The Instigator
na13scisk
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Sk8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

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...
na13scisk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 54921
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

na13scisk

Pro

The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan because it limited the loss of lives. If the war would have continued, many Japanese and American troops would have died. The atomic bomb ensured that fewer American troops would loose their lives and fewer Japanese troops would also loose their lives. If they had continued fighting many more Japanese and Americans would have died because the Japanese were raised and taught the code of Bushido. This means that they would fight upon death. Therefore the Japanese had nothing to loose. All civilians were willing to die for their emperor. However, the Americans wanted to stay alive. If necessary, the Japanese from other parts of Japan were willing to join forces with the rest of Japan to attack Americans. They even did the daring Kamikaze attacks which were pretty much suicide bombings. Thus, it was a good thing that the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.

(1) http://apecsec.org...
(2) http://jsg558.tripod.com...
Sk8

Con

You mentioned that the atomic bomb should've been dropped on Japan because it limits the loss of lives. And then from there you mention how it stops the war and limits the lost of lives. And you say the bomb ensured that fewer people from both sides would die.

That's not necessarily true. You do realize that by dropping the bomb, it's the exact same thing compared to the Japanese fighting to death. It doesn't ensure that less people will die. It creates too many more deaths. Not everyone wanted to fight to death. There were people who where hiding and hoping that the war would be over soon. When the Americans dropped the bomb, those innocent lives were been taken away as well. How does that limit the amount of deaths??? How do you know all the civilians were willing to die for the emperor? You don't know all of them. You probably don't know any of them.

And technically, by dropping the bomb on Japan, it has created more problems than solutions. This bomb dropping has proved to people how powerful an atomic bomb can be and then from there, create the idea of using nuclear weapons in wars more often.

The atomic bomb didn't only hurt humans, it hurt the earth too. It destroyed plants & animals, as well as polluting the air and the water. The Americans only thought about stopping the humans. But they never realized that the impact didn't only hit the humans. It hit the lives of all those other living things in Japan.

Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan.... that was one of America's worst ideas ever.
Debate Round No. 1
na13scisk

Pro

All the civilians were raised to serve their emperor so it would be a childhood thing. For example if someone grew up with a stereotype, they would probably believe it unless there is an outside influence. Many people were raised being taught that the Japanese emperor was a son of god and he was to rule the world. If some people really wanted to hide they should have or could have gone into a neighboring country such as China where they weren't trying to take over the world. Even if all the plants and animals were also effected, only two major cities were bombed and the bombs were carefully thought out. For example they were dropped on the largest cities that were major threats where the civilians felt strongly about their cause. Therefore, the species have to have been located somewhere else and could have reproduced and spread into Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Americans had sent warnings on leaflets stating they had a dangerous weapon and if Japan wouldn't surrender they would use it. Since the Americans even warned the Japanese, they had no excuse to continue being stubborn and they should have surrendered so they were forewarned of future incidents.
Sk8

Con

So you say that all the civilians were raised to serve their emperor and that it was a childhood thing...mind giving me some evidence? Is there like a website that you got it from or something? I can't believe that statement unless you have some sort of proof. Also, you say many people in your third sentence. So technically, that's not everyone.

I did say before that some people might of been innocent and I'm sticking to that point. Even though you say that they were raised and taught that their emperor was god, that doesn't mean all of them listened. Have you heard of rebels? There's always at least one person who actually realizes the real problem. They're actually aware of what is going on around them.

And you say that the bombs were carefully thought out. So what if it was carefully planned out?! The bombing was an extremely risky move. If anything went wrong, the world could possibly be in catastrophe.

Just because they bombed two of the largest cities, that doesn't mean they didn't damage earth. Quite the opposite in fact. If they bombed such big cites, that means that they ruined a lot of land. That point supports me. Not you.

Okay, so the Americans sent warnings and leaflets, I'll give you that. But, there's a possibility the Japanese thought that the American were joking. They didn't believe it. And adding to their stubborn personality that you say they supposedly have, that made them even more persistent in believing that the Americans were bluffing. You also say that they trusted and believed in their king, so there is a possibility that the king was responsible for their stubbornness as well. They're both reasonable excuses to why they did not surrender.
Debate Round No. 2
na13scisk

Pro

na13scisk forfeited this round.
Sk8

Con

extended.
Debate Round No. 3
na13scisk

Pro

I'm Sorry I was very busy for the last round . But to continue my argument....

Although it is true that there may have been some rebels and some people may have been against Japan, they could have gone to a neighboring country. Not only this but the majority of the people agreed with the emperor. Therefore the small group of rebels wouldn't be able to make a difference. If they really wanted to make a difference they could have joined the U.S. Army or secretly have helped the United States. In addition, Japan was the country who had dragged The United States into World War 2. The United States was being neutral and simply stopped trading with Japan because they found Japan a threat to democracy. Other than that Japan did not have any reason to bring America into war. The bomb may not have been as strong as the atomic bombs dropped in but the way the Japanese planned it was. They dropped it on Pearl Harbor on a Sunday in the morning when many people were at church or were resting. This maximized the impact of the bomb on Pearl Harbor. In addition, the bomb was dropped near Christmas time which is one of the biggest holidays for Americans. The loss of many innocent lives and property was a really negative thing even though Christmas is supposed to be a happy time. Also as you stated that they may have taken the warnings as a joke, nothing is a joke when it comes to war. In war everything is to be taken seriously and any warning, threat, or plan could be crucial to winning or preventing further loss. If the Japanese didn't take it seriously, it was their loss. They may have damaged the earth but war damages the earth too. This is because the blood and dead bodies may impact some plants and/or animals negatively. Since they bombed the two biggest cities in Japan, they must have been advanced so they may have already been lacking a very diverse ecosystem. Thus, the atomic bomb should have been dropped.

The evidence you asked for:-
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sk8

Con

Sk8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sk8 2 years ago
Sk8
I apologize for the last round. I had a bad family emergency. :/
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
na13sciskSk8Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: check this: http://www.debate.org/debates/Use-of-Atomic-Bombs-to-End-WW2-Was-Necessary/1/ this is one of the best atomic bomb debates I've read. The pro side for this debate always uses the same incredibly flawed logic, which only exists because of biased American school teachings. However, most con arguments are ill-informed and needlessly weak. It is impossible to choose a winner.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
na13sciskSk8Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters need to work on warrants and depth of their arguments, everything is pretty superficial here. What I get from Pro is that the Japanese would have been willing to fight to the last. The only response to this I get is that some won't fight, but I get enough evidence to believe that a majority of the population would have, which is far larger than the amount lost from the atomic bomb. Con tries to compete with this impact, and fails to present anything similarly impactful. Killing innocents is a problem, but it's a far smaller amount of people. The further usage of nuclear weapons was never impacted at all, since nuclear weapons haven't since been used. Damage to the earth, animals and plants is interesting, but never compared to damage to humans, and I give more weight to the latter since that was the basis of discussion. While I don't buy much of Pro's arguments based on what I know, Con just doesn't give the responses he has to. I vote Pro.