The Instigator
westernmarch
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dagolas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved:The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of Terrorism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,008 times Debate No: 24709
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

westernmarch

Pro

No Semantics.
R1 Con may post opening shoots but must agree to my terms.
R5 no new arguments will be made.

-"...bombing of" is talking about the atomic bombs

terrorism[ ter-uh-riz-uh m ]
noun
1.�the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Dagolas

Con

I agree to the Pro's terms.
I shall be taking the role of the Contender for this debate.
I shall allow you to post your arguments, thus starting the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
westernmarch

Pro

westernmarch forfeited this round.
Dagolas

Con

My opponent has forfeited.

I win?
Debate Round No. 2
westernmarch

Pro

Sorry. I have been busy.

For me to win I have to prove America's intent to scare the Japanese into surrendering.

It is clear that America wanted Japan to surrender. By nuking the two cities, America spread fear into the Japanese population.
The Potsdam declaration is further proof that the bombings was terrorism.

WAS HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI A TACTICAL LOCATION?

Both cities were picked for the relatively untouched Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were chosen for population.

Sorry for the forfeiture. If I could can I post my sources in the comments later? I cant now.
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
westernmarch

Pro

This turned out bad.

Arguments extended.
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
westernmarch

Pro

westernmarch forfeited this round.
Dagolas

Con

They were at war. By that logic, each time someone died it was terrorism.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
DAMN. Sorry I try to post next round
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
DAMN. Sorry I try to post next round
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
I fix it later
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Abusive definition is abusive.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
Blackmail, assault, and armed robbery all fall under that definition. Your definition of terrorism is far too vague and all-encompassing.

The US Department of Defense defines it thus: "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." http://www.terrorism-research.com...
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
I agree with Maikuru.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
It seems like every act of war meets that definition of terrorism.
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
I'm editting
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
What are these terms to which Con must agree?
No votes have been placed for this debate.