The Instigator
Axiom
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
ashwin.sharma921
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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...
Axiom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,586 times Debate No: 24887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Axiom

Pro

Definitions:
Justified: 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

The bombing of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki refers to the nuclear attack carried out by the U.S. in 1945 at the end of the second world war.

I, as Pro, will be arguing that the U.S. was justified in their nuclear attack against the two Japanese cities. Con will be arguing that the U.S. was not justified in the nuclear attack and will have the BOP to explain why, during a time of war, the attacks were unjustifiable.

1R. Acceptance and opening arguments by Con.
2R. Rebuttal and Pro's oppening arguments, followed by Con's rebuttal and defense (or continued arguments.)
3R. Closing arguments, defense, and rebuttal. No new arguments may be introduced at this point, but both parties may contend previously established arguments.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

My opponent clearly states, as understood by his allegations, that U.S was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but i being strongly against the topic will soon illustrate the cons of the catastrophe. I say, who has given anyone the permission to devour the bounties of nature along with its most precious jewel- the population- which has completely transformed the global attire?God? Absolutely not. We know how devastating catastrophe resulted. People begged safety from the various developed nations of the world. In fact, the Japanese , even now are bearing the effects of the same. My heart melts down at an instant when I witness the pathetic ruins of Hiroshima. This just throws light on the disregardful attitude of U.S. and its straight forward spirit to conquer the world and grip it. Its not that the attack was made to end the world war as my opponent will try to emphasise. So it is obvious that U.S. was not at all justified in its move which resulted in great destruction and thereby an abrupt end to life and property.

Well now on to questioning session:
1) If U.S. wanted to end the world war why didn't it did blast some other country, other than Japan, just because Japan attacked U.S.?
2) Just because Japan made an attempt to attack was it justified to destroy almost the whole of Japan?
Debate Round No. 1
Axiom

Pro

I thank my opponent for finally posting round 1.

Unfortunately, in a haphazard presentation of emotional arguments, personal opinion and contextually-poor poetry, my opponent shambles on to make bold assumptions unfounded in evidence and poorly construed generalizations. Also, this is perhaps the shortest opening Round I have ever seen. My opponent was given the burden of proof as per the debate's rules and has not fulfilled any of it.

His two questions also show a poor grasp of history.

1. Why didn't it blast some other country instead of Japan? If it had, would that have been okay then, in your opinion? And they didn't blast some other country to end the world war, because Japan was the country engaged in the world war. I refer you to (http://www.time.com...):

"Japan was deploying up to 2 million soldiers and additional millions of "auxiliaries" who were clearly prepared to defend their homeland to the death. It was easy to believe estimates that an invasion would result in as many as a million American casualties, plus many more Japanese. The Bomb offered the chance of ending the war and saving lives."

2. Firstly, Japan didn't make an attempt to attack Pearl Harbor, they did attack Pearl Harbor. And my opponent obviously has never heard Truman's speech on why they attacked Japan. He said it was to save lives and end the war. It was not retaliation for an attack on Pearl Harbor. (http://www.time.com...)

Oh, and my opponent's claim that the U.S. nearly blew up the 'whole of Japan' is preposterous. There are 144 cities in Japan. Not two.

I will not be presenting any further arguments, because it was my opponent's BOP as per the debate's rules. He previously accepted this debate and forfeited after three days, but then immediately accepted it again when I posted it and presents me with this poorly thought out, poorly worded argument--if it can be called that--in less than two short paragraphs. There is no substantial material, not a single sighted source, and so many fallacies that I'm curious if my opponent has ever debated before.

I will not waste my time writing an unnecessary debate if my opponent won't show me that he is to be taken seriously. If it continues in this vein, please just vote Pro and give Con his well deserved loss. (If you feel I am being harsh, just realize that this is the second time I posted this debate after my opponent refused to respond to any of my messages regarding the status of this debate. (He ended up forfeiting.) This is a debate I have prepared and thought through thoroughly. The minute I repost it, my opponent accepts and with that accepts the BOP, only to present this poor excuse, of an opening debate.)

ashwin.sharma921

Con

Thankfully,my opponent has posted another remark questioning my claims in the debate. He has even tried fending the emotional arguments off by claiming them to be a 'haphazard presentation unfounded in evidence' with a 'contextually-poor poetry' and misconstrued generalizations. He makes a mockery out of the death of the various impeccable and innocent civilians who died without a cause, some of who even became a prey to the irrefutable act of 'suicide'. In fact, my learned opponent debates a topic which he himself isn't fully aware of. Unfortunately, his assumptions are truly based on hearsay and I myself am not fully convinced with the fact that his grandparents or his parents might have even shared anything about the actual devastation of the World War II. I silently moan, for his predicament and beliefs are irrecoverable and unfounded. He himself is not aware of the series of events that took place in the war and is so damn proud of it, that he criticizes the reality and tries to make wrong the right. His arguments make me realize his pitiable condition as well as his stand at the global basis and he makes way to denigrating others in a field where he himself is devoid of complete knowledge about a particular subject.
Firstly, he claims that his opponent reflects a poor grasp of history but unfortunately, however worthy he may be, he has not struck the bull's eye this time. He in fact, does not pay heed to the fact that his opponent may be even more deserving than he himself. Returning back to the debate, my opponent is perhaps himself 'misconstrued' in understanding the depth of the question of why the U.S. didn't blast another country. He replies by saying 'Japan was the country engaged in the world war,' but is it that it was the sole country engaged in the war? Well, there was a pretty good number of countries involved in it ranging from USSR to U.K. and Germany.' So why didn't the U.S. attack some other country?' was my question and I am pretty sure that his abridged and inadequate knowledge might not have a reasonable answer for this question. He criticizes me on the grounds that 'there's not a single cited source and many fallacies' but he himself is unaware about his extraordinary intelligence which is only capable of citing sources from the net to prove himself in part because his own intelligence isn't enough to contradict the allegations made. He says that Japan attacked U.S. to end the World War II and saving many more lives. He also cites the exemplary Truman's speech to prove himself but would he still question and arouse his voice if I answer him 'Tit for Tat'? I appreciate his awareness about the speech of the 33rd president of U.S., H.S.Truman but I believe that he hasn't till now been exposed to what the Federal Council of Churches said in 1946 "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible." And in fact not only his opponents, he considers himself above all the scientists who disagreed with the blast as morally indefensible. Led by Dr.James Frankseven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee, advising the president in 1945,saying:

"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."

Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod pal, a dissenting voice,who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes." Pal observed "This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War."

Now, my opponent will obviously remark that U.S. attacked Japan only because it acquired the attack prior to the happening. But I have a source cited even against this.

Selden concludes that despite the war crimes committed by the Empire of Japan, nevertheless, "The Japanese protest correctly pointed to U.S. violations of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale destruction of populations." The events proceeded in some what this manner:

"The US had, with the treaty of Versailles,ensured that Japan was looked down as inferior because it was a small Asian nation. They had wished to gain more land, so they didn't have to rely heavily on imports of oil, wheat and such from other countries. Instead, they were given a few islands in the pacific. The land they had received for their service in World War I enraged the Japanese people and government as it was unjust and racist. They had during the discussions tried to include a clause on racial equality, but AMERICA managed to keep that from happening. Since US ships sailed into Tokyo harbour and forced them to open up to trade in 1853 they soon changed their way of life, copying the European way for their way of ruling, army and other things. Not only did they have a 60% unemployment rate, there were many famines as a result of not being able to import enough food to support the population. The US replied by not exporting as much oil and freezing Japanese assets as "Punishment". US responded by completely cutting off all oil exports to Japan, freezing all assets and encouraging other countries to do the same. The US has successfully backed Japan against a wall. The American navy then moved their base to Hawaii, Pearl Harbour, in range of the Japanese bomber planes and in range for the US to attack Japan. The Japanese took this as a threat and decided, after all the suffering and loss the US had caused them, they should strike the US. It was all a pre-planned show, the result of this was bombing pearl harbour."

This resembles the case, where US was bullying the little kid only to find that the little kid could bite back.

Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two. So what he means really is that the intensity of the bomb could only hamper two of its cities. An open question to the voter's,"Do you really think that only two of Japan's cities were devoured?" Well my belief about my opponent has now come true. My knowledgeable has clearly paved the path for us to heed to his foolishness. Well now he must have understood why I started merely with 2 paragraphs which was just to test his skill. But he has surprised me to an unbelievable extent. But, nevertheless, I still am intrigued to know more about his views and his ideas are most welcome. After all, I don't think my voters will be satiated with what he has written till now. This will surely give him a cut throat competition, I believe. Unlike my intelligent and most hard working opponent, I would now request my voters to be unbiased and vote for the one who has really put in effort, the one who is deserving.
Debate Round No. 2
Axiom

Pro


I appreciate my opponent taking the time to write a thorough response this time. I will begin with rebuttal and then provide my own points:



"He makes a mockery out of the death of the various impeccable and innocent civilians who died without a cause, some of who even became a prey to the irrefutable act of 'suicide'. In fact, my learned opponent debates a topic which he himself isn't fully aware of."


Strawman. I did no such thing. Bold assumption fallacy. I argue they are not innocent, but my opponent has yet to raise this point. And a dash of Ad Hominem. And once again my opponent is using an emotional argument rather than a logical one.


"Unfortunately, his assumptions are truly based on hearsay and I myself am not fully convinced with the fact that his grandparents or his parents might have even shared anything about the actual devastation of the World War II."


Ad Hominem once again. My relationship with participators in WW II has absolutely no bearing on the case. And my opinions are based on sources and history as opposed to my opponent's personal assertions and emotional appeals. My opinions are based on a priori axiomatic reasoning concerning the nature of war.


"He himself is not aware of the series of events that took place in the war and is so damn proud of it, that he criticizes the reality and tries to make wrong the right."


A bit of Ad Hominem here as well and a bold assertion without claim. The entire nature of this debate is for my opponent to accept the BOP and say that the bombing was not "right." He has yet to do so. He is engaging in circular reasoning my assuming the answer from which he draws his conclusion.


"His arguments make me realize his pitiable condition as well as his stand at the global basis and he makes way to denigrating others in a field where he himself is devoid of complete knowledge about a particular subject."


Some more Ad Hominem and bold assumptions founded in opinion and not historically documented fact. Just because my opinion claims something does not make it true. He has to prove that something is true. If he questions my sources or quotes he is allowed to refute them, not just say 'they aren't true because I say so."


"Well, there was a pretty good number of countries involved in it ranging from USSR to U.K. and Germany.' So why didn't the U.S. attack some other country?'"


Well as for the Soviet Union and the U.K...They were allies of the U.S. And "German forces surrendered in Italy on 29 April 1945." But the attacks:"Atomic explosion at Nagasaki, 9 August 1945." So Germany had already surrendered by the time the U.S. implemented nuclear attack. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


"He criticizes me on the grounds that 'there's not a single cited source and many fallacies' but he himself is unaware about his extraordinary intelligence which is only capable of citing sources from the net to prove himself in part because his own intelligence isn't enough to contradict the allegations made."


Debates are found in fact, not opinion. (Now who is promoting hearsay?) And I am intelligent enough not to suggest that the U.S. should've bombed the Soviet Union or U.K. instead of Japan.


Ah, and here we come to the part where my opponent cuts and pastes large amount of text in some misguided assumption that another person's personal opinion will make the debate. He cites the Federal Council of Churches (for which he provides absolutely no sources) and a scientist who makes a similar moral claim as well as a sympathetic Japanese party (go figure. Once again no sources cited for me to view these opinions). I don't deny that by some the act of bombing the two Japanese cities was considered morally reprehensible, I didn't need to hear sources saying it. I needed my opponent to raise at least some semblance of a debate with proof debating it. He needed to establish a basis for morality. He needed to realize that this was a time of war. I won't even delve into my prepared notes on the fact that 58% of allied casualties were civilian casualties and that the axis forces were strafing London and dismantling the civilians of the Soviet Union. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I won't go on to say how only 4 percent of Axis casualties were civilian in opposition to 58 percent allied civilian casualties. I won't, because my opponent hasn't given me a need to raise a defense as he has mounted no offense. I won't continue to say that the cities bombed were the home to thriving military factories and headquarters. And I certainly won't say that the act of killing 200,000 people saved nearly 3 million lives in projected casualties if the battle had continued. No, I don't need to because my opponent has raised no issues determining what is justified in war, what is a 'moral' what one 'ought' to do based in fact. He has simply stated his opinion. But as we all know, on this site you have to do more than just provide an opinion to be a good debater. Hopefully, my opponent can learn from this experience.


"Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two."


I said no such thing... I didn't realize Japanese consisted of so many countries.


"Unlike my intelligent and most hard working opponent, I would now request my voters to be unbiased and vote for the one who has really put in effort, the one who is deserving."


Yes please. Do this. My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP. He has stated personal opinion and the unsited opinions of others. He has attacked me in a lame attempt to give credence to his words and he has presumed (Via circular reasoning) that he is right because his morals say so.


Finally, as per the rules my opponent IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE ANY NEW ARGUMENTS in the final round (if he does he automatically forfeits). He can defend the ones he has already introduced, which are none (unless he wants to defend personal opinion.) So this debate is a foregone conclusion and quite disappointing to be honest. Vote Pro.



ashwin.sharma921

Con

I would thank my opponent and as according to the rules of the debate, I would just like defend my title which has been attacked by my opponent. But this time I would rather prefer to make another way out. He clearly is in a state to wipe out his opponent but in the way leaves his matter presented in a very scattered manner. He argues the fact that the Japanese were innocent but here I can say no more but suggest reading and analysing the history of World War II which clearly states about the innocence of the Japanese. But in fact, I must say that even though my opponent has thoroughly rehearsed himself and exaggeratedly stressed on pin-pointing out my fallacies he has skipped the part where I mentioned the whole history of the World War which is probably the answer to all his questions that have been raised by him in Round III.

My opponent questions the fact that I have yet to raise the point of the innocence of Japanese. Don't my historical facts reveal how pitiably these Japanese were pestered about by the Americans even if they wanted to sub-due the states of China which was by principles out of the boundaries of USA? And so USA had no right to intervene upon the privacy of such matters which did not concern any of their business. And by a matter of fact, my opponent is obviously in a situation to to mock at the deaths which is already proved by his statements. It is not actually a bold assumption fallacy at all because my opponent has already criticized my emotional appeals thereby indirectly mocking at the deaths of various civilians unarmed, which is perhaps the answer to his another question. He tries to over-weigh, (as understood by his philosophies), logic in comparison to emotions. Isn't this mockery? Trying to repress the emotions evidently, by following the path of logic? And doesn't he know that howsoever the world may progress there's always a softer side for morality. Morality and empathy(a part of morality) form the basis of living and are necessary for guilt and remorse. And this is nothing additional added, this is just what can be clearly understood from what I have written till now. Ah, yes this connects me to another accusation made by my extraordinary opponent--if he can be called so-- he says there's basis I have yet to assign to morality. But isn't this the basis for morality that he requires? One more thing that strikes me about my opponent is that he is continuously pressing on the fact that's swayed by cold logic by mere facts. What the people require is not the facts alone but also morality. I should say that morality is certainly the more important aspect in life rather than factual depiction. And its the sole aim of this debate to have morality on one end and logic on to the other. The debate is actually a debate on morality and logic in the view of 'The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. And my opponent has certainly given no proof on why we should neglect morality and follow what's logical. My opponent this time is truly misconstrued as what can be understood from his statement--" The entire nature of this debate is for my opponent to accept the BOP and say that the bombing was not "right." He hasn't got into the depth of the matter and I would again say that he has not taken any notice of the series of events of World War II. Unfortunately he hasn't read between the lines. In contrast I would only say that though my whole history has gone vain I would still make an effort to imprint on my opponent's mind the bombing was not "right" just by asking a simple question--"Was it right to have wasted so much of human resource on the implementation of the plan and the implantation of the bomb just to make a simple assertion of 'saving the lives of many more'?
My opponent again makes use of his commanding language and tries to sway us with what's supposed to be a bouncer from right above our heads. He says that his opponent had foresighted his presumable answer and then contradicts it. But he should realize that what's the use of a debate where the opponent doesn't foresight his opponent's answers. The debate would then be as uninteresting as the boring lessons of geography and political studies.
He even emphasises on BOP. But I would ask when I cited my various sources (sayings of the American Church Council and the various scientists against the immoral behaviour of the U.S. army) were they not a part of the BOP's that clearly justified my topic and partly made clear accusations on to my opponents points. His statement "Just because my opinion claims something does not make it true." is clearly unjustified because I have listed many examples which support my topic against the dastardly tricks employed by the US. The only difference is that where my opponent has through a neglect, thrown over the whole of the link to you, there I have cut and pasted the necessary part that is to be taken in account for supporting my allegations. This becomes another reason to my opponent's statement--"Ah, and here we come to the part where my opponent cuts and pastes large amount of text in some misguided assumption that another person's personal opinion will make the debate."
As for the allies of USA, it is quite unfortunate that my opponent doesn't know that USSR entered into an alliance with U.K. which was in fact an alliance of USA. But in reality there was no such alliance of US and The USSR. It was just a matter of an indirect alliance though tensions were propagating between both the countries through cold war. So you see , there was absolutely no reason why US might not have attacked the USSR.
"Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two."
Well about this I can only say that mistakes are sometimes made by everyone, sometimes even by your history text books. So this was just a matter of mistake nothing else, but it clearly illustrated what I actually meant to say.
Finally, I have noticed that my opponent has also tried to introduce some additional information which is NOT PERMITTED according to the rules of the debate.
" He needed to realize that this was a time of war. I won't even delve into my prepared notes on the fact that 58% of allied casualties were civilian casualties and that the axis forces were strafing London and dismantling the civilians of the Soviet Union. I won't go on to say how only 4 percent of Axis casualties were civilian in opposition to 58 percent allied civilian casualties. I won't, because my opponent hasn't given me a need to raise a defense as he has mounted no offense. "
"And I certainly won't say that the act of killing 200,000 people saved nearly 3 million lives in projected casualties if the battle had continued. No, I don't need to because my opponent has raised no issues determining what is justified in war, what is a 'moral' what one 'ought' to do based in fact."
He has actually said that he won't go on to delve into his notes for the statistics and all that follows but he has humorously inculcated those thoughts though through his negativity.

Regarding Ad Hominem, I would just like to say that it added to a bit of spice in the debate and much more, satirized the importance of morality in a life. Life without morality is like a house without an infra-structure. So if a person's morals are correct he is sure to achieve success.

The end actually lies in the hands of the voters. So I would now like to leave the decision in the hands of my voters. Please vote for 'con'....
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
Con tried to debate a historical topic without any real knowledge of the history itself. Pro wins the arguments because con uses circular argumentation and emotional appeals in place of actual logic. Pro wins the conduct because of Con's repeated Ad Homonim attacks, sources because he actually brings up facts about the war in question, and Grammar because I could barely even read Con's Round I, and the rest of the rounds were extremely ill written. One of the few times seven points can be assigned without a VB, but it's justified here.

On the BoP, I personally think it should be shared where the Con must prove why it's not justified and Pro must prove why it is (which he did regardless through the saving of lives), but when you accept a debate you also accept all of the rules in that debate. If you had a problem you should have commented, then waited for a change before you accepted. You can't say "Oh, I think you're wrong, so I'm to accept the conditions and refuse them", that's like going in someone's house and not following his rules. It's just disrespectful and it's implied you follow them by entering the house.
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 5 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
But you can never mount your mistakes on to others. Its not that I accepted the debate because I had The BOP over my head, but just because I thought the debate would be quite likeable with such an awesome topic in which umpteen I could be heard and said and a lot can be conflicted among. But, you (my opponent) should agree to the fact that it was wrong to have levied BOP on to the cons side which would rather have been even more justifiable when the same BOP would have been taken up by the opposition. Good debate!!!
Posted by Axiom 5 years ago
Axiom
Either way, my opponent accepted BOP as per the rules. What should've been or could've been is a non issue.
Posted by ravenwaen 5 years ago
ravenwaen
Agree that Pro should have BOP here, but not just because you're Pro or because you're the instigator. You're the one making the positive claim. Con does not necessarily have to prove it was immoral, unjust, or illegal for it to be unjustified -- it could simply be lacking in justification without any negative things to account for. Or, both of you could have BOP if Con chooses to argue that it was unjustified *because* it was immoral, unjust, or illegal. Either way, Pro needs BOP. Sorry to quibble.

Good debate :) Will vote soon
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 5 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
But my dear you must remember that you are currently on a debating site and by no means can you prove a fact that may be both wrong or right. By the way if you favour both the sides then how can it be called a debate. And one more thing if a topic has both pros and cons, only then is that topic called a 'debatable topic'.
Posted by SoundJudgement 5 years ago
SoundJudgement
It's true the bombings were devastating and killed a lot of people but it also forced the Japanese to surrender immediately which saved thousands of solders from both sides and along with money used to fund the battles. Also other countries at the time including Germany were trying to develop the same type of weapon and it was bound to be used. If Japan hadn't attack the USA we would have never dropped the bombs nor would we have developed them and we would have entered WW2 much later seeing as we were at the time neutral. All of these need to be considered. I don't think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was either wrong or right because it was in the past and we have no way of telling what the outcome would have been otherwise. Life isn't always black and white especially when dealing with the past.
Posted by SoundJudgement 5 years ago
SoundJudgement
It's true the bombings were devastating and killed a lot of people but it also forced the Japanese to surrender immediately which saved thousands of solders from both sides and along with money used to fund the battles. Also other countries at the time including Germany were trying to develop the same type of weapon and it was bound to be used. If Japan hadn't attack the USA we would have never dropped the bombs nor would we have developed them and we would have entered WW2 much later seeing as we were at the time neutral. All of these need to be considered. I don't think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was either wrong or right because it was in the past and we have no way of telling what the outcome would have been otherwise. Life isn't always black and white especially when dealing with the past.
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 5 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
see here Axiom I am having some problem here so i am not able to answer you. i'll try to answer you this time.
Posted by Axiom 5 years ago
Axiom
Aswhin-sharm forfeited the debate last time. If you've accepted my debate to forfeit again I will report your account as a sham.
Posted by bbowhan 5 years ago
bbowhan
This looks like a good debate, and I will be happy to play devils advocate in the Con position, if someone else does not take it. I accept a shared BOP.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
Axiomashwin.sharma921Tied
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 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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by smash 5 years ago
smash
Axiomashwin.sharma921Tied
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: Cons arguments felt like a feeble attempt to employ pathos rather than reality. As pro pointed out, he resorted to several logical fallacies instead of presenting facts. Con honestly lacked a grasp for the historical circumstances of this event, and fo this Pro wins.