The Instigator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
freedomsquared
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

New Member Tournament: The Atomic Bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
freedomsquared
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,140 times Debate No: 17929
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

Thanks to freedomsquared for agreeing to debate this topic. I hope that it will be a fun and interesting contribution to this tournament.

To comply with the 3 rounds max for this tournament, as agreed on in the PM
Rd 1: Pro - Opening, Con - Rebuttal & Opening
Rd 2: Pro - Defense & Rebuttal, Con - Rebuttal & Defense
Rd 3: Pro - Defense & Rebuttal, Con - Rebuttal only

Clarifications should be in the comments section.

Opening Argument

I believe that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US were not justified and the loss of life and expense outweighed any potential benefits. I have four main points to make:


1) Loss of life of innocent civilians
The two bombings killed about 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. The majority of the casualities were civilian [1]. The total is at least 240,000 while some sources put it at 270,000. Either way, there were a lot of casualities.


2) Wrong choice of targets
It would have been much better to attack Japanese military bases to cripple its military power rather than killing innocent civilians who never harmed the United States in any way.

Hiroshima was chosen because the hills adjacent to it would focus the blast on a very large part of the city [3] including non-military residential areas. Despite there being military bases at Hiroshima, civilians were the biggest losers.


3) Morality
It was immoral for the US to "demonstrate" its power by killing and injuring civilians because human (civilian) lives should not be used as tools for political demonstrations. Historians suggest that Truman may have wanted to intimidate the Russians before they entered the war [1].

In fact, the second bomb wasn't even delayed to give Japan time to surrender. From the beginning, the US planned to use two bombs regardless of the Japanese response to the first one [2] killing even more innocent civilians just to show the Japanese what the US can do.


4) (Un)Necessity/Unfairness of Postdam
One of the most popular reason given by the US government in order to justify the attacks is Japan's refusal to sign the Postdam Declaration. However, this treaty was very unfair and called for the Allied occupation of Japan with Japanese sovereignity limited to minor islands and the Japanese military being disarmed [4]. No wonder the Japanese refused to sign. If a peaceful negotiation with fair terms was presented, the possibility of a Japanese surrender would have been greater.

It was not even so much a treaty as it was an ultimatum threatening "prompt and utter destruction"[4] for refusing to comply. Truman just used those big words to further his political agenda and seem like a powerful man which again connects to my morality argument.


Conclusion
The US was not justified in attacking Japan and killing Japanese civilians. There were better alternatives and it was more of a political agenda with civilians on the receiving end than a necessary military operation.


Sources

[1] http://www.infoplease.com...
[2] http://history1900s.about.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...


freedomsquared

Con

Thanks to Falcon for creating this debate and presenting a clearly well-thought out argument.

R1)

While it is true that the nuclear bombs caused many casualties amongst the Japanese civilian population, the only other option for bombing (known as fire bombing) was far worse. Over the course of the war, this conventional bombing caused over 500,000 Japanese casualties and left another 5 million homeless [1].

It is quite clear that the nuclear bombs caused less overall casualties than the alternative.


R2)

Using the same source as my opponent (and reading the quote in its entirety) you will see that it is stated that Hiroshima was chosen because it was "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area[2]." The United States choose this city because it was important to the Japanese war effort (as it had the industry to fuel their war machine) and because it couldn't be effectively fire bombed due to it's proximity to a river[2].

The goal of the bombings was to end the war as quickly as possible by installing fear into a stubborn Japanese people. Soldiers die all the time, and even the loss of a few thousand (from a military base) would not affect the Japanese people the same as being attacked directly, in their own back yards. Choosing a purely military target would not have the same psychological effect that the US desired to attain. Think of the way Americans reacted to 9/11, and maybe you'll have a small understanding of the way the Japanese people must have felt. This fear is what eventually led to a surrender and the future peace and prosperity of both countries.


R3)

The dropping of the atomic bombs was not a political demonstration, but a necessary act to spare millions of lives, both American and Japanese[3].

The second bomb was delayed 3 days, which was plenty of time for Japan to enter into peace agreements. There is still speculation on whether or not Truman ordered the second bombing [4], but the fact remains that Japan had time to surrender. It also seems that United States had a third bomb in waiting that they didn't use to "demonstrate their power."


R4)

Once again, my opponent is straw picking his arguments. Although the treaty did call for Allied occupation of Japan, it also made the following declarations:

  • "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."
  • "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
  • "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."[5]
Considering the fact that Japan was fighting a war with no hope of victory that they themselves instigated, this deal was more than generous. Truman warned of "prompt and utter destruction" because that was what would happen if Japan did not surrender. He told them what the consequences were, in the hopes that they would surrender, but to no avail.


I will now go into my own contentions (that were not sufficiently stated in my rebuttals).


C1) The Atomic Bombs Saved Lives

Seems a bit contradictory, but the fact of the matter is that the atomic bombs got Japan to surrender when nothing but complete and utter defeat (through a land invasion) would have sufficed previously[6]. Atomic bombs saved time, money, and lives of all those involved in the war effort.


C2) Civilians Were Not Innocent

Japanese civilians were described as being "fantastically hostile"[6] towards the United States. While it is understandable that they wouldn't be fond of their war enemies, the Japanese brought this to the extreme. In the Battle of Okinawa, Japanese soldiers used civilians as human shields[7]. Another common practice was to strap bombs to civilians, so that when the American Armed Forces defeated the soldiers, the civilians could "surrender" and get close enough to take the lives of our soldiers.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://articles.latimes.com...
[4] http://www.warbirdforum.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal. I will first respond to it, then present my own rebuttal to his arguments.

DEFENSE
1) Loss of Life
Con agrees that Nuclear bombs caused heavy casualties among civilians but says the Fire Bombing was worse which he says was the only other option available.
Firstly, I contest the argument that it was the only option: Peaceful negotiations could have been made (I will elaborate on this in my argument about Postdam).
Secondly, Con compares the loss of Japanese lives over the course of the war to the loss of lives resulting from two attacks that occurred 4 days apart. If my opponent wants to make a comparison of 2 atomic bombings with conventional bombs, he must pick 2 conventional bombs that the US used against Japan during WWII, not compare them with all the Japanese casualties that occurred due to conventional bombing in general. It can be seen that the Atomic Bombs were not the lesser of the two evils which my opponent's argument seems to imply.

2) Target Choice
While Hiroshima had an army depot, it was chosen so that the blast would be as bad as possible (and therefore killing as many civilians as possible) because the surrounding mountains would focus the blast.


"Choosing a purely military target would not have the same psychological effect that the US desired to attain. Think of the way Americans reacted to 9/11, and maybe you'll have a small understanding of the way the Japanese people must have felt. This fear is what eventually led to a surrender and the future peace and prosperity of both countries."

First, my opponent compares the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to 9/11 thereby shooting himself in the foot (unless he is prepared to argue that 9/11 was also justified). Second, the US did not surrender to the 9/11 terrorists so I fail to see why my opponent argues that "psychological effect" was needed to end the war and compares it to another psychological effect (World Trade Center) which started a war.

3) Morality
Con's source [3] just says that it was possible that a third bomb exists. No real proof. So the US can't really take credit for having "a third bomb in waiting that they didn't use to demonstrate their power."


"The second bomb was delayed 3 days, which was plenty of time for Japan to enter into peace agreements."

The second bomb was not delayed in order to give Japan time to surrender, but was waiting only for a sufficient amount of plutonium-239 for the atomic bomb.[4] Japan was crippled from the first bomb. They barely had any time to comprehend what was going on. As I already pointed out the US planned two bombs right from the beginning regardless of whether the Japanese had time to respond to the first one with a surrender.

My opponent doesn't respond to my argument that Truman ordered the bombing partly to intimidate the Russians.


4) Necessity
The US had the option of peacefully negotiating a ceasefire and an end to the war as opposed to issuing ultimatums and then using Atom bombs. Postdam was definitely not a treaty that the Japanese could realistically accept. My opponent says that I am strawpicking my arguments while doing the exact same thing himself. The full list of conditions on the treaty is too long to list but there were fair as well as unfair terms such as the Japanese sovereignty being limited to minor islands and others that I mentioned in the previous round. It also left no room for negotiation.



