The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, necessary? Haha no. (Debate sponsored by King La Ding enterprises)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
joshuar1996 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 99181
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




King La Ding proposes this resolution: The U.S nuking of Japan in 1945, was totally unnecessary to these ends, 1. it was not needed to subjugate Japan and 2. was not the sole viable solution to WW2.

If you disagree with these claims, accept the debate and prepare to be destructionized.


I have been waiting for these debate to show up and thank god I got it. I promise you, you're the one who be destroyed!

I accept your debate:)
Debate Round No. 1


I'm Going to make this the easy mode round, for an understanding if I don't little con will forfeit the next rounds and probably kill themselves, so this is the easy mode round.

Many losers and warmongers have long since stated that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945 was completely necessary, to the ends of subjugating Japan and winning and ending WW2. These same losers have claimed that with any other alternative, the U.S and other allied nations would have seen high numbers of casualties, making these solutions implausible. Now I say, that's not true at all, anyone with a working nervous system can comprehend this simple fact. And being King La Ding, I do feel somewhat sorry for little Con to be doing this revisionist history constantly.

Now being an easy mode round, let me start to explain why little con is wrong in every way, and more importantly the dropping the atomic bomb and the whole concept of its necessity is a flawed foundation in itself.

Proponents of warmongering often claim that the Japanese people would never have accepted surrender, and neither would the emperor at the time, Hirohito. However this flawed claim has many cracks in it to begin with, mostly being 100% incorrect. The reason Japan had not already surrendered, is because of the way U.S framed it, as an 'unconditional surrender' it is well known that the U.S had said they would only accept a Japanese surrender under the blanket of an unconditional surrender. Here is where the cracks show up, the Japanese people in this time period saw the emperor, as a sort of deity. Most people accept this is a clear truth, but what they fail to see is how ambiguous a term like unconditional surrender is.

It's clear that the people of Japan would not willingly surrender under this, but rather fight to the death because the terms did not ensure that the Japanese throne would remain in place. Both Hirohito and the U.S knew that if there was no assurance that the Japanese throne would remain in place, that the Japanese people would not willingly surrender, but rather fight to the death. An assurance such as this would have been more than enough to get a Japanese surrender.

Now why do I say this, because the Japanese had been thoroughly destructionized and left without allies long before the nuking. Sea blockades by Allied Nations had been preventing them from feeding their people and their army fully, Japan was already 'defeated.'

Now, little con, let's see just how much you know.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.