If they were ready to; why did they fail to?

Since I did not get to address the Justification stage; I would ask my opponent to take the next round to assess it. I ask to see statistical numbers to verify a better alternative that would have resulted in less casualties, to make such a 'option' for the US a choice.
Makhno

Pro

1. act of Terrorism

“to force Japan to surrender”
Means: Destroying enemy city.
Goals: Forcing enemy to surrender by inflicting fear.

References to an SMS message and a mugging in a 'dark valley' were to illustrate the point that massage itself in this case was fear.
What happened before or after is irrelevant in this case. Such arguments can be used in justification section. Here we are just trying to determine if the fear was intentional and if non-combatants were targeted. I hope there will be no debate about if the act was violent. In other words here we are trying to determine if this act can be classified as act of terrorism.

“Japanese… sign the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany”
How is this relevant? I do not understand how this relates to the topic.

“Any actions taken to end a war cannot be construed as terrorism”
Such an assertion is absurd by definition. This way you can justify any act of terrorism as in the root is always a decent idea of some kind.

“as terrorism is not an act to bring about closer to war”
My opponent is too naive if he really believes that. Any idea can be subtext of a terrorist act, even the most peaceful and humane.

“Clearly the United States had no intent on inflicting terror among the Japanese people for this intent”
I thought we already went through this. Clearly the United States had intent on inflicting terror; the only question is to whom.

“…as the Potsdam declaration stated…”
Yes, yes, this is called "demands", almost every act of terrorism has those. Still, I fail to understand how content of such demands justifies the act of terrorism.

“For this argument to stand; I would ask pro to show evidence that the US intentionally targeted civilians; and did so with the intent of spreading fear among the citizens; and NOT an attack against the government.”
And why is it mutually exclusive? Nonetheless, further I am going to distinctly cover the topic of the targeting civilian population.

2. The act was Unethical and Illegal

“…it is illegal to deliberately target civilians; or to intentionally cause collateral damage (by targeting civilian areas; etc.).”
Bravo!
My opponent argues that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen purely as a strategic target. But this is a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city.

After the July 1943 firestorm destruction of Hamburg, the mid-February 1945 holocaust of Dresden, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, America's leaders -- as US Army General Leslie Groves later commented -- "were generally inured to the mass killing of civilians." For President Harry Truman, the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was simply not a consideration in his decision to use the atom bomb.

This is clear violation of international law and war crime, due to deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate attacks, with lack of precautionary measures taken to prevent civilian casualties.

I beg you, my reader, to renounce for the time being your empathy, and look at the problem with unbiased eye. How would we react if the Japanese or the Germans or the Arabs or the Russians would detonate an atomic bomb in the middle of New York? New York is quite a strategic target. But what if it were the Iraqis? After all we attacked them first. What if they demanded the withdrawal all forces from Iraq (i.e. the end of war)? If we follow the logic of my opponent, it would be quite justified operation.

3. Militarily Unnecessary

“Eisenhower's opinion is based on zero information of the topic.”
My opponent is excruciatingly trying to discredit General Eisenhower and his professional opinion. In the contrast from my opponent I have no facts to judge the degree of ignorance of General Eisenhower. On the contrary, I know that in July 1945 Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was visiting General Eisenhower headquarters in Germany, and specifically asked his opinion on the issue of dropping the bomb. In my opinion it proves that General Eisenhower did have full information on this subject.
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.

My opponent also expresses doubts as to the origin of the Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz. Or my opponent wants to challenge the competence and awareness of the Good Admiral too?

“Yes; MacArthur was not in favor of dropping the bombs.”
“Not in favor” that's putting it mildly. He saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.

“MacArthur however did follow through with the actions.”
Following orders is one of the characteristics of a good solder but this is completely irrelevant to the subject of our debate.

“I ask my opponent to explain why Japan did NOT surrender if they were in fact ready to?”
In the matter of fact Japan was trying to surrender long before August of 1945.