REBUTTAL

1) Atomic bombs saved lives
Con argues that "nothing but complete and utter defeat" would have caused the Japanese to surrender. This is not true as they were on the verge of surrendering when the bombs were used. Japanese offensive capabilities, navy and air force were greatly weakened and almost exhausted at the time the bombs were dropped. The Russian attack of August 8 on Manchuria met little or no resistance. [1]

In this situation, I don't feel that my Con's argument that the bombs saved money and lives to be accurate. His argument talks involves potentially saving lives which is unknown, but I showed that it definitely took lives.

2) Civilians not innocent
Con's source says:
"Because the U.S. military planners assumed that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population, high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high." [2]

Con argues that Japanese civilians were "fanatically" hostile as fact whereas his source says that it was a mere assumption. The military would naturally assume that most people they meet on enemy land are hostile for their own safety.

An even bigger issue here is that even if some civilians attacked US soldiers, how does Con know that they were the same civilians targeted during the Atomic Bombings? I will reiterate my contention that innocent civilians died.

Sources
[1] http://bitURL.net...
[2] http://bitURL.net...
[3] http://bitURL.net...
[4] http://bitURL.net...
[5] http://bitURL.net...
freedomsquared

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, and would like to congratulate him on the Best Newb Award he recently acquired. I will start with my rebuttal, and then go into my defense.

REBUTTAL

R1)

My opponent says that my assertion that fire bombing was worse than atomic bombing is illogical, because the atomic bombs killed their victims in two days compared to multiple missions with fire bombing. However, does it matter in this context how long it took to kill the Japanese? Whether or in two days, or 2 years, lives were still being lost. Fire bombing cost more lives than atomic bombings, but fire bombs would not have ended the war. Only through shocking the Japanese into submission could we end this war and save both Japanese and American lives.

Since it is known that 500,000>250,000 (Fire bombs vs. Atomic Bombs), the atomic bombs saved lives. Now, this is all of course dependent on the fact that the Japanese would not surrender and that the ensuing land invasions would cost more lives. I will get to that below.


R2)

The United States did not have many atomic bombs, and so they needed to make good use of the ones they had. They chose a location (in Hiroshima) that was both militarily and industrially important to the Japanese. We needed to make a statement with this bomb so that the Japanese would surrender and so we could end this war and save lives.

My opponent has completely overlooked the purpose for my 9/11 comparison, and has thus only made a shallow refutation. 9/11 did not work the same way as with Japan because of the considerable difference in military and political strength of the two entities involved (United States and Al-Queda). However, 9/11 did have an enormous psychological effect on the population. That is, it was devastating. That is the only correlation I made between 9/11 and the atomic bombings.

R3)

There wouldn't be proof if there was a third bomb, as we would want to hold onto the tactical advantage of uncertainty (especially with the coming Cold War).

"As I already pointed out the US planned two bombs right from the beginning regardless of whether the Japanese had time to respond to the first one with a surrender."

We were in a war, and we needed to plan for the worst (aka, Japan not surrendering). My opponent, however, seems to be suggesting that we would have dropped both bombs, even if Japan surrendered after the first one. Obviously this wouldn't have happened.

Secondly, my opponent mentions that we only waited for 3 days because we needed more plutonium for the bomb. The reason we waited is immaterial, because the fact remains that Japan still had 3 more days to consider surrender. Remember, we had already offered them a treaty for surrender 2 weeks prior [1]. If Japan was truly going to surrender, they would've done it in the 3 days allotted to them.

I don't respond to the contention about Russia because it is merely speculation. Even if that was a motivation, it would've been secondary to ending the war with Japan (the real purpose for the bombings).


R4)

The only way the US could've got a peaceful ceasefire before the bombings was if they signed a very unfavorable treaty. For all intents in purposes, we had won the war, but Japan wanted to bargain as if they and the US were on equal terms. They were not. Japan started a war and was losing it, badly. They had no leverage and it would've been foolish of the US to leave their government intact. You don't go to war with a country, kill thousands of soldiers, and then leave things as they were. The war would've served no purpose except to waste the lives of so many youths.

