The Instigator
detachment345
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,482 times Debate No: 15631
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (7)

 

detachment345

Pro

The atomic bombings of Japan where in during August 1945 in which two atomic weapons created by the United States were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that order with a 3 day period in between. I for one support the bombings and my opponent will oppose them. In the first round my opponent and I will state our positions and list the primary reasons we support our positions and go more in depth in the next 3 rounds

1. It saved a costly American invasion from occuring that would have resulted in millions of American and Japanese casualties as well as any other costly alternative form of American and allied intervention

2. It shortened a time, life and resource consuming war in a matter of days
petersaysstuff

Con

I first want to thank my opponent for this debate.
There are a few reasons why dropping the atomic bombs was a bad thing.

1) They caused civilian loss of life which only increased anti-americanism and would just breed resentment.
2) Once other countries saw that we had the ability to use such weapons it lead to widespread nuclear proliferation in Russia which ultimately lead to the Cold War. The remnants of that proliferation can still be seen in our modern day struggles where there is the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

So ultimately the use of the atomic bombs sparked anti-americanism and widespread nuclear proliferation.
Debate Round No. 1
detachment345

Pro

I would like to formally thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Here are the reasons why your arguments are invalid.

1. War in and of itself, causes civilian loss of life. I would also like to point out that despite the atomic bombings, Japan is currently a strong military ally of the United States. Now if the very people we dropped atomic weapons on are good allies of ours, to say that other nations and people who were not affected whatsoever such as current anti-americans around the globe have even a bigger bone to pick with us than the Japanese themselves due to the bombings is far fetched. I will argue that the atomic bombings in fact saved lives. The Japanese had a very well publicized program conscripting tens of millions of unfit and inadequately armed civilians to fight the inevitable American invasion. Needless to say a fight involving tens of millions of elderly adults, women and children fighting gun toting GI's with tanks and planes would have resulted in a massacre of civilians that would have had a death toll far higher than the deaths directly caused by the bombings

The race to develop nuclear arms would have been inevitable. The Soviet Union had the stated goal, "The new International Association of Workers is established for the purpose of organizing common action between the workers of various countries who arc striving towards a single aim; the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the International Soviet Republic, the complete abolition of classes and the realization of socialism — as the first step to communist society", and also stated upon their formation that, ""The aim of the organization was to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State", meaning that they had an innate reason to build up a military to oppose capitalism and due to their rise as one of the world's superpower and combined stated goal to take over the planet by armed force if need be, it should be concluded that the Cold War was inevitable and the Soviet development of nuclear weapons would not have been delayed by much at all.

http://www.operationolympic.com...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
http://www.globalsecurity.org...
petersaysstuff

Con

The order will be refutations and then defense.

//Refutations\ I'm going to lump my opponent's 1 and 2 together because they are almost the same.
The reason this is false is because a land invasion would not have been necessary.
The problem starts with the fact that the United States had and 'unconditional surrender' policy whereby we did not want any nation to surrender conditionally but this simply would not work in the case of Japan. It is true that Japan would not surrender unconditionally but they were willing to surrender in May 1945 as long as they could keep their emperor, a conditional surrender. This fact was know by president Truman but he ignored it. Ultimately the emperor was allowed to remain on the thorn after the bombings and we essentially agreed to the conditional surrender AFTER we killed civilians. (I can go more in depth into this as the debate progresses)[1]
The fact is that a land invasion simply would not have been needed and thus my opponent's first and second claims fall.

//Defense\This is true but in Hiroshima 140,000 people were killed and 80,000 were killed in Nagasaki in the course of two days. The other important point regarding the civilian deaths is that, as shown above, they were completely unnecessary and were just to show we are stronger. Nextly, after the atomic bombings massive amounts of radioactive fallout rained down upon the earth and the effects are still being felt today.[2] The effects have been felt since.
"The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world."[3]
The rate of cancer has also been greatly increased. Cancer rates have increased from 217 to 301 out of 100,000 in males and 176 to 197 out of 100,000 in females.[3] (This is during a year) The highest cancer rate in males in the US is 163 out of 100,000 and for females, 113 out of 100,000, A massive difference! [4] So here we can see that the civilian causality level is massive.
Regarding anti-americanism, it is true we are allies but that was not so right after the war. Anti-americanism was ramped. "I hate Americans, they dropped the bomb" was the exclamation of one of the survivors.
Regarding the people being rallied to fight, they were willing and ready to surrender months before the actual dropping of the bomb yet we ignored that and went right ahead. The bomb saved no lives but killed over 200,000 civilians in two days and lead to increased rates of cancer and the highest rate of liver cancer in the world.

On proliferation: proliferation is different than just building something. Proliferation is essentially an arms race which is what happened after we used the atomic bombs. Proliferation occurred in Russia because they didn't want to be weaker than us and then we didn't want to be weaker than them and it just built up and built up. You didn't address this at all and thus it flows through the round. Also, your quote doesn't even mention nuclear weapons and I'm fairly sure it was written before World War II. (Next round can you try to link the sources like I did? It's a lot easier.)

[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...
[2] http://timeinmoments.wordpress.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://rex.nci.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
detachment345

Pro

1. We did have a unconditional surrender policy but we weren't unwilling to accept their emperor as a figurehead after the war.
The U.S., in fact, presented the Potsdam Declaration, which were the surrender terms the United States demanded that Japan had to abide by. Here are the terms within the Declaration.

"1. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world."

"2. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth."

"3. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

"4. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."

There are more but these were the major terms.

The Japanese ignored the Potsdam declaration. They intended to "kill it with scilence". In all we never heard any serious talks from them regarding the peace deal we made which allowed Japan to remain an industrial power.

Lewrockwell automatically displays it's bias by announcing that they are an anti-war and anti-state website while this source,
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com...
Is the pacific war online encyclopedia which displays facts, figures, statistics and information regarding the Pacific Campaign of the Second World War, and all the while does not claim any political, moral, or philosophical stance.

Regarding the Cancer caused by the atomic bombs is regrettable, but do not make the bombings unjustified. Our intention was to bring the war to a quick end and build peace with that country, not plague them with cancer for generations to come. Seeing that after the atomic bombing the United States sent soldiers to go to the cities that were bombed to clean up and repair the city and knowing that many U.S. soldiers got cancer themselves I find it difficult to believe that our intentions were to needlessly kill or harm the Japanese people.

The U.S. was not aware of any will in the majority of the Japanese people to simply surrender. To put this in perspective for you, the Battle of Okinawa was over small Islands south of mainland Japan. In the fighting as many as 150,000 Japanese civilians alone were killed, over a chain of small islands. Yet you claim an invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in less than 200,000 civilian deaths. Japan was still able to muster millions of regular army soldiers to prepare to fight an invasion and as long as the army was fighting why would the civilians surrender? The Japanese also made it publicised that they had tens of millions of civilians prepared to fight in the Japanese Volunteer Fighting Corps, which was simply composed of every able civilian with the purpose to fight the Americans in an invasion. The fact that we didn't have to fight millions of unfit people shows that the bombs saved an invasion from having to occur as well as the casualties that would have resulted from an invasion.

Yes, we weren't allies immediately after the war ended, countries defeated and occupied are rarely supporters of their defeater and occupying army. And in light of the fact that we were allies shortly after the war ended, extended a huge helping hand to rebuild their cities after the war, established a democratic and peaceful government, and have had a strong friendship ever since, a friendship that lasts today, your single quote from one Anti-American japanese survivor is a drop of hate in the sea of comradery that the country of Japan has directed towards the U.S.

Yes Russia did not want to be weaker than us due to their ultimate objective to spread communism world wide by force. I already argued that Russia did not need the excuse of the atomic bombings to build up a large nuclear arsenal, they simply needed to follow their stated goal of world wide communism. All in all an arms race between the forces of Communism against the forces of Capitalism was going to happen regardless of what types of weapons came along in the future. I would argue that possessing nuclear warheads helped prevent armed conflict from erupting between the U.S. and the USSR due to the fact that neither side wanted to be obliterated in a war.

