The Instigator
jazminmay
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wtfisthatkid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Bombing of Japan in 1945

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 52761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

jazminmay

Pro

I think that American was in the right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese would have of just kept on fighting until they had no more men to fight. President Truman had decided to bomb them because he was responding to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he wanted to end the war with little american casualties as he possibly could and he wanted to show off to the soviets to impress them. President Truman decided to bomb Hiroshima because they had several large ports and industries. He also decided to bomb Hiroshima because they also had a big army. Nagasaki was bombed because they wanted to make Japan surrender
wtfisthatkid

Con

First, I would like to thank pro for posting this debate, and I look forward to his participation.
Since pro has not provided any arguments for his defense, only Truman's reasoning behind the bombings and the selection of location, I will start by providing my first point.

P1. Truman wanted to end the war with as little american casualties as possible, but what makes American casualties any worse than Japanese casualties?
No matter who loses their life, it is still a lose of a life, correct?
Japan was wrong to bomb pear harbor, yes. However, does that give us the right to kill innocent people as well?
If someone were to beat up you and a few of your friends, does that mean that is alright to attack him AND his innocent friends as well?
Debate Round No. 1
jazminmay

Pro

President Truman thought that there were more military people in Hiroshima than there were civilians. So, with his decision he wanted to weaken the military aspect of it and have Japan surrender from the war. We were just retaliating towards them for bombing Pearl Harbor. It was an 'eye for a eye' type of situation.
wtfisthatkid

Con

What about Nagasaki, which contained more civilians than military?
I would say that two cities' atomic bombings is not equal to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Yes, they both were similar, but the atomic bombings had much more weight than what happened at Pearl Harbor.
Debate Round No. 2
jazminmay

Pro

jazminmay forfeited this round.
wtfisthatkid

Con

wtfisthatkid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zerrok 3 years ago
Zerrok
These issues are more important than the debate itself.

aren't American soldiers innocent people? It's Not like the U.S. had a choice when Japan was knocking on America's door. Of course some Japanese soldier's are innocent too, but the USA wasn't the instigator of the war to my knowledge.
Posted by wtfisthatkid 3 years ago
wtfisthatkid
I am aware. I'm actully pro for this, but just wanted to debate it for the sake of debating.
I think it is pro's responsibility to bring that point up, not yours, at least not until the debate has ended.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Con. You realize that it wasn't just US soldiers that were spared. The bombings prevented the deaths of literally 10s of millions of Japanese lives. This is a case of killing a few to spare the many.
No votes have been placed for this debate.