The Instigator
08tsuchiyar
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

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: 2/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,172 times Debate No: 2699
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (7)

 

08tsuchiyar

Con

I often hear people who defend the use of the atomic weapon by listing the horrors that the Japanese committed and going on to state or imply that these acts deserve vengeance. I would like to prove that this is completely illogical and wrong. (To put it straight....It just pisses me off and I want to vent! lol)

This logic is completely against the reasons the weapon was used and is a very hypocritical way of analyzing the U.S.'s actions.

In your case TJ (Mind if I call you that?), you say that war causes vengeance. This implies vengeance is a valid reason for murder because it is unnecessary for cause of the nation in the war.

You listed a number of tragedies and implied that if one of my family members were victims that I would want revenge. Even if that were the case that does not make it justified.

Also, I will just point out that maybe 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany's invasion were all a form of revenge and I'm sure I know your opinion on these acts of war/terrorism. I am not supporting these acts but I am saying that using revenge as a justification puts them under the same category as the use of the A-Bomb and the carpet bombing of Japan (and my maybe Germany).

Also, please do not say that Japan or Germany would have done the same thing because that does not make it right either. If the victim of the murderer wanted to kill his murderer does that justify the actual murder?

I will say other things too and please do not stray from the topic at hand.
MoonDragon613

Pro

Clearly, to YOU Revenge is not a valid justification for just about anything. I doubt you'd even let me egg my neighbor's home if they borrowed my lawn mower and never gave it back. But of course, just because it is not a valid justification to YOU, does not mean it is not a valid justification to me. To me it's a perfectly valid justification. But that's just being facetious. After all, we're just two individuals, or 3 counting TJ. And so here are a few broader perspectives as to whether or not the A-bomb for revenge is a "valid justification"

1. The Greater Good of the United States.
Since we nuked Japan, they have not attacked the United States. Once. Well the truth is, revenge is an excellent justification if we wish to protect American citizens. Look at the revenge we extracted, not just against Japan, but against Vietnam and against Afghanistan. Every time someone bruises America, we return with fists, guns, rockets, bombs, and in the case of Japan, A-bombs. We do not negotiate with terrorists, we destroy them. And truth be told, it seems to have worked rather well for America. Let's compare for a moment American and Israel. When we lost 2 towers, we crippled two nations in the Middle East, executed a world leader, and enforced martial law in different areas of Iraq. Israel on the other hand has kept its hand back, trying all the time to make peace with Palestine, make peace with Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and what has it gotten them? Every time they go for justice, they get attacked, again and again. Clearly the revenge policy is much more effective, and because it's effective, some would say its quite a valid justification.

2. Human nature
Revenge is a very human thing. When we're attacked, at a bar for instance, people who step away from the conflict are cowards. Pusillanimous wimps. Is that what you want our country to be? A pusillanimous wimp? This is the United States of America. We don't play nice with our enemies. We don't wimp out of conflicts. We fight back and we go all out. And we do so because it's the human thing to do. To you maybe what's human, what's natural is not "valid". But again, some people would disagree. What's human is in fact "valid" and doing what humans do is quite a "valid justification"

3. Justice
Since ancient times, revenge and justice go quite hand in hand. In fact, Justice as a concept derives from revenge. We don't murder those who murder our family members because today, the State carries out our revenge for us. They capture the responsible ones and put them in jail. But when it comes to the conflict between states, there is no larger organization to carry out the revenge/justice as there is between people within a country. And thus, who are you to say the revenge/justice we pursued in Japan and Germany were wrong? There exists no arbitrator. There exists no governing body of law to regulate the extent of appropriate revenge. And therefore it's up to the respective participants to decide what is the appropriate revenge/justice. And we did. The A-bomb. Just because you believe this to be not "valid", well, others just might.
Debate Round No. 1
08tsuchiyar

Con

I would just like to clarify that this is not a debate about the use of the weapons but the justification for the use of the weapons. So your first point is completely invalid and not addressing the topic at hand.

The second point is very similar to the first and is also not adressing the topic in parts. To clarify, the appearance of revenge (or strength) and revenge are two very different things, the first is logical and the second is emotional. I believe you are arguing for the first.

Your third argument about justice is very interesting and rather convincing, but there are a couple of things you have gotten wrong.

First off, if a neutral party does not exist then the justice must be served after the war because of the emotional nature. Killing civilians who were not directly involved in the decision to attack the US or China should not be punished and should not be considered justice.

Yes, justice is a form of revenge but since revenge is dished out by victims and justice is and should be dished out by neutrals, the dropping of the A-bombs for revenge is not justified.
MoonDragon613

Pro

Indeed this is a debate about the justification for the use of the weapons. And as such, all my points are valid and address the topic at hand.

1. The Greater Good of the United States
Actions taken for the greater good of the United States is a pretty good justification for the action. Revenge is in the greater good of the United States, as I have shown and as is not contested. Therefore Revenge is a pretty good justification for the action of A-bombs and carpet bombing.

2. Human Nature
Actions that are natural are naturally justified. Again this goes uncontested. Revenge is a natural action. Again uncontested. Therefore Revenge is naturally justified, including revenge in the form of A-bombs and carpet bombing.

3. Justice
First of all, there are no such things are civilians. Every Japanese citizen, just as every American citizen, through their day to day actions support the government, support the economy, and therefore support the army. And why should justice be served after the war? Revenge is as I mentioned the foundation for justice. There is no reason justice should wait. Japan, the nation, was responsible for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and Justice cried out for retribution against Japan. The A-bomb did just that, carry out our revenge and took a piece of Japan with it. There is no reason justice should be dished out by "neutrals". It could be dished out by neutrals of course. And in certain scenarios it's better for it to be dished out by neutrals. But there is ultimately no reason justice has to be dished out by neutrals to be justice. If I broke your nose, and then sent you a check for the pain and suffering I caused, where's the neutrals that did the justice?
Debate Round No. 2
08tsuchiyar

Con

1. OK, so doing something for the greater good of the US may be a good justification but that is not the point of the debate but if you want to use that point, prove to me that revenge through use of the a-bombs is justified. I am not talking about whether the a-bombs were good but whether revenge is good in this case. Saving lives, bringing democracy, justice, etc. are all points which are great in a debate about the use of the a-bombs but prove to me that use of the a-bombs, for revenge's sake is justified. To kill because they killed.

2. Natural instinct and natural actions are naturally justified but do we truly want to go back to are pre-law, basic human state. Where basic tribal instincts are the center. Should murder for the sake of murder truly be allowed. Because murder without purpose (unless you include hatred/revenge as a purpose) is unjustified. We do not avenge the murders or injustices committed to those close to us because it is uncivilized and we have advanced individually and judicially to handle these situations better. Nations should not have an exception.

3. No such things as civilians? Ok, let's call them non-combatants (ignoring the fact that they would be future combatants in the war because this is not the topic of the debate). What you suggest in your arguments is that any Japanese can murder you and any American for what they would consider murder which you supported. Is that true justice?

The reason justice is dished out by neutrals is because of emotional involvement and because they are neutral. In every day society the government (ideally a neutral party/jury) will deal with justice, this ensures that we do not have chaotic murders which are similar to gangsters avenging fellow gang members' deaths. This is simply unacceptable and uncivilized. If the human race is to progress as other aspects have, then nations need to accept a centralized form of law to deal with international disputes, hopefully in a neutral manner.

By the way, the example you give, is with a willing participant who sent the check. If you refused I would approach the government to be the neutral judge. This is the way it should work. The Atomic bomb is more of a case of me bringing my bring brother to break your nose....and jaw or, indirectly attack you by attacking your brother.

Although the non-combatants/civilians are indirectly involved it does not justify their death. It is simple support of their country and it is almost murder for their devotion to country ingrained in their mind from birth, through culture and upbringing. Such things should never be penalized with death.
MoonDragon613

Pro

1.Revenge is a subset of the greater good of the US (uncontested)
Things in the greater good of the US is a good justification (conceded)
Therefore by syllogism, Revenge is a good justification.

2.Revenge is a subset of natural instincts and natural actions(uncontested)
Things that are natural is a good justification to some people(conceded)
That YOU don't think its justified to avenge the murders or injustices committed to those close to us does not make it unjustified. The American Government, in our actions against Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan show that the American Government thinks these actions are justified. That the large majority of Americans also supported these actions also makes these actions justified.

Therefore by syllogism, Revenge is a good justification.

3. In this particular scenario, there was no neutral power. Switzerland was not going to inflict justice onto Japan. Nor was Sweden. All your arguments are moot and irrelevant because there was no neutral power that had the authority or power to deliver justice. Thus the fact that you would like a neutral power to dish out judgment is again, irrelevant.

And for these reasons, I am proud to oppose.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Which makes me wonder how many people bother to read debates before they vote. Personally I usually just skim the title and vote depending on how I feel, which way I lean, but then that's just me.
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
Oh, sorry then....you read the topic and proceeded to post an opinion most people agree with. It just gave the aura that you didn't understand the topic. I am simply refering to people who use revenge as a justification (almost everyone I have discussed this with) and when you do that I don't think you can talk about saving lives in the same debate because what is it? Revenge or saving lives?
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
I actually did read them I was just making a comment on the subject. I wasn't aware that the comments section has a narrow scope of what can be posted.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
(to John Quincy Adams, and kudos for not having read either the debate topic or any of the arguments with any level of attention)
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Yes, the issue was not WHY the A-bombs were used. the Issue was if it WERE used for revenge, would it's use have been justified.
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
Sorry not to be clear but I know why it was used....which was not for revenge. I am just saying that people should not use revenge as a justification
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
The atomic weapons used on Japan were never devised as or used as revenge. They simply ended the war. Had this not occured even more Japanese would have been killed in the bitter fight till the last man mentality they were taking with every territory they were possesing. Japan would have become a horrible meat grinder over the course of the next 1-2 years chalking up the death count higher than it ever reached including the atomic attacks.
Posted by Bitter_Sarcasm 9 years ago
Bitter_Sarcasm
aha i found a pacifist!

so should i rape your wife, or your daughter? or should i punch your nose in as you stand protesting against war and for world harmony?

revenge is justfied. the whole concept of justice is revenge. lady justice (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is not holding a sword to pick her nose, fyi.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
dude this kid is going to own you. the truth is the law of war is only a law if people follow it. crimes against humanity are in the eyes of the beholder. no one has to follow the 'rules' in war if they dont have too.
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
That is a lie. For those who don't know history it could be believable but it's total BS.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by C4747500 8 years ago
C4747500
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Willdavisfilms 9 years ago
Willdavisfilms
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
08tsuchiyarMoonDragon613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03