The Instigator
H501
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
caty44444444
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Atomic Bombs Should Have Been Dropped on Japan

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 2 votes the winner is...
H501
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 344 times Debate No: 91790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

H501

Pro

I believe that, despite popular opinion, the atomic bombs should have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
caty44444444

Con

The Atomic bombs should not of dropped in Japan.

Justice? What happened to the fairness in civilisation? Japan may of despised America but that does not give America permission to break world peace. We may of been in war but the atomic bomb was too much. Consequences could of been larger and a world war III was a high possibility. Even now, residents of Japan, especially in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, must wear masks to protest themselves from the exposure of the radiation. The lives lost in the bomb was triple the amount of any normal bomb. Statistics even state that if the atomic bomb was not dropped than Japan's tourist industry would have triple it's success. Therefore the atomic bombs should not of been dropped in Japan.
Debate Round No. 1
H501

Pro

The effects of the bombs are not to be downplayed- I agree with you on that. However, dropping the bombs was absolutely necessary to end the war. Before I get into the details, I want to explain something about Japanese culture in the 40's- and even today. The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their country. They would fight to the last man. For them, surrender was unthinkable. American soldiers invading Japanese controlled islands in 1944 and 1945 saw Japanese gunners with limbs blown off continue to fire their machine guns at the advancing GI's . Japanese sailors who had had their ships sunk would swallow water and drown to avoid being taken prisoner by the Americans. And 1945 saw extensive use of kamikaze pilots and kaitens. A kamikaze pilot was a pilot that loaded his plane with as much explosive as possible, then crashed it into enemy ships. He would die. A kaiten was a manned torpedo. A kaiten operator had no chance of survival. If his torpedo hit his mark, he would die in the explosion. If his torpedo missed, it would run out of fuel and he would sink to the ocean floor. Their were nearly no recorded Japanese surrenders in WWII. There is a reason for that.

Now, you may be asking what this has to do with the bombs. Well, if the bombs hadn't been dropped, and invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been necessary. And the Japanese would've fought back tooth and nail. They would've given everything from rifles to rocks to Japanese citizens aged from 70 to 7, and told them to die for their country. And they would have obeyed. If you think that having 7-year-olds in combat is crazy, well, it's not a hyperbole. Young Japanese children fought the British in Burma all the way up to the surrender. So, yes- the bomb killed millions. But the death toll from an invasion would have been twice that- and civilians would have been killed too.
caty44444444

Con

This is Just insane is it not enough that millions of lives were lost because of some stupid selfish act. To me it is. What do you want from them. What did they ever do to you or America so yould would be greatful of those bombs. I tell you that almost all of America are even sorry for their own actions. The creator of the atomic bomb probably would be too. The pilots of the planes that dropped the bombs were also sorry too. You are making me sick. So you need to forfeit this topic now!
Debate Round No. 2
H501

Pro

I am grateful for those bombs, because if they hadn't been dropped, it is possible-not likely, but possible-that we would have a rising sun flapping over the White House. The lives of all those men, women, and children are not to be taken lightly, but I am glad that only 130,000 were killed, and not 3,000,000. I don't value one life over another, but I value three million lives over one hundred thirty thousand. And why do you feel so strongly about this? Don't you realize that more people were killed in the Blitz, the bombings over Berlin, and the bombings of Tokyo? I don't hear you calling the men who flew those bombers "evil", you hypocrite. Excuse the ad hominem attack, but I think it is warranted after calling me a "sick monster". And you ask what Japan did to us. They killed our soldiers, pilots, sailors, and yes, civilians too. American POWs were usually beheaded, and if not, sent to torture camps worse than the German death ones. That is what they did, not to me, but to America. However, the bomb wasn't even payback, although the Japanese certainly deserved it. No, it was a way to end the war. It saved lives. Do you not understand that? And, before I end, I would like to apologize to any Japanese people or people of Japanese descent reading this. Yes, the torture of POWs is true, but the government of Japan is much different now. At this moment, there are the best of relationships between Japan and the United States.
caty44444444

Con

caty44444444 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
H501

Pro

Con has forfeited this round, and therefore, in my opinion, lost the debate. Voters can draw their own conclusions about Con's etiquette, or lack thereof. Since Con has not rebutted any of my arguments, there is nothing for me to say here.
caty44444444

Con

I honestly don't see a point in debating this topic. I could say this whole debate and win in one word

JUSTICE!

THANKYOU

And just incase you haven't, read the comment section!
Debate Round No. 4
H501

Pro

Well, another debate draws to a close. For your information, "lord megatron", I didn't neglect to add my sources. (See comments) I was waiting till the last round. Here they are-
http://nationalinterest.org...
http://www.authentichistory.com...
And caty44444, don't accept a debate if
A) You're not willing to participate, and
B) You refuse to provide evidence

Thank you.
caty44444444

Con

Blah blahblah,
you can think what you want but voters, listen here, I may or may not be the best debater, but, WHAT HAPPENED TO JUSTICE

And I do not need evidence to show JUSTICE!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by caty44444444 11 months ago
caty44444444
First of all, 42lifeuniverse everything, I'm debating H501, not YOU! Anyway why doesn't H501 post a comment anyway!
Posted by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
thanks for the sources H501 improved my history
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 11 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
I have a life too, caty, but I don't handle it by screaming at other people online like you do. Your argument did not have sources, and failed on several logical fronts. That is why you lost this round. Debate another debate round, and forget about this one. Or don't because Justice is super important. BTW where the heck is your definition of justice? You kind of needed that too.
Posted by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
I think before a history debate both sides should thoroughly research the topic and provide sources
Posted by caty44444444 11 months ago
caty44444444
Look, I'm a kid, one who has a good education and goes to school! I have heaps of exams to pass at high school and I'm not sure about you but I have a life, and I'm going to use it the best I can, with JUSTICE! So sorry I did not have enough time to post my argument but there, I HAVE A LIFE! So DEAL with it, OKAY!
Posted by caty44444444 12 months ago
caty44444444
first things first it's caty44444444 not caty444444444! Secondly I meant it could of caused A third world war and the extent of the damage to Japan was HUGE! You are So cruel to these poor innocent lives!
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 12 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Oh god.... caty444444444's arguments make me want to puke. You are incorrect to state it could have caused WWIII because the bombs were dropped during WWII. Learn your history. Also the radiation at those places is gone. It has been almost 80 years at this point, which for the small amount of radiation those bombs dropped in comparison to a Hydrogen bomb, means that the radiation has dissipated. Also Japanese tourism stopped being affected by those bombs long ago. You need evidence to prove your last point...... Wow these arguments are horrible.
Posted by caty44444444 12 months ago
caty44444444
This is not a necessarily great topic.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 12 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Well in hindsight we did drop them. So I fail to see the debate. If the debate is on the validity of using nuclear weapons on civilian populations, then changed the title of the debate to that. If you change the resolution, I will debate you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 11 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
H501caty44444444Tied
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: Pro wins on conduct because of Con's eventual refusal to debate. I give Pro arguments for a couple reasons. Pro sufficiently proved that the Japanese would never surrender, while Con never disputed sufficiently that the bombs would cost more lives than a land invasion. Finally a request for forfeiture from Con to Pro lost Con arguments because that meant Con admitted he/she no longer had valid arguments and simply wanted a concession somewhere. I give Pro sources because Pro was the only one who had sources. I VOTE PRO.
Vote Placed by dtien400 11 months ago
dtien400
H501caty44444444Tied
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: Pro wins spelling and grammar hands down, as Con's was rather poor. While choosing to post sources at the end is a rather shady move on Pro's part (although I'm sure there were no ill intentions), Con had no sources (besides justice??) so Pro wins that. Pro wins conduct as well, as Con was rather childish and rude the whole debate and forfeited a round. Yes, Pro used a borderline ad hominem attack, but 'hypocrite' reflects on the content of Con's arguments more than the content of his character, and while immature, it's a drop in the ocean compared to Con's behavior. As for arguments, Pro neatly refuted any points Con brought up - Con said that the bombing was inhumane, Pro countered by pointing out much, much more people could have died if it was not done. Good job guys.