The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 61680
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round is to accept; there are three rounds for debating. Please use sources and please DO NOT FORFEIT. Good luck!!!


Accepting. Thank you for choosing me as your opponent and I look forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Before I start my argument, I would like to say I am not racist. East Sea is what Koreans call Sea of Japan and the world should recognize it.

First of all, there are two islands directly on the sea, including Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks as some people call it.) Now I'm not being racist, but some many Japanese people say Dokdo is their own. That is not true. Past records from both Korea and Japan clearly says Dokdo is Korea's island. Therefore, The Sea of Japan should be called the East Sea.

Also, Japan has tried to publicily edit Korea's history. East Sea has always been named that ever since 100 B.C. The name "Sea of Japan" came up like less than 500 years ago. East Sea has been the name of the area 1,500 years before it was named "Sea of Japan". How come we can't name our own sea by ourselves? (Part of the sea is Korea's)

Thank you for reading this argument and thanks to SiriusTrekkie for accepting this debate.


Thank you for having me debate.

I think the Sea of Japan is a better name because when I hear East Sea, I have no idea where in the world that is. You can make a logical guess on where the Indian and Arctic Oceans are. Their names describe the place of where they are located. The Indian Ocean says that it is near India, and the Arctic Ocean states that it is in the Arctic. But the "East Sea" could be anywhere. But when you hear the name Sea of Japan, you automatically think it is by Japan, which is true.

Plus, there are other seas in the world already called the East Sea. Here is an example:

"The Baltic Sea in ancient sources known as Mare Suebicum (or Mare Germanicum), is also known by the equivalents of "East Sea", "West Sea", or "Baltic Sea" in different languages: in Germanic languages, except English, "East Sea" is used in: Danish (Ostersoen), Dutch (Oostzee), German (Ostsee), Norwegian (Ostersjoen), and Swedish ("stersj"n)." [1]

So then more people would become confused, because there is already a sea referred to as the "East Sea."

Looking at this map [], I can say that the Sea of Japan/East Sea touches more of Japan's coast than it touches both North and South Korea's coast. So it would just be more logical to call it the Sea of Japan.

That is all for now!

Debate Round No. 2


You made some good arguments, but it had some faults. I agree with your first point, but can't we call it Sea of Korea then? Also, could you please tell me since when was the Baltic Sea called East Sea? Finally, do they still call it East Sea? Thank you.


Technically, using my first point, the Sea of Korea would be another liable name. But there are two problems I have with this:
1) This debate, or at least how I took it, is about whether the Sea of Japan should be renamed to East Sea, or stay the same. The name Sea of Korea has nothing to do with this, unless I misinterpreted the title of this debate.
2) It is most widely known as either the East Sea or the Sea of Japan. Why bring in another name, when both sides (Japan & Korea) already have nominated one name each (East Sea & Sea of Japan)?

In German, the Baltic Sea is referred to as 'die Ostsee.' That translates to 'the East Sea.' I don't know for sure how long they've been calling that. I couldn't find any sources. But yes, they still call it the East Sea today.

I would like to see these records that state exactly that Dokdo is Korea's. Also, I want proof that Japan is publicly editing Korea's history, that the East Sea has been named that since 100 B.C, and that the Sea of Japan name came up less than 500 years ago.

Thank you for asking those questions, and good luck with the last round!
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. I do have the sources:

1. Sejong Silok Jiriji (Geography Section of the Anals of King Sejong's Reign) says Dokdo is part of Korea's Uljin prefacture. It also says Dokdo was a territory of Usan-guk, which was conquered by Silla (Korea during AD 512. This book was published in 1454.

2. Dongguk Munheon Biggo (Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea) also claims Dokdo is Korea's territory.

3. Dajiaokan Order of 1877, which is a source from Japan, says Japan has nothing to do with Dokdo and Dokdo is Korea's island.

4. Isotakeshim ryakuzu (Japan) also shows Dokdo is very close to Ulleungdo, which both countries recognize is Korea's island.

If you would like more sources, please go to or

Also, go to for proof that Japan has been publicly editing Korea's history. The East Sea has been called that since there were three countries in the Korean Peninsula. Japan became hostile to Korea ever since 500 years ago, and that's when Sea of Japan came up.

Thanks for accepting the challenge and good luck!


Thank you for giving references to your arguments. I would also like to state that I found that there were 31 islands in the Sea of Japan. [1] Just because one in particular is Korea's, doesn't mean the whole sea is theirs. And it could be that my source is wrong, but I used wikipedia. So if my source is invalid, then that could mean your wikipedia source could be invalid as well.

In conclusion, I think the Sea of Japan is a better name because it is used internationally already, whilst the name "East Sea" is only used locally in Korea. The Sea of Japan is the only name used all over the world. [2] Furthermore, the Sea of Japan touches more of Japan's coast than it does for both North and South Korea. And the Sea of Japan is more precise and easier to locate just using the name alone. But for the name East Sea, it could be anywhere, especially since there is more than one sea referred to as the "East Sea." Therefore, I think Sea of Japan is a more logical name.

I think I won this debate because I had better spelling and grammar, my arguments and rebuttals seemed more convincing, while pro didn't have many rebuttals, if any, and I had more sources.

Thank you for debating against me and good luck!


Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
To SiriusTrekkie: Korea has more than one island on the Sea of Japan. Also, I cannot believe what the Japanese say because they argue Dokdo is theirs, but they are in fact Korea's.
Posted by SiriusTrekkie 2 years ago
I would like to accept this debate. Thanks!
Posted by Badman 2 years ago
pls change ur settings there is a requirement that i do no meet or something.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate Pro had the complete burden of proof. I feel that he did not justify this onus for I never get a particular connective of an argument from him. Even if the island is Korean (something nor proved) why is there a higher productivity in changing the name? Not to mention that Con's contentions were never refuted, seeing how Pro never gives me much of a case, and Con's arguments are never tackled, I vote Con. Happy to clarify this RFD.