The Instigator
Revolution
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most viable option to end WWII.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,601 times Debate No: 8628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

Revolution

Pro

The burden of proof rests on my shoulders. I will have to prove a more viable option to end WWII.
Viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding (http://www.merriamwebster.com......)

Please only accept the definition in the first round. After the first round, the definitions are absolute. Comment (in the comments section, before you accept) if you do not agree with the definition.
Xer

Con

I accept.

The new definition is the first comment in the "Comments" section. My opponent has accepted the definition, so the definition my opponent has provided in the first round will not be used. My definition in the "Comments" section will be used.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Revolution

Pro

I verify what my opponent has stated. The new definition is:
viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......

By this definition, the most viable option to end WWII was to surrender to the Japanese. It fits the definition of viable. In fact, it was certain to succeed. The Japanese wanted to rule Asia, so if Asia was what they got, the war would end.

That's all for this round. I await my opponent's response.
Xer

Con

"By this definition, the most viable option to end WWII was to surrender to the Japanese. It fits the definition of viable. In fact, it was certain to succeed. The Japanese wanted to rule Asia, so if Asia was what they got, the war would end."

-This is not a viable option. This option is not "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are." To end the War, the U.S. had to win the war. Why would the U.S. spend all the time, men, money, and resources fighting Japan only to call to say the Japanese had won? This is not a practical, viable option.

-The Japanese would have no chance at all of taking Asia. If the US had just surrendered to Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have became much more involved in the war. They already had conquered Manchuria. And if the Soviet Union had joined in on the war against Japan, they would have won the war, and had a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." (1) The use of the atomic bomb against Japan also showed the strength of the U.S. to the world, and especially the Soviet Union. (2)

My argument is quite simple. The atomic bombings against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable way to end WWII in Japan because of the quick surrender and the fact that no American lives were lost.

To my opponent--- remember the definition of viable:
-viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are

It was not viable for the U.S. to surrender to Japan.

---Sources---
(1) http://www.trumanlibrary.org...
(2) http://worldwariihistory.info...
Debate Round No. 2
Revolution

Pro

I will refute my opponent's arguments one by one, beginning at the top.

1. Where is it written that victory is the only way to end a war? Surrendering ends a war! In addition, nobody ever said anything about "why". The definition of viable warrants nothing about why. By the way, no time nor country was stated. The time for my surrender is in 1940, before the US even enters the war. No country was specified, so the viewpoint naturally tends toward that of the axis' enemy, the allies as a whole. The passage would read "Why would the allies...".

2. Once again, nobody said anything about our viewpoint. See earlier passage. If the allies as a whole surrendered (see earlier), the Russians would be included in this surrender. The rest of this passage is redundant, as the definition of viable only pertains toward whether or not something can be done. I will only respond to the passage "Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." I think 23,100,000 deaths is participation. (1)

3. If the ALLIES surrendered to the axis powers, less allied lives would be lost (the surrender in effect as of the day after the war), and ending the war was even simpler and quicker.

4. A simple recap: the definition of viable only pertains to whether or not a plan is executable. The objective is to end the war, not to win it. Thus, surrender ends WWII more viably than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Xer

Con

1) My opponent says his 'idea' is for the Allied powers to surrender to the Axis powers in 1940.
2) This plan would not work because the Axis powers would not accept surrender. Their goal was to basically, rule the world. And if the Allied powers surrendered, they would not be able to accomplish this goal. Thus, making the plan not viable.
3) Since the plan of surrendering is not viable, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable option to ending WWII.

Resolution negated.

---Also, a rebuttal.---
""I will only respond to the passage "Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." I think 23,100,000 deaths is participation."
-The Russians did not participate in the war against the Japanese. They fought in Europe and in their own country, but they did not fight against Japan. This is what Truman is talking about when he says the Russians had not participated.
Debate Round No. 3
Revolution

Pro

1, 2, & 3. The Axis powers did indeed want to rule the world. If the allies (the rest of the world) surrendered to them, they would rule the world.

Resolution affirmed.

4. I concede this point.

I thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate. It behooves you to vote PRO.
Xer

Con

"1, 2, & 3. The Axis powers did indeed want to rule the world. If the allies (the rest of the world) surrendered to them, they would rule the world."
1) You stated allies as "rest of the world." This is not true. The rest of the world besides the Axis powers, were not all Allies.
2) You stated the U.S. would not have been involved in WWII at the time of surrender (1940), so the U.S. could not surrender, as they are not in the war. And since the U.S. can't surrender, that means that the Axis powers can not rule the world, thus making the plan not viable for the Axis.
3) Also, surrendering is not viable for the Allies. There is no benefit to them in surrendering, thus making the plan not viable for them either.

"Resolution affirmed."
-Nope. Resolution is negated because I have proved that the plan of surrendering is not viable for the Allies or the Axis powers. I have also proved that the atomic bombings against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most viable way to end WWII, without my opponent attempting to refute this.

"4. I concede this point."
-Good... another point for me.

"I thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate."
-I thank you as well, it had indeed been enjoyable.

"It behooves you to vote PRO."
-How is it to the voter's use, advantage, or benefit to vote for either of us? Regardless, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
The Axis wanted to rule Asia and Europe. Thus, I have the more viable plan.
Posted by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
With the definition of viable that is given, there is no way to evaluate whether or not something is more or less viable. It either is or it is not. So neither side was really able to prove their point, but because Pro has the burden of proof and failed to meet it, I am forced to default Con.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
No... I understand it perfectly.

You are the one who believes "viable" means "easy".
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Nags still does not understand his own definition of "viable." He thinks it means "beneficial" or "wise."
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Nags performed an expert massacre."
-Thank you.

"Luginaga."
-I assume that's good...?
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Nags performed an expert massacre.
Luginaga.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
I did so just now before reviewing your comment.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Wow, I should've at least posted the definition in my post. Whatever.

Revolution--- just post my definition in the 2nd round so the voters are sure of the definition.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
I accept this definition
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I do not agree with the definition. My definition is:

viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
RevolutionXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
RevolutionXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
RevolutionXerTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
RevolutionXerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
RevolutionXerTied
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 Conor 7 years ago
Conor
RevolutionXerTied
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:16