On January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator. 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.
Taking into account the lack of education in the history of my opponent, I must remind him that at that time the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan. Thus, the peace talks with the Soviet Union itself could not be conducted.

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.

4. Unjustified

I'm still waiting for any justification of such atrocities or for that matter any historical evidence of expediency or excuse for this.


Debate Round No. 3
Fogofwar

Con

Since my opponent is intent on spreading a large amount of topics over the course of this argument; I am unable to respond to them in the allotted number of words. I have decided to begin my argument; and will continue with it in the following round; that which will not fit in this round. I would ask my opponent to make a more focused debate if he wishes to fairly address the entire issues; rather than try and use emotion to persuade sympathy to his side.

1.
"To force Japan to surrender"
Means: destroying enemy city: In fact; the means was destroying naval ports; and military headquarters; as well as mass arms and supplies stores; and industrial complexes manufacturing machines of war.
Goals: Forcing enemy to surrender by reducing their capability to defend themselves; and to 'face prompt and utter destruction' as warned in the Potsdam declaration. This was not a spontaneous act that Japan did not see coming. This was an act the US took several opportunities to avoid taking; and when Japan continued to refuse; the US acted.
If my opponent wants to continue his belief that this was an act of terrorism; he must prove that the objective was not the outcome of the Potsdam declaration; which afforded Japan the opportunity to meet the US' demands without the bombings. The Japanese did meet these demands; but only after the bombings. If this were an act of 'terrorism', then he must explain what the objective was in regards to instilling fear in the public; and not the government of Japan.
My opponent also continues to ignore the fact that the bombings were targeted at military installations; and industrial complexes, not civilian population.
The Japanese alliance with Nazi Germany was very relevant; as it was a pact to take over the entire world. Such action HAD to be stopped; by all means.
""Any actions taken to end a war cannot be construed as terrorism"
Such an assertion is absurd by definition. This way you can justify any act of terrorism as in the root is always a decent idea of some kind."
This is beyond absurd. I am astonished that any level headed person can come to this conclusion. The Dolphinarium attack was an act of terrorism; under no conclusion other than the belief that all religions but one's own must be KILLED; is there any 'justification' to this act. Under no circumstances can the slaughter of innocent teenagers at a night club be construed as a 'rooted in a decent idea of some kind.' Add to that list the attacks of 9/11. The assassination of Christian politicians; the mass murder of thousands of children with bombs at the hands of the Taliban because there were girls in the schools. I ask any reader of this to simply apply logic and understand the insanity of such a conclusion as made by my opponent.
Are you suggesting that it would have been better to allow the war to continue?
""as terrorism is not an act to bring about closer to war"
My opponent is too naive if he really believes that. Any idea can be subtext of a terrorist act, even the most peaceful and humane."
As a soldier in the Canadian Forces; I know all too well the realism of terrorist attacks. I ask my opponent to examine reality instead of his ideas. How was 9/11 an act to bring closure? How was the Dolphinarium attack an act to bring closure? How was hijacking flights and murdering all Jewish people onboard acts of closure? Again; I ask the reader to apply common sense.
""Clearly the United States had no intent on inflicting terror among the Japanese people for this intent"
I thought we already went through this. Clearly the United States had intent on inflicting terror; the only question is to whom."
Had my opponent properly read the quote taken from me; he would have understood to whom; not the Japanese people. The Potsdam declaration made it perfectly clear to the people of Japan; that the US had no intent on harming them. It was the Japanese government that did.
"Yes, yes, this is called "demands", almost every act of terrorism has those."
The US demands were to allow the people of Japan to decide their fate. This is far from the demands that the entire world kill all non Muslims like al Qaeda. My opponent is clearly delusional if he cannot see the difference between two warring nations and an organization who's only agenda is the murder of all non Islamic people.
""For this argument to stand; I would ask pro to show evidence that the US intentionally targeted civilians; and did so with the intent of spreading fear among the citizens; and NOT an attack against the government."
And why is it mutually exclusive? Nonetheless, further I am going to distinctly cover the topic of the targeting civilian population."
We are still awaiting.
2.
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
apparently my opponent doesn't understand what concentration of activities entails.
"In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians"
What my opponent fails to mention is the method of Japanese attack. Japan was responsible for the death of more civilians than any nation in WWII. For this act to be deemed unethical; one must accept that the Empire of Japan itself was unethical. The use of nuclear bombs to bring about an end to the war ultimately saved the lives of millions of Chinese civilians who were facing slaughter at the hands of Japan.
"If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base."
If my opponent wishes to argue this; then he must provide a list of suitable locations that would have had the same effect; that being the unconditional surrender of Japan. What my opponent clearly fails to understand is the Japanese engineering of their cities. Most of Japan's industrial complexes were spread out in dense civilian populations. It would be one factory; then blocks of houses; and then another factory. This made attacking the US military difficult to do for those with a moral obligation to avoid civilian casualties.
"After the July 1943 firestorm destruction of Hamburg, the mid-February 1945 holocaust of Dresden, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, America's leaders -- as US Army General Leslie Groves later commented -- "were generally inured to the mass killing of civilians." For President Harry Truman, the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was simply not a consideration in his decision to use the atom bomb."
Yet, after the firebombing of Tokyo; which killed well over 100,000 people; more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; the Japanese still did not surrender. When we consider the tens of thousands of civilians the US killed in the process of attacking industrial and military complexes spread into the population; we can clearly see the US made every effort of avoiding casualties, unlike Japan.
In fact; if we look at the statistics of this; we can see quite easily; which nation was the more concerned with civilian casualties. Keep in mind that the US took the fight to Japan; yet Japan failed to fight on US homeland.
Civilian deaths in WWII:
Axis: Japan: 500,000 to 1,000,000
Allies: US: 1,700
Canada: 0
China: 7,000,000 to 16,000,000
Japan killed some 14.4 million more civilians than the US; and that's including the US nuclear bombings.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"This is clear violation of international law and war crime, due to deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate attacks, with lack of precautionary measures taken to prevent civilian casualties."
This is a bold statement to make without credit. deliberate targeting was to military infrastructure; NOT civilian infrastructure. There was no lack of precautionary measures; the US even told Japan it would happen.
Makhno

