The Instigator
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
MikeNovotny
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,500 times Debate No: 18210
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

CAPLlock

Con

R1 is acceptance
We be debateing about Hiroshima and if it was needed or just.
MikeNovotny

Pro

I thank my opponent, Con for creating this debate. I will do my best to win.
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Con

I thank you and the rules are indeed if it was needed or legal. Moving on. And to those in comments, try not to debate in there.
For starters.
It was a Terrorist attack

1.�‚��person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates violence or threats of violence, esp., in pursuit of politcal goals 2.�‚��person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence

http://m.dictionary.com...

A war crime

"murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian
necessity".[1]

Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law

"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.
MikeNovotny

Pro

MikeNovotny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Con

CAPLlock forfeited this round.
MikeNovotny

Pro

MikeNovotny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MikeNovotny

Pro

MikeNovotny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CAPLlock

Con

Sorry everyone
MikeNovotny

Pro

MikeNovotny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
CAPLlock, It is nice to see that you are OK. I hope the secret service was hospitable to you during your capture.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
It should be noted that this can be debated on a time with more time
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
"The leaders of the three great powers - the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain - have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies....[Note: a list of conditions follow hereafter]

http://en.wikisource.org...
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"Also, it's pretty much a historical fact that the Japanese surrendered because of an impending Russian entry into the Pacific front, not because of Hiroshima/Nagasaki."

I would agree, to an extent, even though my knowledge of history is rudimentary...The Japanese campaign was declining, and the mining of the coastal areas, combined with attacks and devastations of their industry, had ravaged Japan's economy...Furthermore, the Soviet union was planning to enter the Pacific front, according to my sources, due to the fulfillment of the Tehran ("Took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that if Turkey found herself at war with Germany, and as a result Bulgaria declared war on Turkey or attacked her, the Soviet would immediately be at war with Bulgaria.") and Yalta (during which Stalin agreed to fight Japan ninety days after the fall of Germany)...
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think could be taken to the forums, since we don't want to be helping or hurting anyone in this debate by arguing in their comments sections. But I would like to see this in the forums.
Posted by ryan_thomas 5 years ago
ryan_thomas
@bluesteel Where are those documents at?
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
@Bluesteel
Where can I read those historical documents?
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
You have to be more specific, some smart a$$ can accept this and say, "I don't know why opponent is against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
he seems to intend to argue that Hiroshima was not needed and/or not just

This debate is too broad. There's so much you could talk about either on whether it was needed OR whether using nukes is just.

Also, it's pretty much a historical fact that the Japanese surrendered because of an impending Russian entry into the Pacific front, not because of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. You could look at actual historical documents from military leaders after the bombings - all were worried about the Russians, NOT another nuclear attack. Civilian deaths never calculate into military decisionmaking - military leaders just assume that civilians will take whatever the enemy dishes out and this will, if anything, harden their resolve.

So yeah, take at your own risk. Too much con ground and forces Aff to argue something that has been completely disproven by scholars in the know.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
What position are you arguing for?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
CAPLlockMikeNovotnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CAPLlockMikeNovotnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
CAPLlockMikeNovotnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit