The Instigator
XStrikeX
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
tvellalott
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

The United States of America should never have bombed 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 10 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,558 times Debate No: 12508
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (10)

 

XStrikeX

Pro

Hello, my name is XStrikeX and I am representing the proposition for this debate, stating that, "The United States should never have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

For those of you who don't what the bombings were about, here is an introduction.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II against Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. The nuclear weapon, "Little Boy," was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the majority of the dead were civilians.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II.

Now, let's begin the debate.

Bombing these cities was not morally correct.
The bombs and the following radiation killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mostly civilians who had little to no effect in the war. Due to the radiation, people developed strange skin malformations and received various kinds of cancer. To quote Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, DC, "[Truman] knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity." It was unnecessary to bomb them in order for their surrender and the cities were not even legitimate military targets, which leads into my next two points.

Bombing Japan was not necessary for them to surrender.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey found that the bombing was unnecessary. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
"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."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. - 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.

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. - 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.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets.
Supporters of the bombings argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced warships, military equipment, had an assembly area for military troops, and had military factories. What they do not realize is that civilians outnumbered the troops six to one. Many innocent people were killed in the bombings, people who had no significant involvement in the war. The Americans chose the wrong area - the area that had lots of innocent civilians. Either they missed the target, or they were so merciless that they wanted to kill civilians instead of military personnel in order to make the Emperor stunned. Truman knew this as well but, without any sense of humanity, decided to carry out the plan.

The bombings started the Cold War.
"The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add." "Hiroshima Bomb may have Carried Hidden Agenda."
NewScientist.com
Dr. James Franck and his fellow scientists who worked on the bomb agreed that it was, "...indiscriminate discrimination..." Report to the Interim Committee. May 1945

Lastly, the bombings were not consistent with international law.
The tragedy could be considered terrorism on innocent citizens and a crime against human ethics.
Historical accounts indicate that the decision to use the atomic bombs was made in order to provoke an early surrender of Japan by use of an awe-inspiring power. These observations have caused some commentators to state that the incident was an act of "war terrorism". Michael Walzer wrote, "... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."
In 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."
In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 and was therefore illegal.

These are my arguments and I look forward to a future round if there is an opponent willing to accept my debate.
tvellalott

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for what I think will be an interesting and difficult debate.
I will not make any rebuttals in my first round, but instead pose arguments for why American indeed made a decisive move in dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one we can see ended the war.

---
================
Warrior Psychology: A Brief History of the "Empire of Japan" and the lead up to the signing of the Tripartite pact
================

Samurai: The warrior class of Japan. For a thousand years, the warrior classed men wore two swords on their hips and dedicated their lives to the services of their masters; the greatest glory was death in your master's name.
In 1854, after two centuries of 'closed' gates, the Japanese people were forced to open their gates to the British and American traders. [1]
In 1871, Japan dispatched the Iwakura mission [2] to learn about Western culture and negotiate the unfair treaties that they have been forced into.
In 1889, Imperial Japan was founded, with the signing of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. The Samurai were outlawed.
In 1905, Japan utterly defeated Russia in the Battle of Tsushima. [3] This lead to the invasion and annex of Korea in 1910, which became part of the Japanese Empire until the end of WW2.
Japans actions during WW1 show their military prowess even with their lack of natural resources.
In 1919, [direct quote from Wikipedia] "proposed a clause on racial equality to be included in the League of Nations covenant at the Paris Peace Conference." This was a huge insult to the Japanese people, who in just 80 years had grown to be a major world power.
By 1931 were practically locked on the path to a huge conflict. Sadao Araki [4] led the way with his military expansionism ideals.
In the lead up to 1941 Japan conquered significant portions of Asia, including Manchuria, Jehol and Mongolia, eventually invading China and installing a puppet regime. They clashed with Russia and committed several atrocities in Asia, particularly the Nanking massacre, where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered and raped.

What I am trying to establish here is nearly one hundred years of insult from the West toward what could be argued is the proudest race on Earth. THE warrior race. Not only that, but they had continually proved how strong and utterly ruthless the Imperial Japanese Army could be.
Summary: The Allies had good reason to respect and fear the Japanese people. Japan had good reason to hate the Allies.

==============
Japan would NEVER had given up otherwise.
==============
My opponents has stated that a survey taken AFTER the bombings shows that the Japanese public were ready to surrender anyway. I believe this is both false and more importantly irrelevant. Here's why:
Although Japan lost any chance of defeating America and controlling the Pacific after the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway [6] & [7]. They did not give up.
By late November of 1944 Japan had lost almost all of its shipping routes and it could no longer supply the Army. They did not give up.
America successfully took charge of airfields in neighbouring countries and proceeded to obliterate Japan with incendiary bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Japan were faced with an ultimatum: Surrender or die. Still they did not give up.

===========
The alternative: Invasion of the homeland. A much worse outcome for everyone.
===========
I have shown with Historical evidence than Japan had at least 1000 years of warrior spirit and 100 years of insult from the West resulting in what can only be described as utter hatred.
I have shown that the United States did not just drop nuclear bombs on Japan lightly and offered Japan alternatives.
Now, let's discuss their options.
1) Drop nuclear bombs on Japan
2) Continue to bomb Japan with incendiary bombs, which was already killing hundreds of thousands of people
3) Invade Mainland Japan
4) Give up
5) Come to an agreement of Peace

We can see that in fact the best military move was indeed to drop nuclear bombs on Japan.
2) Was already proving ineffective.
3) Would have cost more lives ten fold.
4&5) Were not really an option.
I challenge my opponent to provide any other realistic alternative which would have resulted in less death than the one chosen. We have the power to look at the last 65 years since WWII and see that America made the right choice, both at the time and in retrospect.

CONCLUSION:
What is moral in war? Is it not taking the path that results in the least death? Is there any military faction involved in any war who does not commit some act of murderous destruction they 'shouldn't' have done.

Thank you.

RESOURCES
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://pows-of-japan.net...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
XStrikeX

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and his willingness to take up this debate. I'm absolutely positive that this will be a fun and engaged debate.

I apologize for not posting my sources last round. These are the sources I will be using for this round and the ones I used for the last one.

Sources

1. http://www.newscientist.com...
2. http://www.commondreams.org...
3. http://www.atomicarchive.com...
4. "Shattering the Myth of the Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have to happen THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB," By Guy Alperovitz
5. http://www.doug-long.com...
6. http://www.greenwych.ca...

Let's start debating.

Refutations

My opponent has stated that Japan would never have surrendered if the bombs were dropped. He stated that my surveys were false, irrelevant, and taken after the bombings. General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir, 'The White House Years,' BEFORE the bombing, "I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." The general of the United States who knew all about the war and about Japan's situation and even he proves that the Japanese had no intent of fighting anymore.

I must also stress the fact that even if the bombing was the cause of Japan's surrender, the bombs needed to be released in a much more logical place. The bomb killed many, numerous innocent civilians. If the bombs truly were necessary, wouldn't it be much more ideal to use it in an area where there were few civilians and more military-related soldiers, manufacturers, and buildings?

My opponent has also found the need to list 5 options for the United States to do against Japan.
The first listed option was to use nuclear bombs.
Second: use incendiary bombs
Third: invade Japan's mainland
Fourth: give up
And Fifth: come to an agreement of peace

"We can see that in fact the best military move was indeed to drop nuclear bombs on Japan."
He never proved why besides this assertion and if his previous argument was meant to be the reasoning, I have already refuted it.
He believed that "giving up" or "coming to peace" were not really options. If they were not really options, why did you list them? And how is peace not an option? Wouldn't peace have been the most logical and smartest option? All the deaths and casualties would be eliminated. The realistic alternative I provide is peace. Of all options, dropping the bomb was the worst due to all the deaths. This bomb kick-started the Cold War, as I previously showed, and did not that result in many deaths? I apologize for asking so many questions, but I urge the audience to examine this closely, for this is extremely important.

My arguments still stand for my opponent has strangely decided not to refute them and I urge him to do so, so that this debate can become more exciting.

Think of this. Who was the first nation to use the nuclear weapon? Who was the only nation to use the nuclear weapon so far in history? Who chose to kill thousands of innocent civilians? All of this was caused by us, the United States.

I look forward to the response.
tvellalott

Con

As always, thank you to my opponent for his lightning fast response. I'm sorry I've taken two days to do mine.

REBUTTALS:
In round one, my opponent forwarded the following arguments:
-Bombing these cities was not morally correct.
-Bombing Japan was not necessary for them to surrender.
-Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets.
-The bombings started the Cold War.
-the bombings were not consistent with international law

In round two, he made the following rebuttals:
-The general of the United States (Dwight D. Eisenhower) who knew all about the war and about Japan's situation and even he proves that the Japanese had no intent of fighting anymore.
-I must also stress the fact that even if the bombing was the cause of Japan's surrender, the bombs needed to be released in a much more logical place. The bomb killed many, numerous innocent civilians. If the bombs truly were necessary, wouldn't it be much more ideal to use it in an area where there were few civilians and more military-related soldiers, manufacturers, and buildings?
-The realistic alternative I provide is peace.

Let me readdress the main argument I've posed:
They were faced with two only options, neither of them were Peace:
Implement "Operation Downfall", the planned ground assault of Japans island Kyushu
OR
Drop the nuclear bombs on Japan.

Japan were not going to surrender. We know now that the Japanese Imperial Army High Command were planning "Operation Ketsu-Go" [1], an all-out defense of Kyushu.
On July 26, 1945, the Allies released the terms of surrender [2] and after a meeting by Japanese military and government, they were rejected with contempt.
Only the combined effects of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan and the bombing of Nagasaki were enough to push the Japanese military into conceding defeat.
We cannot argue that it worked. We have the ability to look back in retrospect.
Although we know now that around 200,000 Japanese men and women died by 1950 as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and 100,000 in Nagasaki, I unfortunately must compare this with the alternative I have purposed, that of a ground invasion of Japan.

We have a number of estimations for the number of casualties we would have seen if America had had to proceed with Operation Downfall [3], with numbers ranging from one to several million dead. Clearly the ground invasion would have killed and injured at least triple those that were killed by the Atomic bombs.
My opponent states: The bombings were not moral correct.
What is 'moral' correct in war? The answer is the decision which ends the war fastest and costs fewest lives.

The next point I will address is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets. A little bit of research would have shown my opponent that this is completely untrue.
Hiroshima[4] was a significant industrial and military city. It also had been completely untouched by incendiary bombings, meaning it's destruction by Atomic weapon caused the maximum psychological effect on the otherwise unmovable military leaders.
Nagasaki[5] was even more industrially significant, with wide-ranging amounts of industrial construction. The bombing of a second city so soon after the first ensured Japan that America had a large supply of atomic weapons and clearly wasn't afraid to use them.
Again, I conclude that only with the actions America took, can we be sure Japan would have surrendered, because we can see that they did indeed surrender.

My opponent also proposes that the bombings were not consistent with international law. The evidence he cites is indeed very strong. I ask why no-one has even been held legally responsible, if indeed international law was broken.
I will also add that the war ending led to the formation of the United Nations, which has been a strong force in preventing the further use of Nuclear Weapons.

I think the fact that America dropped Atomic bombs is not the only factor involved in the Cold War and is irrelevant to this argument regardless. At the time, Russia and America were Allies. While we can certainly look back in retrospect and conclude this, the American Government and Military certainly couldn't look forward and predict the future.

Finally, these quotes: "He believed that "giving up" or "coming to peace" were not really options. If they were not really options, why did you list them?". I was giving them hypothetically. Clearly Japan were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. "Wouldn't peace have been the most logical and smartest option?" Yes. If it had been an option, which it clearly wasn't. "Of all options, dropping the bomb was the worst due to all the deaths..." As I have shown, the only other option America were considering was invading Japan, which would have resulted in 3 to 10 times as many deaths.

CONCLUSION: Many people will argue that bombing Japan was wrong and I do no conflicts with this statement. Nothing that happens during war IS right. I am saying that by August of 1945, America didn't have any better option than the one they chose.
Remember people, we have the power of retrospect. We can see that it ended the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind. Of course we can ponder about 'What If', but ultimately I stand by my original contention: America made a decisive, winning military decision in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thank you.

RESOURCES:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
XStrikeX

Pro

Thank you for your response. Even though it did take two days, it is well-composed and thought out.

Rebuttals

Before I begin, I would just like to extremely stress the option of "peace." My opponent has never clearly refuted why it was not and option and stated, confusingly, that it was a hypothetical option, which did not prove why he posed it in the first place. He stated that moral in war was to end the war with the fewest deaths. I don't believe that ending it the fastest is truly that moral. Anyway, he stated that the bombs were the best option for his definition of moral, compared to a mainland assault on Japan. True, but once again, peace outruns both of these options. Peace stops the war completely, and quickly to your definition, and there would no longer be casualties or deaths.

"We know now that the Japanese Imperial Army High Command were planning "Operation Ketsu-Go" [1], an all-out defense of Kyushu."
Then why didn't we drop the bombs on Kyushu? It seems like it makes complete sense to bomb a true militaristic island rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had many more civilians.

"On July 26, 1945, the Allies released the terms of surrender [2] and after a meeting by Japanese military and government, they were rejected with contempt."
Possibly, however, 3 days before the Hiroshima bombing, on August 3rd, after the Japanese denial of peace, Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"We cannot argue that it worked. We have the ability to look back in retrospect." Isn't that only because none of our troops died from the bombings? When the Japanese look back in retrospect, don't they remember a country that killed many of their citizens, family members, and friends?

"Only the combined effects of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan and the bombing of Nagasaki were enough to push the Japanese military into conceding defeat." I challenge this and say that the Soviet Union was the reason Japan gave up. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945. So you see, it was clearly unimportant to bomb them, as they were already beaten by the Soviets.

"The next point I will address is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets. A little bit of research would have shown my opponent that this is completely untrue." My opponent then goes on to show his information on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A little bit of reading would have shown my opponent that I did not previously say that they didn't have any militaristic business whatsoever, but instead, that civilians who had not take in the war were murdered by the thousands. If you read back, you can see my argument for this point. A more valid military target would have been Kyushu, which my opponent even said was to have an all-out defense.

"My opponent also proposes that the bombings were not consistent with international law. The evidence he cites is indeed very strong. I ask why no-one has even been held legally responsible, if indeed international law was broken."
Actually, if my opponent did read back to the first round, in 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. We were held legally responsible.

"I will also add that the war ending led to the formation of the United Nations, which has been a strong force in preventing the further use of Nuclear Weapons." There has never truly been a need to use atomic bombs and the UN certainly hasn't stopped North Korea from threatening people with theirs. Also, the UN hardly does anything at all and anything it does do is irrelevant to peace. And you can clearly see that they failed in preventing the War in Iraq and Iran.

"I think the fact that America dropped Atomic bombs is not the only factor involved in the Cold War and is irrelevant to this argument regardless." I think it is completely relevant because it was and important cause and effect in the bombings. The bombs arguably were also used to show that we had such massive destruction and to impress the Soviet Union.

Before I conclude, I'd like to point out that strangely, most, except for one, of my opponent's evidence comes from Wikipedia, which you or I can post on any day.

Conclusion: My main argument in this debate is that peace, which has never been clearly refuted, was the best option in the war. Japan pended for it before the bomb was dropped and the US decided to ignore it. America did not make a decisive, winning military decision at all in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one they chose was one of the worst and should never have been carried out.

I'd like to thank my opponent for an excellent, exciting debate and wish him luck in his future endeavors.

Sources:
1. http://answers.yahoo.com...
2. http://wiki.answers.com...
3. http://history1900s.about.com...
4. http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com...
5. http://www.vce.com...
tvellalott

Con

Good luck to my opponent in the voting period. He has debated very well. I like Wikipedia, by the way.

=============
The option of Peace:
=============
"Before I begin, I would just like to extremely stress the option of "peace." My opponent has never clearly refuted why it was not and option and stated, confusingly, that it was a hypothetical option, which did not prove why he posed it in the first place. He stated that moral in war was to end the war with the fewest deaths. I don't believe that ending it the fastest is truly that moral. Anyway, he stated that the bombs were the best option for his definition of moral, compared to a mainland assault on Japan. True, but once again, peace outruns both of these options. Peace stops the war completely, and quickly to your definition, and there would no longer be casualties or deaths."

Though my opponent pointed out that Peace would have been the best option, he could not provide any evidence to show that it was in fact an option. I believe this is because it wasn't at all an option. I only listed it in round one so that I could then state that it wasn't one, the same as 'giving up'.
The grounds for surrender were given to the Japanese leaders, despite their resources being cut off; despite the fact they were faced with complete destruction and they were rejected.
America did NOT just randomly drop bombs on Japan. It was the next logical step in the 1945 campaign.
I conclude that because Japan & America could not reach an agreement that satisfied them both, peace was not an option.
Because my opponent agrees with my that the atomic attacks were better than a mainland assault, I will not stress that argument any more.

"...why didn't we drop the bombs on Kyushu? It seems like it makes complete sense to bomb a true militaristic island rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had many more civilians."

I can really only speculate. I imagine that the United States could not be sure that the Atomic explosions were going to make Japan surrender, so blowing up the area where they still planned on assaulting if all else failed wouldn't have made much tactical sense. The fallout would have made their own soldiers ill.

"...I challenge this and say that the Soviet Union was the reason Japan gave up. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945. So you see, it was clearly unimportant to bomb them, as they were already beaten by the Soviets."

This is only a theory. We cannot be sure of anything that didn't happen, because it didn't happen. All we can be sure of is the sequence of events that have led us to today. This includes the atomic blasts.

CONCLUSION: My opponent purposes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki should never have been bombed and bases his argument on the moral issues at hand. Apparently these two countries, who had been fighting each other tooth and nail for the previous 4 years should have set aside their differences and agreed to disagree.
I don't believe it is as simple a matter as that. I don't like the fact that the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, but I believe that at the time it was the better of their two remaining options. After Japan refused their offer of surrender, America were reviewing two options. The option they chose resulting in the war ending with minimal casualties to their own forces.
My opponent says that the bombing of Japan caused the Cold War. He can hardly know that it wouldn't have been a lot worse if events had been different.
Yes, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible thing, but what in war ISN'T horrible?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
You too.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
Good debate xstrike.
Posted by vivalayeo 7 years ago
vivalayeo
On the note about the cold war.

Well to be honest. If it were not for the threat of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' the cold war, would have been a very hot war indeed. What was to stop the two super power's of the world flexing they're muscle's?
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
I don't think America should have dropped bombs on Japan, but I hardly could have said that in the debate. I do think it was a better option then a ground invasion though...
Posted by Intralyze 7 years ago
Intralyze
I'm wondering, tvellalott, why you don't believe in the point you're arguing for. I haven't gone through everything in the debate but your argument sounds more convincing to me.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Good debate guys, and an interesting topic. I ended up voting Pro for sources and Con for arguments, with everything else neutral. Pro was right, Wiki's not the most reputable (but usually still reliable) source. Next time Con, click the links on the bottom of the Wiki page to get reliable stuff.

The way I saw the final arguments played out was like this.
Pro - Russia's attack ended the war.
-Peace was an option
-Generals said not to use the bomb
-International law was broken
Con - Morally right means the fastest end to the war and least loss of lives
-Peace was not an option

I give Con's "peace not option" credit; the Japanese generals did refuse a proposed surrender. The Pro's "Generals' opinions" and "international law" arguments are quite interesting, and good as ethos arguments; but I feel as if the Con's "morality" argument (which should have been highlighted, it's like the Con's strongest tool remaining) means that even if certain professional opinions were against it, the bomb was logically justified. Morality has a bit more of a logical edge and outweighs. The one thing left over which could screw the Con's case is that Russia's actions ended the war, bc that would make the bomb's good effects null (great work bringing up Russia, by the way. Russian conquest of China and Japan would have been an interesting subject to have discussed). However, (and I know I'm being liberal with the Con's words here, sorry Pro), the Con says that this is all "retrospect" and "theory", which means that at the time, the US wouldn't have known the bomb was unnecessary; therefore, it was still morally justified to stop the war with the bomb.

Good round, I wish there were more like it on DDO.
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
remind me not to challenge yall XD
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
I was arguing a point which I didn't believe. I didn't do as good a job as I would have liked. :/
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
Fascinating debate.
Posted by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
I sorta like how you mentioned the United Nations part and that they have been very effective in preventing nuclear weapon use, but in your profile, you're against the UN.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by arethusa668 7 years ago
arethusa668
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Mr.Gompers 7 years ago
Mr.Gompers
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Batmon 7 years ago
Batmon
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 7 years ago
Dingo7
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by DavidPaladin 7 years ago
DavidPaladin
XStrikeXtvellalottTied
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:52