Pro

1.

Terrorism - violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

In this definition which has never been challenged, we can clearly see that in order for an act to be classified as terroristic it needs to meet three criteria.

a. The act must be violent by its nature. However, this we can ignore, since it is a repetition. If the act meets the third criteria, it is automatically an act of violence. Moreover, I cannot imagine how someone in their right mind can argue convincingly that dropping A-bomb is not a violent act.

b. The goal of such act needs to be to create fear in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons. My opponent completely ignores that government does classify as a group of people.

c. There should be significant or not accidental civilian casualties. 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima. 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki. Was it an accident?

All the rest is irrelevant to the subject.

“Forcing enemy to surrender by reducing their capability to defend themselves” and “My opponent also continues to ignore the fact that the bombings were targeted at military installations”

This statement contradicts the official US government report.

“Industry in the center of the city was effectively wiped out. Though small workshops numbered several thousand, they represented only one-fourth of the total industrial production of Hiroshima, since many of them had only one or two workers. The bulk of the city’s output came from large plants located on the outskirts of the city: one-half of the industrial production came from only five firms. Of these larger companies, only one suffered more than superficial damage. Of their working force, 94 percent were uninjured. Since electric power was available, and materials and working force were not destroyed, plants ordinary responsible for nearly three-fourths of Hiroshima’s industrial production could have resumed normal operation within 30 days of the attack had the war continued. ” United States Strategic Bombing Survey June 1946 [page 14]

“This was not a spontaneous act that Japan did not see coming”

I would consider this argument if US government gave some time to the population of the cities to evacuate.