The Cold War was going to occur whether nuclear bombs were created or not, again, it was the stated goal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to conquer the planet and place all of mankind under communism, something we would spend billions on defense to prevent. Now for the sake of argument, let's say that due to the atomic bombings, the USSR suddenly technologically advanced and developed thousands of nuclear weapons, something you claim that would not have happened had the bombigns never occurred. The fact that the United States and the USSR had nuclear weapons did not have any major negative consequences.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.operationolympic.com...
http://findarticles.com...
http://www.peace-museum.pref.okinawa.jp...
petersaysstuff

Con

On 1: That's not what I said, I said we didn't want to accept a conditional surrender and thus we ignored their willingness to surrender which has now gone uncontested and thus it must be extended.

//Lewrockwell automatically displays it's bias by announcing that they are an anti-war and anti-state website while this source,//
Yet you never contested my evidence... It is also evidence from another source, the book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" which isn't biased. But if you want here is another source that says the same thing.

On cancer: Yes we did help clean up but the radiation is still causing effects today whereas we don't have soldiers getting cancer from it now. Also, the cancer affected even unborn children who had nothing to do with the war. It also affected children decades later thus showing that we had no regard for the long lasting effects and thus my argument here stands. Also, if you look through the source, most of the cancer was caused by tests to see how much radiation could be withstood so my opponent's claim makes no sense.

On surrender: This shows that you are ignoring history and ignoring my evidence. They had troops ready for a land invasion after they saw that we were going to ignore their pleas to surrender.

//Yes, we weren't allies immediately after the war ended, countries defeated and occupied are rarely supporters of their defeater and occupying army//
This is what I am saying. Ultimately we ended up being allies but it did bread resentment as you agree with here. So saying this and then saying, well it doesn't matter because we're allies now, is ignoring reality.

On Russia: Arguing that nuclear weapons are a detterent? Oy. I would like to but we are a little late into the debate. We can last round I guess?
But here you never negated my claims that the quote (I believe) was from World War I and afterwards that acquired a new government and thus there is no evidence to suggest that this quote is relevant at all.
But regardless, it is now obvious that my opponent doesn't understand what proliferation is and thus we extend my argument from last round.

On the cold war: // The fact that the United States and the USSR had nuclear weapons did not have any major negative consequences.//
Are you kidding?! This is what has sprouted all our modern day conflicts! The fact that we developed more weapons made other countries feel unsafe and thus they wanted to develop them. I am sorry but you are so incorrect here. My argument about proliferation still stands.

Again, can you please source things properly? It makes it so much easier to check facts.

//Overview and more regarding surrender\
" While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese."[1]

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[2]

""The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman."[2][3]

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless."[4]

A key thing regarding our knowledge of the surrender is thus: "As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender."[4]

So as we can see, reports from top military officials, reporters and even future president Eisenhower all agree that surrender was immanent and the atomic bombs were not needed. I suggest you, and others to read through [4] and see what you make of it because it has a lot of good information but I simply do not have enough characters to copy it all down :P

//Actual Overview\
As we can see, my argument about civilian casualties still stands because my opponent ignored the fact that the problems have persisted to this day and thus we have been killing people not even involved in the war decades later.
Also, my opponent doesn't understand that proliferation is different than saying you will build nuclear bombs and/or testing them and my opponent has not refuted this at all. I have also throughly disproven the claim that a land invasion would have been necessary and thus I see no reason to vote Pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.ibiblio.org...
[3] ^ Leahy, William D. (1950). I was there. New York. p. 441.
[4] http://www.commondreams.org...
Debate Round No. 3
detachment345

Pro

The book is bias as well. If you were to googlethe author you would see many articles of other historians accusing him of being a revisionist historian, especially by historian Robert Maddox. So all in all we have a leftist, anti-war and anti-state website citing a book from a historian who is being accused by other historians as a revisionist. Yet you see no bias.

We had no idea that an atomic bomb could even cause such cancer. Had we known we wouldn't have sent soldiers in to participate in the clean up proving that the effects of radiation were not due to blatant U.S. disregard for human life, but do to our limited knowledge on the effects of such a weapon.

On surrender: We didn't ignore their pleas for surrender, my source states this about the Japanese reaction to the Potsdam surrender terms

"The initial response of the Japanese Government to the Declaration was mokusatsu, which has the literal meaning "to kill with silence."

Your source says
"On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."The next day, Japanese newspapers reported that the Declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped by leaflet into Japan, had been rejected. In an attempt to manage public perception, Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated:

I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

1. Your source outright claims that 4 of the 6 military leaders of Japan wanted to reject the Potsdam declaration

2. Your source states that the PM of Japan said, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). WE WILL DO NOTHING BUT PRESS ON TO THE BITTER END TO BRING ABOUT A SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE WAR."

3. That statement from the Prime Minister of Japan himself was what the U.S. heard last of the Potsdam declaration as your own source claims,

"The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which fairly accurately described the range of reactions within the government.[73] But Suzuki's statement, particularly its final sentence, leaves LITTLE ROOM FOR MISINTERPRETATION AND WAS TAKEN AS A REJECTION BY THE PRESS, BOTH IN Japan and ABROAD"

4. The Big Six publically stated they were going to fight till the bitter end, as you just stated how on earth did the U.S. know what went on when they were "privatley making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union"

5. Another quote from your source, "For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history. Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war.".

6. Another.
"In keeping with the custom of a new government declaring its purposes, following the May meetings the Army staff produced a document, "The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War," which stated that the Japanese people would fight to extinction rather than surrender. This policy was adopted by the Big Six on June 6. (Tōgō opposed it, while the other five supported it.)

7.
Your timeline is filled with errors.
It's true we were intercepting their messages for quiet some time and we knew they wanted peace. That's why we presented the Potsdam weeks before the bombings. If you looked over it it contained good surrender terms.
We offered them a chance to surrender after we knew they wanted peace and they blatantly rejected it, they didn't respond to it at all.
So all in all,
Japan wanted Peace
U.S. offers Potsdam declaration, offers peace with reasonable conditions
Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration
U.S. nukes Japan effectively ending the war.

Conclusion, there were no "pleas to surrender" and therefore the military of Japan was mobilizing for an invasion that was the result of their blatant ignorance to the very leniant demands of the Potsdam Declaration.

Anti-Americanism, yes but you are asking for the impossible. They had resentment towards us after we cut off trade with them after we found out they invaded China and massacred millions in mainland Asia. There was going to be resent towards the U.S. no matter what we did. Japans own actions determined who they had resentment towards, not ours. All in all, there is no pleasing a tyrannical, imperialist and unjust nation committing millions of murders. The Germans and the Nazi's had resentment towards the Red Army when they took Berlin.

That was not a mere quote. That was the stated goal of the USSR after the government was established in 1919. That was still the stated goal when Joseph Stalin came to power but that's as far as I know it lasted, but even still beyond that I find it very hard to believe that the Soviet Union went through sweeping changes in basic ideology over the transition from reign from Stalin to Khrushchev. Keep in mind it was under Stalin that started the nuclear weapons program and developed the atomic bomb

The Korea War, Vietnam War, Russo Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, and the other various civil wars in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia, instigated by the Cold War which were the most costly of our modern day conflicts, were over conflicting political ideologies, not nuclear weapons. The only conflict that has been even suggested of being about nuclear weapons or rather WMD's was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is still debated.

Had the majority of U.S. military and political leaders opposed the atomic bombings and thought an invasion was not needed as an alternative Operation Downfall would never have gotten off of the drawing board

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org... Please read this.
http://www.essortment.com...
Many of my points came from your sources.

In conclusion it is obvious that judging by Japan's aggressive actions regarding surrender combined with their obvious rejection of decent surrender terms, the U.S. had every reason to believe Japan would fight off an invasion force.
Seeing as Japan declared as many as 28 million where in a civilian self defense force the U.S. had every right to believe an invasion was going to be costly especially to the Japanese.
In order to prevent a costly land invasion which many experts at the time claimed would take millions of lives, a number to high to even dare take a chance on, the U.S. had no other choice but to drop the nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians in order to save perhaps, millions of Japanese as well as American lives.

The USSR's very goals of world conquest would have undoubtedly caused a Cold War and with many countries developing the atomic bomb during WW2, a nuclear arms race was inevitable between the two opposing superpowers, regardless of U.S. actions against Japan.
petersaysstuff

Con

Regarding my author: Even if we go with the assumption that he is biased, you have ignored my other sources from last round and therefore they still stand.

//We had no idea that an atomic bomb could even cause such cancer. Had we known we wouldn't have sent soldiers in to participate in the clean up proving that the effects of radiation were not due to blatant U.S. disregard for human life, but do to our limited knowledge on the effects of such a weapon.//
What??? Saying this has exposed your ignorance of history. We had known about the effects of radiation at least from Marie Currie. She was the founder of radium and died from radiation and it was well know what it would cause. You also have provided no counter evidence and thus this claim stands.

On surrender: The postadam declaration was ingnored because the Japanese already knew that we ignored their pleas for surrender which has gone unrefuted. They ignored it because a)they were already willing to surrender but we spat in their faces and b) they were discussing a surrender with Russia already.

All of your other "evidence" regarding the Postadam declaration applies to my argument above. The Japanese were mad because we ignored their pleas for surrender and were ready to continue the war. You are ignoring this key part of history.

//Your timeline is filled with errors.
It's true we were intercepting their messages for quiet some time and we knew they wanted peace. That's why we presented the Potsdam weeks before the bombings.//
Well you provided no examples of errors....
And here you concede that we know they wanted peace yet we ignored that seeing as we knew months in advance and we didn't even need to propose the declaration. Cross apply my argument from above.

//So all in all,
Japan wanted Peace
U.S. offers Potsdam declaration, offers peace with reasonable conditions
Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration
U.S. nukes Japan effectively ending the war.//
This makes no sense. If you actually look at history you can see that they ignored it because we ignored their pleas for peace which you concede above.

//Conclusion, there were no "pleas to surrender" and therefore the military of Japan was mobilizing for an invasion that was the result of their blatant ignorance to the very leniant demands of the Potsdam Declaration.//
Here you have ignored all my evidence and just made a claim backed by nothing but you words. You provide no counter evidence and thus my claim stands.

/Anti-Americanism, yes but you are asking for the impossible. They had resentment towards us after we cut off trade with them after we found out they invaded China and massacred millions in mainland Asia. There was going to be resent towards the U.S. no matter what we did. Japans own actions determined who they had resentment towards, not ours. All in all, there is no pleasing a tyrannical, imperialist and unjust nation committing millions of murders. The Germans and the Nazi's had resentment towards the Red Army when they took Berlin.//
Here you have effectively conceded my argument about anti-americanism in the first sentence.
How did their actions determine who they had resentment for? We nuked them and killed over 200,000 civilians in two days and tainted the land which killed even more.

On the quote: You concede here it was written in 1919, decades before the use of nuclear weapons. You have provided no counter arguments accept this quote and thus we mustn't look to it.

//The Korea War, Vietnam War, Russo Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, and the other various civil wars in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia, instigated by the Cold War which were the most costly of our modern day conflicts, were over conflicting political ideologies, not nuclear weapons. The only conflict that has been even suggested of being about nuclear weapons or rather WMD's was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is still debated.//
You said the Cold War and nuclear weapons had no effects but here you have ignored my argument regarding the insecurity of other nations and thus it still stands. The fact that Russia and us were at a nuclear stand still did lead to devastating effects which you have ignored.

Regarding Wikipedia. That is not a legitimate source and you just said "read this". In my last round I posted stuff from the source and then said read it. If we can copy paste sources then that takes away the point of the debate.

But regardless if it would have got off the drawing bored or not, I have proven that a land invasion would not have been needed and you have NOT refuted this at all and I should win on that alone.

//More on Postadam\Another reason they didn't like it is because it talks about unconditional surrender as well as utter destruction regarding civilians. They already were willing to have a conditional surrender yet we ignore that and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.

Also, please extend my cancer argument.

In other words, my opponent's entire argument rests on the fact that a land invasion would be necessary but I have proven otherwise and he has done minimal work on this. He also conceded that we knew they wanted peace thus shattering his argument that they would fight to the last man women and killed and thus it is easy to see that the use of nuclear bombs was not needed nor necessary.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Screw it, Pro fvcked me.
Posted by huhmasta 6 years ago
huhmasta
You've got a point there. It's just that every time I hear someone whine about this and give terrible reasons why the nukes shouldn't have taken place, it's always been someone I've known to be a hyper liberal. If you can disagree with me and give logical explanations, then I'm ok with it. If not, then it's just whining.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
This is a good topic,I am opposed to the bombings myself. In response to huhmasta, it is not strictly a liberal thing. In fact it was Truman who ordered the bomb dropped in defiance of the more conservative Eisenhower who was opposed to it.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Con should not have won

Regarding conduct, Con stated, "The fact that Russia and us were at a nuclear stand still did lead to devastating effects which you have ignored."

Con can't make a claim like that, offer no examples for Pro to argue over, and claim Pro ignored "devastating effects" Con never even mentioned, that's absurd.

Con stated, "Regarding Wikipedia. That is not a legitimate source"

Con used Wikipedia as a source as well. Con attempted to discredit Pro's sources when in fact Con used them as well. That's more out of place in a debate than hand to hand combat is out of place in a game of laser tag.

Regarding arguments, In closing Con stated, "The Japanese were mad because we ignored their pleas for surrender and were ready to continue the war", as a reason to how the U.S. was unjustified in the bombings. In short the U.S. made a few Japanese leaders mad, giving Japan a legitimate reason to continue the war while Pro argued Japan should not have continued the war when they were given surrender terms. That's a no brainer. As a responsibilty to the well being of your country you don't have the right to get mad, throw away a good surrender appeal, and get your people killed and blame it on the other guy.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Why thank you Huh :) It was a fun debate and although you didn't agree with me you were civil and I like that.
Posted by huhmasta 6 years ago
huhmasta
I'm sorry....but no matter HOW you argue this, you can't seriously tell me and expect me to believe that ending the war in the quickest manner possible with the FEWEST number of deaths is not the best option available at THAT specific time period. No contest. Good argument, but in the end, it's futile to argue against what SAVED lives, instead of dragging out the war even further. And case in point: in warfare, you want to WIN as quickly and as EFFICIENTLY as possible. Far too many liberals seem to miss that point. Pro all the way. I'm quite fond of petersaysstuff's arguments, that dude can debate like no one's business, especially at his age. But I'm baffled that you guys can sit there and say detachment345 did a "bad job" in arguing.... I agreed with the pro side to begin with and I also believe his arguments were legitimate. Con did a great job as well, but I felt he was fighting an uphill battle the entire time. My thoughts anyways. Good debate and brownie points as usual for petersaysstuff as he NEVER takes these debates personally like so many others I've seen....
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Its when people like that guy in the voting section, vote everything pro or con just cuz they want him to win. Even if the guy he votes for clearly didn't win.
Not exact definition but that's the case for this debate.
Posted by bluesteal27 6 years ago
bluesteal27
what is a vote bomb
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Thanks for offsetting the vote bombs :)
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
Even debates about bombings get vote-bombed!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments overall
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped all arguments in his OP, attempted to pick them up later but weakly. However Pro started out with pure assertion, later did provide warrant - but then both sides went back to assertions and wandered. I would have to give the edge only slightly to Pro 3:2, mainly for the drop early by Con.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Nevermind, I have to vote based on who I think won, not based on the guys character. My RFD is in the comments section.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really a choice. Pro seemed a little 'off'.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: See notes. And to offset 4 of the vote bomb points of bluesteal27. If someone wants to offset the other 3 go ahead.
Vote Placed by bluesteal27 6 years ago
bluesteal27
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
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: Pros arguments made me mad. if america didnt drop the bombs millions of people would have died. due to japanese propaganda the japaneze would have fought till everyone was dead trying to defend their homeland. nuclear proliferation wasirrelevant since that stuff would have happened because america invented the nuclear bomb in the first place not because we used it. other countries were trying to make nuclear bombs anyways and once we had the technology everyone was going to make their own bombs
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
detachment345petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had a good number of reliable sources. Pro was trying to minimize the effects of the Cold War and nuclear proliferation but ultimately to no avail. Pro also tried to minimize the effects of the nuclear bombings which Con excellently cleared up and refuted.