Japan was not ready to surrender before the bombings, as they themselves were planning a biological attack on the Untied States [2].


DEFENSE

D1)

Japan, as I've already proven, was no wear near the edge of surrendering. Unless you count a ceasefire where everything resets to how it was and Japan's imperialistic, expansionist government is left in control as fair terms of surrender.

If you invade a country, the inhabitants are going to fight back. People would've died, and even though these estimates are not exact, they are not going to be extremely far off. It was estimated that the American causalties alone would be between 1.7-4 million[3], not to mention the Japanese casualties.

D2)

Read the third to last paragraph under the "battle" section and I think you will understand the Japanese "no-surrender" policy [4].

Did some innocent civilians die? Probably, but it was a war and the innocent die. I have contended that the atomic bombs saved more innocent lives in the long-run and that many of the Japanese civilians would've rather died than to dishonor their country and family.


I look forward to the closing round.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.damninteresting.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I thank freedomsquared for his response and the congratulations.

DEFENSE

1) Loss of Life
When Con says that Atomic Bombing saved lives, it doesn't make sense. Firebombings killed 500,000 people after multiple missions. Atomic Bombing killed a further 240,000 people. It did not restore any of the lives that were lost by fire bombing. How could it have possibly saved lives? Con just assumes that there would have been 4 more years of fire bombing but this is unproven. In fact Con's source says the the Japanese Emperor's viewing of the destruction caused by fire bombing was what caused him to get involved in the peace process which culminated in Japan's surrender [1]. My contention that the Atomic Bombings caused heavy casualties to innocent civilians holds true. It was totally unnecessary and certainly did not save lives.


2) Target choice
The US could have chosen a military base to attack like Japan did Pearl Harbor. I am not condoning Pearl Harbor because it was a surprise attack. But had the US been at war with Japan during that time, it would have been perfectly acceptable as there were mostly military damage and very few civilian casualties. However, the US chose to attack Hiroshima because the mountains would focus the blast causing maximal damage and death (of civilians). True, it also had a military base, but the US deliberately targeted not just the military base but the entire city.

"9/11 did have an enormous psychological effect on the population. That is, it was devastating. That is the only correlation I made between 9/11 and the atomic bombings."

Is a "psychological effect" like 9/11 required to end a war and save lives? It seems more like it starts wars and takes lives as shown by 9/11.


3) Morality
Japan was reeling from the shock of the 1st bomb, their communications systems were damaged as an entire city was blown out. They had no time to make a public statement. To drop a 2nd bomb on another city killing more innocent lives, with Japan in such a shocked state was immoral and unjustified.

Con only points to rumors that there was a third bomb. Then he says: "There wouldn't be proof if there was a third bomb, as we would want to hold onto the tactical advantage of uncertainty." This entire argument is based on rumors that the US supposedly had a third bomb, which wasn't used, therefore the US can claim the high moral ground. The problem is that even if there was a third bomb, which is completely hypothetical, by the time the US could have assembled it and got the materials, Japan had already surrendered, negating the need for it. So, no high moral ground can be claimed by the US for not using a possible third bomb.

My opponent is also inconsistent when he dismisses the argument of Truman using the bombings to display US power to Russia [2] as speculation, while at the same pursuing arguments about the rumored "third bomb".


4) Postdam
Postdam was an extremely unfair treaty. It called for Allied occupation of Japan, sovereignty of Japan being limited to minor islands etc.

"You don't go to war with a country, kill thousands of soldiers, and then leave things as they were. The war would've served no purpose except to waste the lives of so many youths."

My opponent is arguing what is known in economics as a sunk cost [4]. Many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to a movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price.
What hapenned hapenned. You should look at how to get the maximum benefit now and not worry about whether the war served a purpose. If there is a chance of peace, it should be taken.


My opponent says that Japan was not ready to surrender before the bombings as they were planning a biological attack on the US. The source for this is a site called damninteresting.com which as you can see is a hoax site. On its home page, it gives an article about the sex life of a banana (lol!) [3].


REBUTTAL

1) Saved lives?
It is highly debatable whether and how many people would have died if the US invaded Japan, and how soon Japan would have surrendered. The evidence I have provided in the last round and this round, shows that Japan was on the verge of surrendering.


2) Civilians not innocent
Con points to one particular suicidal Banzai charge in the face of imminent capture and says that because of that last desperate attack, Japanese civilians weren't innocent. This fails to take away from the fact the the vast majority of residents of the bombed cities were innocent and never harmed the US in any way.



Conclusion

The United States use of the Atomic bombings were not justified because they killed over 200,000 innocent civilians, picked targets that were bound to cause colossal civilian damage, used 2 bombs when 1 may have been enough, and used it in response to Japan's refusal to sign an unfair ultimatum.

FreedomSquared, it was a pleasure debating with you. Vote Pro.


Sources
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
freedomsquared

Con

Thanks for a fantastic debate, may the better debater (VOTE CON) win!

REBUTTAL

R1) Loss of Life

The fact of the matter is that if we didn't drop the bombs we were going to invade Japan. The fact of the matter is that Operation Downfall (invasion of Japan) would've cost 50,000 US lives in the first 30 days, not to mention the lives of the japanese [1]. I've already stated statistics on the overall casualties in the last round (which were conservatively still 7 times greater than the bombs).

The atomic bombs got Japan to surrender under reasonable terms and thus saved us many more years of fighting and millions of lives.


R2) Target Choice

The problem with attacking a Japanese military base is the fact that not all people in those bases would be Japanese soldiers. Those bases would include American POWs, of which there were over 35,000 taken by the Japanese[2]. President Truman was not willing to risk killing so many loyal American soldiers.

Once again my opponent misunderstands the similarities between 9/11 and the atomic bombings. In 9/11, we have an inferior force bombing a superior force(militarily speaking), while in WW2 we have a superior military force (US) bombing an inferior force (Japan). If the shock one way (9/11) can cause a nation to go to war, then when reversed, it can definitely put an end to one.


R3) Morality

Japan had 3 days to surrender. They didn't have to even write up a treaty, that was already written. All they had to do was call up the old White House and say "Hey, yea, we accept defeat." It's not like we gave them 3 hours, we gave them 3 days. They had plenty of time to surrender.

I mentioned speculation about a third bomb just as my opponent mentioned speculation about US motives of bombing Japan to impress Russia. The way I see it, both these arguments only hold weight in a speculative light.


R4) Potsdam

Potsdam is only unfair if both sides are bargaining with equal leverage. However, Japan, who had started the war, committed various war crimes (mostly against the Chinese with their use of biological weapons, but also with their treatment of POWs), and was losing the war horribly, had no leverage. Yet Japan had the audacity to ask for equal terms. The terms the Allies gave them were more than generous:
-Japan was allowed to keep the land they had before expansion through war
-Japan would regain control of their country as soon as the old, corrupt and expansionist government was replaced
-Japan was left in control of its economy

I am not arguing "sunk cost" but rather that we would have remained in the same situation as before WW2 if we had left the Japanese government alone. That is, an economically powerful and imperialistic nation would be left to once again threaten its neighbors and the United States.

I agree that we can't change what happened, and that we should get maximum benefit now. The best way to do this, was through guaranteeing a quick Japanese surrender under terms that would prevent future conflict.

Clearly, my opponent did not read the about us page about damnintersting.com. It is a website that simply reports interesting facts in a sometimes comedic light [3]. Just because they happened to post a humorous article does not discredit this other, totally unrelated one. This sight is not the same as theonion or cracked where it specializes in irony.


R5) Opponent's Conclusion

If the point of the bombs was to kill civilians, there were 7 more populated cities than Hiroshima and 12 more than Nagasaki[4].

DEFENSE

1) Saved Lives!

Japan would only surrender under terms unbefitting the circumstances of the war they had caused. Because Japan was unwilling to accede to acceptable terms of surrender, it is clear that something drastic was needed to avoid a drawn out land invasion. That something was the atomic bombs.


2) Civilians not Innocent

Just because those citizens never grabbed a gun and shot a US citizen in the face, does not mean they were innocent. The majority of Japanese citizens were in support of the war (at least in the beginning) and did nothing significant to push for peace by changing imperialistic policies. They supported the war through the political and economic support that they lent to their country which in turn was used to further the war.


Conclusion

The United States atomic bombings prevented a land invasion costly in time, money, and most importantly, lives. The bombs convinced Japan to surrender and sign a reasonable peace agreement that Japan was too proud to sign previously. The terms of the agreement and the result of the atomic bombings led to peace between the two nations that has lasted to this very day. This peace led to mutual economic prosperity and success for both countries.

I couldn't have asked for a better opponent than F-16_Fighting_Falcon. Vote CON.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://www.forties.net...;
[3] http://www.damninteresting.com...;
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Also, I was surprised freedom didn't mention Operation Ketsubo.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I wish I got this as my topic... I know a lot about this from previous experiments, though Con brought up points that I hadn't though of.
Posted by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
I appreciate the comments about the conduct though, I hadn't really thought about that with the new arguments. I will be more careful about that in future debates.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
So I vote Con mainly because he proved that Japan would not surrender without a strong demoralizing blow right in the heart of the country. And because it was foolish for Japan to not surrender given the three days they had to realize what happened. Though Pro did mention that their military was wiped out, the Banzai Kamikaze example showed that being defeated doesn't mean much to the Japanese.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
There were a lot of interesting points brought up here, especially C4 and C3. Congra to both of you on completing round 1.

RFD:

1. Save lives?

Con changes his argument from Fire Bombing to a Land Invasion in the last round, and then talks about US casualties (never discussed before), which is a conduct violation for making new arguments. This leaves Pro's round 3 argument unanswered; it probably wouldn't have taken 4 more years of fire bombing for Japan to surrender. So fire bombing casualties can't be compared to atomic, since Japan might have surrendered well before 240,000 more people were killed.

2. Target choice

Con makes another new R3 argument about the risk of killing POW's, which should have been said in round 1, not round 3. But he still wins this point by showing that attacking a civilian-populated area was necessary to shock and demoralize Japan into surrendering. The 9/11 example proved that pretty well.

3. Second bomb

I buy Con's argument that it should have taken less than three days For Japan to give up. Yeah, maybe throughout the first day or two the gov. may have been wondering what happened. But it wouldn't take 3 days to realize that they had been annihalated...
Pro says they might have trouble surrendering because their communications were damaged. Well it was just one city, I'm pretty sure there were cell phone towers left somewhere in the country.
Pro is right about the third bomb, there wasn't enough proof.

4. Postdam

This was really interesting because I had never seen it brought up before. But I had to agree that the conditions of the treaty were fair, considering that Japan had started the war with the US in the first place and committed several war crimes. I dont think we should have to be "fair" to that. But even more so, Con shows that the US did want to change Japan's corrupt government, and Allied occupation was an incentive for Japan to fix it.
Posted by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
yea, and that yen is counterfeited.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Freedomsquared gave me a big bag of money with 6000 in it and said I could keep it if I let him in the tournament. I said yes, but later found out that it was 6000 yen :/
Posted by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
Yea, I told them, but they wanted me anyways. I guess I'm just that amazing ;)
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
How did freedomsquared qualify for a new member tournament?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
F-16_Fighting_FalconfreedomsquaredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never showed that the Japanese were going to surrender. Con never brought up Operation Ketsubo, which he should have (it was the Japanese's last ditch plan that was already put into effect. Everyone was armed, civilians were given bows and such). However, Con did bring up points in the last round, which loses conduct.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
F-16_Fighting_FalconfreedomsquaredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate. I decided to vote for con because he convinced me that bombing was the only option other than invading japan. Pro did not give sufficient evidence to show that japan was planning to surrender. I feel like it was a close call, and pro used slightly more reliable sources, so 2-3 to con.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
F-16_Fighting_FalconfreedomsquaredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments