The Instigator
Nikzor
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
happy-bread
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
happy-bread
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,101 times Debate No: 19072
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Nikzor

Con

Pro must show the bomb was just. One must PROVE it was the right thing to do.
happy-bread

Pro

Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair (google.com)

According to the defintion of Just, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just because President Truman informed the Japanese of the atomic power of the United States and asked for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Because of this, the United States was warning the Japanese of its new found power, and appropriately gave the Japanese the opportunity to prevent the bombs from being dropped on them. Therefore, any casualties after the Japanese didnt accept the terms of peace, were justified since the U.S. properly warned the Japanese.

Dropping the bombs was also the right thing to do because it saved the lives of potentially millions of Japanese and Americans. Nearly every citizen of Japan, men, women and children were prepared to fight to the death for their country. Examples of this are the Kamikazees and the mass suicides performed by the Japanese if they knew they lost a battle or an island. It is said that an invasion of the main island of Japan would cost nearly 500,000 to 4,000,000 million deaths on the sides of both america and japan. (1) and (2)

(1) www.atomcentral.com/hironaga.html
(2) www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708051/posts
Debate Round No. 1
Nikzor

Con

According to the defintion of Just, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just because President Truman informed the Japanese of the atomic power of the United States and asked for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Because of this, the United States was warning the Japanese of its new found power, and appropriately gave the Japanese the opportunity to prevent the bombs from being dropped on them. Therefore, any casualties after the Japanese didnt accept the terms of peace, were justified since the U.S. properly warned the Japanese.


So I can do anything to a person and if I warned them, its OK?If you're in a dark alley and someone is trying to kill you, but they warn you, is that alright? It still isn't alright.


Dropping the bombs was also the right thing to do because it saved the lives of potentially millions of Japanese and Americans. Nearly every citizen of Japan, men, women and children were prepared to fight to the death for their country. Examples of this are the Kamikazees and the mass suicides performed by the Japanese if they knew they lost a battle or an island. It is said that an invasion of the main island of Japan would cost nearly 500,000 to 4,000,000 million deaths on the sides of both america and japan. (1) and (2)

Now for this to stick, you'll need to prove there was nothing. But it still isn't just. A war crime is still a war crime. I dont thing this makes the bombs just.



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
happy-bread

Pro

In response to my opponents argument against the first part of my case that basically says the bombs are justified if the U.S. properly warned the Japanese AS WELL AS OFFERING THEM A CHANCE TO STOP THE BOMBS FROM BEING DROPPED ON THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE by accepting the peace treaty. My opponent failed to recognize the capitalized part of my case which is the main reason why the actions are justified.

Also, my opponent says that the second part of my case which basically says that it would have saved many Japanese and American lives is not applicable to the topic by saying that it isn't just. This is true however it was addressing the second sentence of his first round post which says "One must prove it was the right thing to do." And it does, indeed prove that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.

And finally, in response to my opponent's quotation, I will say that Leo Szilard is assuming American bias; however, true justice never contains bias of any kind.
Debate Round No. 2
Nikzor

Con

PRO--In response to my opponents argument against the first part of my case that basically says the bombs are justified if the U.S. properly warned the Japanese AS WELL AS OFFERING THEM A CHANCE TO STOP THE BOMBS FROM BEING DROPPED ON THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE by accepting the peace treaty. My opponent failed to recognize the capitalized part of my case which is the main reason why the actions are justified.

I could go on about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki was like a "If you don't give us what we want we'll kill you.".
Your attacking noncombatants.

PRO---Also, my opponent says that the second part of my case which basically says that it would have saved many Japanese and American lives is not applicable to the topic by saying that it isn't just. This is true however it was addressing the second sentence of his first round post which says "One must prove it was the right thing to do." And it does, indeed prove that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.

That is not proof. You need to show there was NO other options. There still is many tactics that can work. Now PROVE IT.

PRO----And finally, in response to my opponent's quotation, I will say that Leo Szilard is assuming American bias; however, true justice never contains bias of any kind.

You think that? Without any examples? Do you want more?
happy-bread

Pro

In response to my argument about how the bombs were justified, my opponent says, "if you dont give us what we want we'll kill you." However, I don't entirely see how offering the Japanese a chance for peace is a bad thing...

Three options:
1) Invasion of Japan
2) Surrendering to the Japanese without cause and leaving the war. Even though they attacked the U.S. first without cause.
3) Dropping the atomic bombs.

1) Invasion of Japan-as I already proved, this option isn't the right thing to do since it causes way too many casualties of military and NON-MILITARY personel.
2) Surrendering/Leaving the war- this option isn't the right thing to do either since it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese expantion into the rest of Asia. For example, the Japanese slaughtered ten million people altogether and 6 million defenseless chinese out of that ten million. Therefore, it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese.
3) Dropping the bombs- this is the option that produces the fewest casualties as well as the surrender of the Japanese.

Unless my opponent can provide another option, I have proven that dropping the bombs was not only just, but it was the right thing to do. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
Nikzor

Con

In response to my argument about how the bombs were justified, my opponent says, "if you dont give us what we want we'll kill you." However, I don't entirely see how offering the Japanese a chance for peace is a bad thing...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
(I post a more grade-A soucre later).

In fact Im for it. You leave my rebuts unbutted. In facts theres more then 3 options I will edit in bold

Three options:
1) Invasion of Japan
2) Surrendering to the Japanese without cause and leaving the war. Even though they attacked the U.S. first without cause.
3) Dropping the atomic bombs.
4)Negotiate

1) Invasion of Japan-as I already proved, this option isn't the right thing to do since it causes way too many casualties of military and NON-MILITARY personel.
2) Surrendering/Leaving the war- this option isn't the right thing to do either since it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese expantion into the rest of Asia. For example, the Japanese slaughtered ten million people altogether and 6 million defenseless chinese out of that ten million. Therefore, it was America's moral obligation to stop the Japanese.

No we did not. We could have to aid sooner, but we had other thing to do. We are not the big brother of the world.
3) Dropping the bombs- this is the option that produces the fewest casualties as well as the surrender of the Japanese.
4)negotiate would give the affect we wanted because the Japanese ruling class looked up to their emperor aas a god. Just as long the emperor kept his power, the war should've ended sooner.

In fact, this is off topic. To win this debate, you must prove it was MORALLY wrong. You say the nukes were OK, but is that any excuse? The bombs killed people AFTER THE WAR. People who may have sued for peace, may have helped you in a land invasion.
happy-bread

Pro

My opponent simply offered another option for America to do, negotiation. However, the negotiations between America and Japan before the bombs were dropped FAILED so, how could negotiation have solved the problem.

And also, I thought I was trying to prove that dropping the bombs were morally right, which I have by saying, the Japanese had to be stopped because of all the innocent people they were killing and dropping the bombs was the best way to do that. Therefore, the dropping of bombs achieves morality by stopping the Japanese from killing millions of people a.k.a. utilitarianism- greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Debate Round No. 4
Nikzor

Con

On mobile.

Did you read my last post? We Fuvked up Potsdam. Remember their Emperor. It is a fact. and no matter what the Japanese MILITARY did the citizens did not need pay the price. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Vote Con.
happy-bread

Pro

Im not sure what my opponent is trying to say, all I could deliberate is that two wrongs dont make a right and that the U.S. shouldn't have dropped the bombs on citizens. In refutation of two wrongs dont make a right, I am merely saying that because Japan was killing so many people, the United States was morally obligated to stop Japan, and the best way to do that was to drop the bombs even if it resulted in the death of a couple hundred thousand citizens. My point of Utilitarianism goes uncontested. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
"According to the defintion of Just, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just because President Truman informed the Japanese of the atomic power of the United States and asked for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese."

Untrue.
Posted by Nikzor 5 years ago
Nikzor
define 'just'
Posted by Nikzor 5 years ago
Nikzor
define 'just'
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
I believe the double-burden of "needed and just" is rather skewed.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Needed and Just? Ill take it if it is just Just.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Nikzorhappy-breadTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro for obvious reasons, as does convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Nikzorhappy-breadTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped an f-bomb, conduct goes to Pro. Pro argued how it was the best option, Con said we should have negotiated more, Pro showed how that had already failed, arguments go to Pro. I gave Pro sources as well to counter the vote bomb by CAPlock
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Nikzorhappy-breadTied
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 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: Dont know why everyone is voting pro... I thought Pro had weak arguments and poor sources
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Nikzorhappy-breadTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con, for pro's use of insults. S&G - Con, for the many spelling errors. Sources - Con, pro didn't use any. Arguments - Con, pro focused mainly on trying to counter arguments, but since no ethical code was established to weigh "just" against, simply attacking it is not sufficient. When no code is established, I must default to my own code, of which pro's counters did not properly refute.
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
Nikzorhappy-breadTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Was going to vote con, until he wrote "fuvked". This is supposed to be a civilized site for debate, not a disorderly mess. All points going to pro.