“If my opponent wants to continue his belief that this was an act of terrorism; he must prove that the objective was not the outcome of the Potsdam declaration; which afforded Japan the opportunity to meet the US' demands without the bombings.”

First of all I have to mention that I disagree with my opponent on regards of real purpose of using a-bombs on Japan in WW II, but that would be a good topic for another debate.

Anyhow, demands are irrelevant to topic of determination whether it was a terrorist act or not.

“The Japanese did meet these demands; but only after the bombings.”

Actually, Japan never met those demands. There was never unconditional surrender. Japan surrendered on one condition that the emperor's position would be assured. This is irrelevant to topic of determination whether it was a terrorist act or not, but goes to the militarily necessity and justification as it proves Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower were right all along.

“If this were an act of 'terrorism', then he must explain what the objective was in regards to instilling fear in the public; and not the government of Japan.”

I would exceedingly appreciate if my opponent would stop twisting facts and definitions as he pleases.

“To create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons”

Even if in the darkness of frenzy, we for a moment imagine that caused terror in the public was just a side effect, than we are still faced with the fact that government does classify as a group of people.

“The Japanese alliance with Nazi Germany was very relevant; as it was a pact to take over the entire world. Such action HAD to be stopped; by all means.”

Really, by all means? Even by terrorist act?

So, my guess this goes to “Justification”.

The Big Three had a similar pact, would that justify dropping a-bombs on their cities? The whole WWII was about rower shift. Before the war France and UK were absolute dominant powers in the world. Germany, Italy and Japan tried to challenge that fact, and in the end US and USSR emerged victorious.

Henceforth in the text my opponent claims that Islamic terrorism is the only form of terrorism. Also he tries to misrepresent goals of Islam and jihad. I will not delve into this topic, but I want to note that Islamic terrorism is just another form of terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic and anyone can use it to achieve their goals. In our case the goal was not to end the war, but to force Japan to meet US demands (or at least it’s what my opponent believes).

“Are you suggesting that it would have been better to allow the war to continue?”

All I’m saying there were plenty of options some of with would result in earlier end of war.

2.

“apparently my opponent doesn't understand what concentration of activities entails.”

Apparently my opponent chooses to ignore the fact that one of the criteria by which the targets were selected was POPULATION.

“Japan was responsible for the death of more civilians than any nation in WWII.”

And how does it make more ethical or legal? Anyhow, two wrongs don’t make it right. Do Japanese war crimes give US a carte blanche?

I don’t see any point of arguing who killed more civilians in WWII, especially when provided statistic data is incomplete and inaccurate.

“Empire of Japan itself was unethical.“

Finally something we can agree on. With one adjustment, not Empire of Japan itself was unethical, but tactics they were using.

“The use of nuclear bombs to bring about an end to the war ultimately saved the lives of millions of Chinese civilians who were facing slaughter at the hands of Japan.”

This statement makes three false assumptions. First, we must assume that the bombs were dropped in order to end the war. Also, we must admit that there was no chance of ending the war earlier. Finally, we must assume that millions of Chinese civilians would have been certainly slaughtered if the war dragged on for some time.

Many historic evidence points to the fact that war in pacific could be ended earlier, would Allies accept one condition which they did at the end anyway.

“Yet, after the firebombing of Tokyo; which killed well over 100,000 people; more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; the Japanese still did not surrender. “

I want to ask my opponent, how one crime justifies or makes it more ethical the other crime? Moreover, I am curious by which mathematical law 100,000 more than 200,000?

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima.

60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki.

http://www.rerf.or.jp...

“Deliberate targeting was to military infrastructure; NOT civilian infrastructure.”

Yet again my opponent argues that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen purely as a strategic target. But this is a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and POPULATION."



Source:

http://www.doug-long.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://en.wikiquote.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
Fogofwar

Con

1. As my opponent has already proven his point false; there is not much more to say; other than reiterate the following statements:
My opponent has defined terrorism: Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
The Potsdam declaration clearly states:
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established." [1]
My opponent continually stresses that this was a violent act; making it fit the definition; yet all warfare is based on violent acts. As the great strategist Carl von Clausewitz said: "War is an act of violence; pushed to its utmost limits. Violence alone is not enough to prove an act as terrorism; otherwise every human being on the planet would be guilty of terrorism at some point in their life.
"The goal of such act needs to be to create fear in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons. My opponent completely ignores that government does classify as a group of people."
My opponent blatantly ignores the fact that the world was at war. Evidently; he needs to ignore this fact in order for the act to fit his definition of terrorism.
"There should be significant or not accidental civilian casualties. 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima. 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki. Was it an accident?"
The immediate death toll of Hiroshima was up to 80,000 killed immediately; and a total of up to 166,000 by the end of 1945.
Roughly 246,000 total deaths by the bombings as of the end of 1945 occurred. As of August of 2010, just over 420,000 have been recorded to have died post bombings from the nuclear effects. This total is for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That equates to roughly 666,000 deaths to date, from the attacks on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [2]
In total; Japan suffered a total of 500,000 to 1,000,000 civilian deaths. Japan; on the other hand, murdered between 7,000,000 and 16,000,000 Chinese civilians during their intentional bombings of civilian targets in cities like Beijing; as well as their ground assaults on farmers in Manchuria. [3] If we take into consideration the level of civilian casualties from acts of war; these two incidents actually do not rank among the top. More civilians were killed in the US firebombing of Tokyo; with a confirmed casualty toll from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department of 124,711. Estimates also place that number well above 200,000. The Tokyo fire department claimed over 97,000 killed; more than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki; and with conventional bombs. [4] Here too it should be noted that the intent was military and government complexes.
We can clearly see that the US had NO intent on inflicting fear in the GENERAL PUBLIC; and acted in an attempt to crush the resistance of an enemy military force. To understand this, we can look at the man responsible for defining modern war; Clausewitz:
"Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavours to throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance." [5]
The Potsdam declaration clearly states that Japan will face "prompt and utter destruction" if it refuses to surrender. The goal was to "render [Japan] incapable of further resistance."
"In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory." [5]
"If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand; but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better..." [5]
To this we can understand that the US forced Japan into a situation in which the sacrifice they demanded (the surrender of Japan) was not more oppressive than the outcome should Japan refuse (the bombing of Hiroshima; then Nagasaki). Japan chose the latter move after Tokyo; and after Hiroshima. The bombings were not transitory; there was no undoing what would happen; and no way to avoid it. Japan was in a state of check-mate. It was Japan's decision to continue playing.
"…Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the War should therefore be a change for the worse…" [5]
As was the case in having the cities bombed.
"…The worst condition in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely [destroyed]. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of War, he must either be positively [destroyed] or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it…" [5]
The US commenced bombing Tokyo with conventional arms; killing more than the nuclear bombs did; Japan failed to surrender. This was the first stage of the US placing Japan in a position where he was threatened with complete destruction. Next came the invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Again; faced by this threat; Japan still resisted and refused to surrender. The US then commenced with the former; Japan was placed in a position of being completely destroyed."I would consider this argument if US government gave some time to the population of the cities to evacuate."
"[War] can only be brought to a standstill by either side by one single motive alone, which is, THAT HE WAITS FOR A MORE FAVOURABLE MOMENT FOR ACTION." [5]
Had the US given Japan time; it would have given Japan time to strike first. Japanese subs were en route to attack Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles; and several other cities; as mentioned and proven in the previous round. To give your enemy time is to give your enemy victory. It is clear that such a statement demonstrates my opponent's lack of experience in combat arms.
"Anyhow, demands are irrelevant to topic of determination whether it was a terrorist act or not….Actually, Japan never met those demands. There was never unconditional surrender."
I advise my opponent to do a little more research. The "unconditional surrender" was laid out in the Potsdam declaration; which Japan signed on board the USS Missouri on September 2,1945. the radio broadcast announcement of the acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration at noon Japan standard time on August 15. [6]
"Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilfully method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst. As the se of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the cooperation of intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application. The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities to which the only limitations are those impose by the amount of counter-acting force on each side. This is the way in which the matter must be viewed and it is to no purpose, it is even against one's own interest, to turn away from the real nature of the affair because of the horror of its elements excites repugnance." [5]

...References are provided in the comments; as there is no more room to post them here.
Makhno

Pro



Well, it's time to summarize and draw conclusions.

My opponent has never provided even a hint of historical evidence to prove his point. Not only that, he never even tried to articulate this view. All he did for five rounds is trying to challenge everything that I would say. So even if we imagine that he is completely successful, the dispute went back to the status quo that makes me a winner by default. Since we do not have any evidence that there was a no choice situation.

However, I will go further. I think the vast majority of historical records and facts indicate that the U.S. not only had a choice, but the decision made was not the best possible option. I know on my side the international laws, support of the military leadership of the country at the time, as well as the vast majority of historians, and in the end, common sense and the desire justice of any sensible individual.

1. Dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism.

We can see that by given definition such act clearly falls into the category of terrorist acts.

I know there are hundreds of definitions of the word terrorism. Moreover, after the fact the U.S. government specifically devised its own definition of that word, in order to eliminate the possibility of unfavorable treatment. However, my opponent has never challenged my definition of the word.

Con argued that anybody can fall under the definition of terrorist. I do not quite see evidence of this, but there is such a term as domestic terrorism (if that's what he meant).

2. The act was unethical and illegal
My opponent himself quoted the international law:
“…it is illegal to deliberately target civilians; or to intentionally cause collateral damage (by targeting civilian areas; etc.).”
And as we know from historical documentation targets were chosen by the population. That falls under “deliberately target civilians”.
By the way, some foreign courts ruled the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime.

3. Militarily Unnecessary
It would seem that it was a military operation, and at this point to prove my case it would be most difficult. However, the opposite is true. Competent testimony of generals and senior officers of the U.S. Army and Navy have shown that there was no need for such an operation.
My opponent tried to discredit some of the generals at the beginning of the debate, but later gave up his futile attempts, and completely forgot about this topic.

4. Unjustified
My opponent was trying to justify the actions of the U.S. government by crimes committed by Japan. But that is exactly what Al Qaeda and many other terrorist organizations do.
Because the U.S. supports Israel and Israel kills civilians, we kill civilians in America. Because Russia had bombed civilian towns in Chechnya, we will blow up apartment buildings in Moscow. This justification is too slippery to be reasonable.
Another vague attempt to justify the crime was established at the Potsdam Declaration. However, the very Potsdam Declaration was paroxysmal. The US government in that declaration promised to Japanese people total war and genocide in the event of not meeting the demands.
And no, the goal was not to end the war, but to win the war at all cost.


My opponent has decided not to go into the political reality of the time. And I think, in vain. Apparently that's where the real root of what happened lies. It was the beginning of the Cold War after all.

I do not see how any reasonable person can argue as if the U.S. had no choice. And even as if the made choice was desirable or humane.


Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
@Fogofwar Ones again what comic book do you get your information form?

Pearl Harbor Casualties:

4 battleships sunk
3 battleships damaged
1 battleship grounded
2 destroyers sunk
1 other ship sunk
3 cruisers damaged
1 destroyer damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
155 aircraft damaged
2,402 killed
1,247 wounded

Civilian Casualties:

57 killed
35 wounded

http://www.ibiblio.org...
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
No Makhno, I don't need to claim experience where I have none in order to prove my point. The US target was the industrial sector. The effect of the bombings on them is not the topic of what they targeted. Japan targeted the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor; and they didn't even touch it. In fact; of all the 2,400 killed; most came from two ships and the hospitals (including civilian staff). All in all; only 5 ships were damaged beyond repair; and only two were targeted ships. Pearl Harbor too was an example of the extent of collateral damage in a total war covering more than 1/3 the planet.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
There is no time in war for demonstrations. If you do not act; your enemy will. Japan had three underwater aircraft carrier subs within range to strike US cities; including Washington D.C. Had the USAF taken the time to demonstrate their capabilities; they would have lost the capability as Japan would have capitalized on their failure to act.
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
A plan dismissed by USAF that would have been far more effective was a demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor, showing first hand the Japanese what they were in store for.
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
@Fogwar And you base your argument on your personal experience again?

"Industry in the center of the city was effectively wiped out. Though small workshops numbered several thousand, they represented only one-fourth of the total industrial production of Hiroshima, since many of them had only one or two workers. The bulk of the city's output came from large plants located on the outskirts of the city: one-half of the industrial production came from only five firms. Of these larger companies, only one suffered more than superficial damage. Of their working force, 94 percent were uninjured. Since electric power was available, and materials and working force were not destroyed, plants ordinary responsible for nearly three-fourths of Hiroshima's industrial production could have resumed normal operation within 30 days of the attack had the war continued. " United States Strategic Bombing Survey June 1946 [page 14]
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
The bombs were dropped on military installations. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were of the largest military and industrial complexes in Japan. There were no military installations that were uninhabited. Military bases require the same resources as civilian populations...they must be within close proximity to urban centres; as well it was Japanese culture to have them mixed in...makes targeting them without civilian casualties impossible - something they knew would be a major moral factor for us.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
My take on the situation: It's is impossible to know whether or not dropping the bomb was the right choice, though I am leaning towards yes. Remember, after both atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion, the "Big Six" were evenly divided about whether or not to surrender. So the main questions are a) Was the Soviet invasion as threatening as the atomic bomb and b) Could we have scared the Japanese into surrender by dropping the bomb on a uninhabited or military Japanese target?

My answer to a) No. The atomic bomb could essentially destroy any city on a whim. The Japanese thought that the Americans ha a 100 nukes, which essentially means they thought that the US could destroy them on a whim. My answer to b) Maybe. Remember, we had to only scare 3 of the Big Six into voting for surrender so that the emperor would intervene.

It could come down to a different question c) Is dropping bombs on a uninhabited island or military encampment as scary as nuking a city? I think that probably not for uninhabited island, but probably for military encampment.

But that begs the question: would we be justified nuking a military encampment? I think yes, if it avoids the slaughter of many.

Summary: Ideal course of action is to nuke a few of the bigger military encampments to get 3 of the Big Six to surrender.

For more info, see my debate with Laissez-Faire.
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
Explain it to me, why do you think U.S. had no choice? Is it because General Eisenhower was in Europe at the moment? Which one of two Wikipedia links you provided makes your point?
I'm sorry, but this debate you cannot base on your personal experiences.
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
You take my quote out of context.
"My opponent has never provided even a hint of historical evidence to prove his point."
You never tried to make your point with or without any historical evidence.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
never provided a hint of of historical evidence? That's cute. I guess the several links to sources and the Potsdam declaration were all made up hey? Clausewitz never existed either hey? ;)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
FogofwarMakhnoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty much a clear win by Pro. The historical sources won him that, his arguments were easy to follow, and I'm giving conduct because he won the debate.
Vote Placed by awesomeness 4 years ago
awesomeness
FogofwarMakhnoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro clearly won this debate
Vote Placed by tudaloo 5 years ago
tudaloo
FogofwarMakhnoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Makhno uses historical sources that i actually study and did projects for in school and Makhno did a good job to point out that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities.