The Instigator
TheSophisticatedIncumbent
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Sheldor
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Should the United States have Dropped the Atomic Bomb

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
TheSophisticatedIncumbent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,190 times Debate No: 31065
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

TheSophisticatedIncumbent

Pro

The first round is introduction. Hi, I'm Emmitt Sklar. I am supporting the argument that the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Good luck!

P.S. The next round is arguments. The third rebuttals, and the final one closing statements.
Sheldor

Con

I accept, and assert that the U.S. should not have dropped the atomic bomb.

Dropping the atomic bomb: Only the first dropping of the atomic bomb over Japan (at Hiroshima). What happened at Trinity and Nagasaki is irrelevant to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSophisticatedIncumbent

Pro

On August 6th, 1945 America dropped the first atomic bomb "Little Boy" on Hiroshima in Japan. A week later they surrendered ending World War 2. Even though the first bomb killed more than 100,000 people it saved the lives of many more. Also Japan had attacked us first with no warning, and had committed many war crimes such as a death march in the Philippines. The dropping of the two atom bombs on Japan were both just and moral.

I start with my first point. Dropping the atomic bomb saved lives. According to japan-talk.org there are 6852 islands in Japan. To take control over Japanese territory enough to force a surrender they would have had to take many of these islands. As we learned in previous Japanese island battles this was difficult. For example at Iwo Jima there were over 29,000 casualties on this small island alone over a month. "The Japanese garrison defending this small volcanic island fought from the cover of a complex network of caves, tunnels, and bunkers, which allowed the defenders to hold off conquest for more than a month" As you can see it was not only costly casualty wise it was also a long and laborious process. In fact two reputable sources The Story of All of Us by Pamela D Toler (PHD) and fofweb.edu a reputable historical database predict that there would have been more than 300,000 casualties if not for the surrender of the Japanese.

I move on to my next point. Dropping the bomb was a just and moral event that we were right to do. Japan had given up the right to be dealt with kindly when they attacked Pearl harbor unprovoked on December 7th, 1941 killing 2,836 and injuring another 1,139. But we did give them a chance! At the Potsdam Conference we told them that (and I quote), "The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." They blew us off anyways sealing their fate. On the topic of immoral and moral. After the Japanese captured the Philippines in April, 1942 they forced marched 76,000 people 60 miles to death camps. On the way over 15,000 died with another 10,000 dying in the camps. They also joined in, in the mass genocide of surrounding nation to at the time economically strangle them into submission. So when you say that it was immoral to drop the bomb, you are telling a lie because it was in retaliation to heartless acts that needed to be stopped.

Thank you for reading my first set of arguments. I rest my case. Good luck!
Sheldor

Con

I'd like to start my case with a rebuttal.
"Even though the first bomb killed more than 100,000 people it saved the lives of many more."
I'd like to disagree on this point: it would save more American lives. Also, the bomb completely devastated Hiroshima, causing tons of monetary damage. Finally, it was an attack almost entirely targeting the civilian population of Hiroshima. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, a military target, the blast extended to almost the entire city and caused much more loss of civilian life. The radiation continued to kill and mutate generations afterwards, an extremely immoral and pain-inflicting side effect of the bomb that ALLIED SCIENTISTS KNEW WOULD HAPPEN.
It may have been beneficial for the allies, and saved American lives, but at a steep price to pay for the civilians of Japan.

To take control over Japanese territory enough to force a surrender they would have had to take many of these islands.
Not so. General Douglas MacArthur enforced a policy of island hopping (in which allied forces would carve a path through Japan by taking only strategic, necessary islands needed to form a supply chain. We did not need to take all 6852 islands of Japan; It's preposterous to fight warfare blindly.

"As we learned in previous Japanese island battles this was difficult. For example at Iwo Jima there were over 29,000 casualties on this small island alone over a month."
This isn't a black and white scenario. It's not "Invade or drop the atomic bomb". Rather, there were other options. For instance, a demonstration over Tokyo harbor would've been sufficient to scare the Japanese into surrender. The Russians had joined the war, and we were already at the Japanese homeland. They were demoralized, and a simple changing of surrender terms could've allowed us to avoid the bloodshed. Yes, invading mainland Japan would've cost us many, many lives. But were there not other alternatives?

"I move on to my next point. Dropping the bomb was a just and moral event that we were right to do. Japan had given up the right to be dealt with kindly when they attacked Pearl harbor unprovoked on December 7th, 1941 killing 2,836 and injuring another 1,139."
What is your definition of just and moral? Is it moral to decimate an entire city, kill 100,000, and horribly poison and mutate generations to come? Not only do you deal death, but you peddle radiation sickness and genetic mutations as "just" and "moral"? This seems to be the same outlook of a serial killer.

"Japan had given up the right to be dealt with kindly when they attacked Pearl harbor unprovoked on December 7th, 1941 killing 2,836 and injuring another 1,139."
First of all, I would like to say it was the U.S.'s interventionist nature that (in part) put us into the war. As Japan was expanding in Asia, Roosevelt looked for a way to help his allies in Europe. As the Japanese had signed the Tripartite pact, allying with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt saw that a declaration of war would be beneficial for his cause...once involved in the war, he could join Britain and Russia in Europe to stop Hitler. He then declared the Japanese expansionism a violation of the open door policy...to get into europe, and threatened the Japanese with war. Japan, a small island with virtually no resources, was faced with the choice of abandoning all territory, and becoming a poor fishing nation once more, or risk war with the U.S. Since the literally couldn't back out (Japanese economy and infrastructure would collapse) they were forced with the war the U.S. had forced upon them. So they struck preemptively. In this sense, they were not "unprovoked."
Also, do you really think 100,000 deaths in Hiroshima (largely civilian) was the result of a "unprovoked" Japanese surprise attack (that at most killed 3000)?

"The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland."
Would you not say that if you were in that position, even without military power? The Japanese thought we were bluffing, and thought we didn't have the guts to invade Japan. And, in part, they were right, as Truman resorted to the atomic bomb.

After the Japanese captured the Philippines in April, 1942 they forced marched 76,000 people 60 miles to death camps. On the way over 15,000 died with another 10,000 dying in the camps. They also joined in, in the mass genocide of surrounding nation to at the time economically strangle them into submission. So when you say that it was immoral to drop the bomb, you are telling a lie because it was in retaliation to heartless acts that needed to be stopped.
Was there not the Japanese internment camps in the U.S.? I mean, there was also the complete systematic purging of the Native Americans onto reservations...that they still live in today, a modern day society. We aren't so squeaky clean, either.

I would also like to point out that the dropping of the bomb onto Japan was largely to intimidate the Russians...which largely failed, as the world escalated into the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The war needed to be ended, but the civilian death toll and devastation to Japan was not worth it. I believe that America should not have dropped the atomic bomb.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSophisticatedIncumbent

Pro

Thank you for your previous arguments. I will now start my rebuttal. Firstly, you mention that dropping the bomb wasn't moral. It killed over 100,000 people, and affectively injured people in future generations. The argument though isn't whether dropping the bomb was moral. It was whether it was a smart thing for the U.S. to do. And it was. You said you disagree with my point. The atomic bomb only saved American lives. Even that is not true. For every American victory in Japan there were more Japanese killed than Americans. So for complete conquest there would have been an even larger number of casualties in total than the stat I mentioned that strictly talks about Americans deaths. Anyways even if we imagine somehow that the United States didn't drop the bomb, and they were the only ones who took casualties, but still managed to be victorious over Japan. It still would have been a good idea. Lives are lives no matter what nationality. Don't you believe that everyone's life is valid no matter what nationality they come from? Also as for your statement that says, "The radiation continued to kill and mutate generations afterwards" it is also false. It is true that radiation was responsible for killing many of the people in Hiroshima, but it is not true that it mutated generations to come. There are only two things scientifically proven that are affected in future generations by radiation. One is an increase in the likelihood that a baby will turn out to be a boy. The other is that there is a "small" increase in the chance of miscarriages and birth defects. Firstly this only lasts for a few generations. it isn't a permanent trait for all the descendants of that line. And next according to discovery.com, "Some of the first evidence linking radiation with altered sex ratios among babies emerged after atomic bombs hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, though the data was NOT strong enough to be convincing."

Next I will address your point that Americans didn't have to take all Japanese islands if they had decided to opt for a FULL invasion. This is true I agree that Island Hopping was a faster and more strategic way to gain a conquest. But this is where I should have been more clear earlier. My statistic about predicted number of deaths from a full American conquest over Japan was a prediction of deaths WITH island hopping strategy.

Previously you said that a demonstration over tokyo harbor would have been sufficient to convince Japan to surrender. yet this is not true either. Japan didn't surrender after the dropping of the first atomic bomb. We waited for them to surrender after, but they didn't. So why do you think they would have been swayed by a demonstration in their harbor?

In your last argument you mentioned that the Russians to be soon joining the war were the real reason Japan surrendered, and so the bomb was pointless. Well this argument out of them all was the most incorrect. Only a few moths before the dropping of the bomb, and a few weeks later when the Russians were officially set to join Japan's government had officially declared "Ketsugo". Ketsugo was a term they used for this specific proclamation. In it they swore to kill as many of the enemy as possible and wouldn't give up until they tired the world out of the war or they were completely obliterated or facing a clear and distinct promise of obliteration. The commanded all of their citizens to take American lives even if it was at the cost of their own. Effects / evidence of this proclamation is that Japan increased kamikaze attacks by 100 % and drafted all men 15-60, and all women 17-40.

Next I would like to briefly take the time to address a blatant misconduct on your part. This is a strictly evidential based debate, and I would appreciate if you would not compare me to a serial killer when it doesn't seem like a particular relevant piece of information regarding the debate. If you wanted to say that you believe dropping the atomic bomb was a serial killer-istic move because "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" that would have been fine. But you never had to say "MY" arguments sound like the view of a serial killer. I am sure you didn't mean it, but I just wanted to clear it up that it this debate is a debate and not a chance to slander someone's views. Thanks.

For my next paragraph I will rebut your point that while there were death camps the United States also had Japanese internment camps. This is true in a way. We did have internment camps for Japanese-Americans during The Second World War. But there is one difference. We did not systematically kill the people in our camps like both the Japanese and their former ally Germany. You also mention that it was very similar to our systematic purging of Native Americans. This is true, but not relevant. You prove my point when you say that the systematic killing of peoples in containment camps is horrible. The difference hear is that while what America did to its native peoples was wrong it was not something related to this war. You can't say,, "Oh Americans did this awhile ago! That makes it ok for us to kill of 10's of thousands of people now in a separate war."

My arguments have become long, and I will began to wrap them up. First though I am addressing two more of your statements.

1) You say that, "The Japanese thought we were bluffing, and thought we didn't have the guts to invade Japan." Well this as well apparent is blatantly false. Firstly I don't know why Japan didn't think we would originally not invade, because we had done just that previously in "The Great War". Also, WE DID INVADE. You even said it yourself, "General Douglas MacArthur enforced a policy of island hopping (in which allied forces would carve a path through Japan)". If going to Japan and fighting to take their islands in hopes of defeating them is not an invasion, I don't know what is. And what would you consider the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa if not battles "IN" Japan to "CAPTURE" those islands "FROM" Japan.

2) Finally, for my last argument I will address your "opinion" that America would have declared war even if Pearl harbor wasn't attacked. As you say FDR did believe a declaration of war against the Axis would have been good, and he might have been looking for a scapegoat to ignite one. That still doesn't change the fact that japan came and killed 3000 good American men and women. Against this you say that Japan needed to take a risk and fight America or they would be sent back to become a small, poor nation once again. But they knew that if the attacked American allies with close bonds with the United States that it would eventually lead to war. You also say that Japan had, "Virtually no recourses" and that leaving the war would have destroyed their economy even more. This again, IS not true. According to the History of the World by Alex Woolf, "Japan relied on plentiful supplies of oil and rubber during World War 2 which the region HAD in abundance."

Thank you for reading my argument. It has been a wonderful debate thus far. Good luck!
Sheldor

Con

First of all, you brought morality into this "The dropping of the two atom bombs on Japan were both just and moral."
Second of all, I believe morality is a strong part of this argument. Do we live in a world without morality? If so, we might as well descend into anarchy, slaughter our mothers, and rape young children. Morality is an important part of any decision.

So for complete conquest there would have been an even larger number of casualties in total than the stat I mentioned that strictly talks about Americans deaths.
You fail to address that there are OTHER ALTERNATIVES. I proposed a demonstration - a show of force. You have not addressed this point. This renders your entire point useless.
As for mutations, there was little accurate data or samples, as the U.S. did not bother to help the devastated cities. They merely dropped the bomb, swooped in to take a few looks, and swooped out WITHOUT OFFERING AID. Even after the bomb, they did nothing. Yes, maybe there were few mutations. But the radiation, for sure, was inhumane. It made many, many suffer, made families lose what family members that they had left painfully, and slowly.

"Next I will address your point that Americans didn't have to take all Japanese islands if they had decided to opt for a FULL invasion. This is true I agree that Island Hopping was a faster and more strategic way to gain a conquest. But this is where I should have been more clear earlier. My statistic about predicted number of deaths from a full American conquest over Japan was a prediction of deaths WITH island hopping strategy."
Like I said, there are other alternatives; I merely provided this statement because of your ridiculous claim of invading and taking every single island. This was the strategy used in the war, anyhow.

Previously you said that a demonstration over tokyo harbor would have been sufficient to convince Japan to surrender. yet this is not true either. Japan didn't surrender after the dropping of the first atomic bomb. We waited for them to surrender after, but they didn't. So why do you think they would have been swayed by a demonstration in their harbor?

In Japan, as Hiroshima had been bombed, there was not enough time for the news of the bombing to reach the capital. As all communications had been knocked out. There was no time for the news to be spread to Tokyo, to have the Japanese military leaders discuss, argue, and debate, and finally have them relay the surrender terms. The U.S. was simply impatient to end the war, and dropped a second bomb as the news of the first was just filtering in. A demonstration over Tokyo harbor would've directly reached the Japanese.

"In your last argument you mentioned that the Russians to be soon joining the war were the real reason Japan surrendered, and so the bomb was pointless."
My point was that, even at the time, Russia was a Soviet controlled hell where Josef Stalin reigned supreme, killing many people and enforcing "The Ukraine Famine". The atomic bomb was merely power politics - used only to intimidate Russia, and to attempt to prevent future conflicts with them. Although noble, the Japanese shouldn't have suffered because of this.
Please don't warp my arguments or use the "Straw man fallacy".

"Japan's government had officially declared "Ketsugo". Ketsugo was a term they used for this specific proclamation. In it they swore to kill as many of the enemy as possible and wouldn't give up until they tired the world out of the war or they were completely obliterated or facing a clear and distinct promise of obliteration."
For one, a demonstration, would, in fact, show that there was a clear and distinct promise of obliteration. Also, a demonstration would not require a bloody invasion, sparing even more American and Japanese lives. I honestly don't see why you are pushing this point.

"Next I would like to briefly take the time to address a blatant misconduct on your part. This is a strictly evidential based debate, and I would appreciate if you would not compare me to a serial killer when it doesn't seem like a particular relevant piece of information regarding the debate. "
I apologize.

As for regarding Japanese internment camps, my point was that we were de-humanising the Japanese. This view was adopted across America, leading people to think of them as "Japs" or degenerates. This view is what led to the genocide in Hiroshima - which was not a moral, or good act. If a life is a life, as you say, then a demonstration would've saved many, many lives across the globe.

By "Japan" I meant the Japanese mainland. Not the small islands and territories surrounding it. Also, I don't intend to argue this point, I merely point out this was Japan's outlook (as confirmed by declassified Japanese diplomatic channels).

"Firstly I don't know why Japan didn't think we would originally not invade, because we had done just that previously in "The Great War"." This isn't relevant. And just because a match strikes a flame once, doesn't mean it will keep being able to produce a flame.

"That still doesn't change the fact that japan came and killed 3000 good American men and women."
So yeah, i guess it's ok to go blow up two cities and cause 100,000+ "Jap" lives. Who cares? They're just dirty, useless scummy Japs. (Sarcasm). If a life is a life, as you say, lets do some math. At Hiroshima, 100,000 died. At Nagasaki, 40,000 died. So. Added up, it's 140,000. IF the 3000 dead in Pearl Harbor justifies the bombings, then the ratio is 140:3 (apprx. 46 Japanese lives for one American life.) Is that fair, just moral, or good? I don't think so.

"Japan relied on plentiful supplies of oil and rubber during World War 2 which the region HAD in abundance."
I'm sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children. What can't you do with oil and rubber? As an island nation, it is riddled with plains and mountains. Approximately only 25% is suitable for farmland (rice growing, specifically). It is fragmented because of this, scattered around select areas in Japan, such as Tokyo. Also, there aren't many oil supplies in Japan. With virtually no domestic oil supplies Japan imports much crude oil from the Persian Gulf area. I'm not quite sure what you mean by plentiful oil supplies. The area around Japan is also no longer as populous also, as Japanese fish consumption has increased, as oceans become depleted.
(http://www.harpercollege.edu...)
Debate Round No. 3
TheSophisticatedIncumbent

Pro

Thank you for your previous arguments. I will start by rebutting your first paragraph. Yes, I did originally mention morality. If you had quoted from the rest of the sentence you would have shown that it was a side point in my sentence. The full quote was, "Dropping the bomb was a just and moral thing that WE WERE RIGHT to do." And that is though a valid point. Morality IS part of this argument. I am saying that it was still a moral thing to do because of all my points previously listed: i.e. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Philippine death camps, the prostitution of naturals from conquered nations, and one of the worst of all Human experimentation. They tested new biological weapons vivisected captured soldiers, and amputation all without anesthesia too. Even the japanese years later testified that they had committed horrible war crimes that could never have been matched.

Now I would like to specifically address your second to last paragraph. You AGAIN say that japan killing 300 first and then us nuking them at Hiroshima was not equal proportionally. And AGAIN in a sense you would be right. If that was the only thing Japan had done. If this what was the dropping of the atomic bomb was solely based on you would be right. But this was not Japan's only crime, but one of many. In fact R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that "between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. Now let's do the math. 19,003,000 to 140,000 hmmm.... Now I wonder DO I have to jeep repeating this or are you going to still argue this point as if it was still relevant after I have disproved it twice?

Next I will move to discuss your second paragraph. You say I didn't talk about other possibilities instead of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, and you say it renders my point useless. No, this is just untrue, and it shows your negligence. If you look back to the third paragraph of my third round arguments you will see that I in fact discussed it very specifically.

Later in the third paragraph you also say that, "The U.S. did not bother to help the devastated cities. They merely dropped the bomb, swooped in to take a few looks, and swooped out WITHOUT OFFERING AID. Even after they did nothing." Again you make false statements in hopes to better your argument. IN FACT the Japanese did get much help after. Dr. Stephen Lloyd says, "The Japanese were astounded, baffled even, by the generous and humane treatment they received at the hands of the US. The US claimed and then waived payments directly from Japan. In fact The US returned to Tokyo's control those parts of the Home Islands it had conquered, chiefly Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Hard to believe, but the US made a substantial payment to the Japanese at the return of Okinawa, part of which endowed an educational trust for Japanese-American scholarly exchange."

In your fifth paragraph you state that Japan didn't have enough time to surrender. FALSE! Only 20 minutes after the bombing, japan realized they had lost all connections with Hiroshima. An hour later roumers were trickling in of a giant explosion at Hiroshima. Of course roumers are nothing without proof. So they sent a plane, and three hours later when the plane go there it was officially confirmed to the Japanese government. I would think hearing the news 4 and a half hours later, and having days to come up with a decision would be enough time for the 6 main heads of the Japanese government and the emperor (the only ones who really could make the decision to surrender) to declare and end to the war.

I briefly go back to fix something you said in the last sentence of your third paragraph. You said and I quote, "I merely provided this statement because of your ridiculous claim of invading and taking every single island." I never said this. I said they still would have had to take MANY islands. Of course it would be preposterous to do that, and so I would appreciate if next time you wouldn't paraphrase me to fit into your arguments.

This leads me to where you ask me to not use "The Straw Man Fallacy". This seems hypocritical because this is what you have done throughout this entire debate. Cut out, OR EVEN CHANGED, parts of my quotes to support your argument.

Next I shall start to wrap up my piece with one of my last arguments. A full-heartidly agree with you that the Atomic Bomb was used, "To intimidate Russia, and to attempt to prevent future conflicts with them." If preventing future war was a side effect of dropping the bomb than it would have just been another added bonus, even though it wasn't the main reason like you try to play it off as.

For my last point I will address your last paragraph in the third round. You say sarcastically that, "'Im sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children." And that's right of course. But you know what you can do with valuable recourses? THEY COULD SELL IT. If money can't buy food, and help to rebuild houses I don't know what could.

As this is the last round I would like to conclude with a brief outline of my points. I would appreciate if you wouldn't counter this paragraph in particular because it is just an overview of what I have been talking about the entire time.

1) The bomb was right to drop because...
A. It was in response to numerous Japanese crimes
B. It saved 100's of thousands of lives
C. It could have been able to hold the peace after the war was over
D. Japan wouldn't have responded to anything else that couldn't swiftly cause death without enemy loss. Demonstrated by their "Ketsugo" Proclamation, and their original refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation.

It has been wonderful debating with you. I look forward to debating you again. Good luck!
Sheldor

Con

"Now I wonder DO I have to jeep repeating this or are you going to still argue this point as if it was still relevant after I have disproved it twice?"
Yes, the Japanese had committed an unthinkable genocide. So Americans, in response, had to demolish two cities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, in Hiroshima the civilian population outnumbered civilians about 5/6 to 1 (seattletimes.com). The part doesn't represent the whole...If the serial killer (Japanese soldiers) killed a man, do we respond by killing his family (innocent civilians)?

"IN FACT the Japanese did get much help after. Dr. Stephen Lloyd says, "The Japanese were astounded, baffled even, by the generous and humane treatment they received at the hands of the US. The US claimed and then waived payments directly from Japan. In fact The US returned to Tokyo's control those parts of the Home Islands it had conquered, chiefly Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Hard to believe, but the US made a substantial payment to the Japanese at the return of Okinawa, part of which endowed an educational trust for Japanese-American scholarly exchange.""
You got his off yahoo answers, after a quick checkup on the information you provided...(http://answers.yahoo.com...). I couldn't really find a Dr. Steven Loyd, provide a link? As for my own research, from Time Magazine, (http://www.time.com...), Hiroshima's after war recovery largely depended on it's own occupational governernemnt. Also, according to a Hiroshima youth organization, Peace Seeds, states that Hiroshima was further assisted by INDIVIDUAL donors and sponsors from around the world...not the U.S. Gov't.

"In your fifth paragraph you state that Japan didn't have enough time to surrender. FALSE! Only 20 minutes after the bombing, japan realized they had lost all connections with Hiroshima."
I concede this point. However, both this point (and the previous one) are moot, as they occurred after the bombing, and really have no bearing on whether or not the U.S. should've dropped the bomb. As I stated, we are only discussing the initial bombing, not the Japanese campaign at large.

"For my last point I will address your last paragraph in the third round. You say sarcastically that, "'Im sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children." And that's right of course. But you know what you can do with valuable recourses? THEY COULD SELL IT. If money can't buy food, and help to rebuild houses I don't know what could."
See previous point. It seems the debate has shifted to the events that occurred after the bomb.

A brief counter to your list:
A. It was in response to numerous Japanese crimes
Two wrongs don't make a right...rather, it increased Japanese resentment.

B. It saved 100's of thousands of lives
Only if an invasion was the only option, as I stated that there were other options. I have completely and thoroughly destroyed this point. A demonstration would've saved all the lives.

C. It could have been able to hold the peace after the war was over
This is an assertion, not a point. And since the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis came into play at the globe, one could say the atomic bomb introduced a terrible new weapon, more conflict, and danger to the globe.

D. Japan wouldn't have responded to anything else that couldn't swiftly cause death without enemy loss. Demonstrated by their "Ketsugo" Proclamation, and their original refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation.
A demonstration could've showed them this, easily. The refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation is easy to relate to...they had seen no warning or signal that the U.S. had such a weapon.

To sum up my argument, the U.S. shouldn't have dropped the bomb because
-It would be an extremely immoral to target an almost completely civilian group, or to kill so many outright when a demonstration could've been a much more elegant solution
-It introduced a deadly new weapon to the world, and led to future crisis
-Genetic mutations and radiation poisoning riddled certain citizen's lives
-Two wrongs don't make a right
-A demonstration would've been a much better alternative to all the bloodshed and incineration.

May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by shanegray 3 years ago
shanegray
The bomb shouldve been droped because 200,000 deaths is a lot better than 4 million so find something better to do
Posted by shanegray 3 years ago
shanegray
when we used the bomb all of the other countries are trying to make bombs. I dont know if it was a good idea or not but this is a good point.
Posted by Sheldor 3 years ago
Sheldor
I honestly actually agree with pro...I do however believe that the con side has it's merits.
However, all the comments against pro really have no valid ground other than calling names, and groundless assumptions...
Posted by TheSophisticatedIncumbent 3 years ago
TheSophisticatedIncumbent
The next time before you comment you should take the time to think, and then make sure you write in real English.
Posted by TheSophisticatedIncumbent 3 years ago
TheSophisticatedIncumbent
Dear "Jeunine",
First off I would like to thank you for your comment. All constructive critisism is valuable to me. Oh wait it wasn't constructive. Just a blatant attack based on your moral prejudice. If you had bothered to read the entire debate you would see what my points are. I don't believe senesless killings are ok, and that was the whole point of the debate. Next time you want to comment on a debate maybe come from a measured educational view instead of non-sensical slander. I WILL DEBATE YOU ANYTIME! Also you attack me further when you presume to say that I don't care about the majority of the world. Ever stop and think that I might be one and that you are being slammed by a 14 year old girl? "Sincerely",
T.S.I.
Posted by jeunine 3 years ago
jeunine
So you believe dropping bombs is ok? I mean(sarcastically) if it benefits you, who cares about
woman and children. Well maybe Osama hated you too.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
TheSophisticatedIncumbentSheldorTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: TheSophisticatedIncumbent provided vague reasons on how it would save American lives. He also said affectively instead of effictively, so deduct grammar points. Sheldor provided better reasons on how the bombing was immoral( a huge part) and ultimately provided a more convincing argument
Vote Placed by Laserpak 3 years ago
Laserpak
TheSophisticatedIncumbentSheldorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really have very convincing arguments