The Instigator
Calvincambridge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,919 times Debate No: 22800
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Calvincambridge

Pro

The bombings at pearl harbor- the attacks made on pearl harbor by the Japanese
justified-had a legitimate reason to do so.
Zaradi

Con

Okay. I would love to see your reasons for a) why Pearl Harbor was justified, and b) how you plan on offending half of America.

Besides that, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Calvincambridge

Pro

The Japanese were left with no choice
If they had no choice it was justified
therefore pearl harbor was justified

The Japanese were left with no choice.

The Americans were being very belligerent towards Japan. First was the oil embargo. Te Americans striped the Japanese of almost everything. they were left with nothing. They had he idea that it might make the Americans change their ways. FDR already declared war on the Japanese. The west were being hypocrites by being shocked at their own behavior.

http://www.theamericancause.org...
Zaradi

Con

I will note that my opponent has the BOP.

Let's rebut my opponent's really bad argument.

My opponent's only argument was that the Japanese were out of options because of the embargo on oil. This is false. Even with the embargo, the Japanese still had the oil to operate their war machine for two years(1), which would've been plenty of time for the Japanese to attack, acquire, and fortify the oilfields that the US owned in the Philipines(1). This would've given the Japanese with the oil they need to continue their conquest of Indo-China(1).

Also, I'd love to see where she found that FDR had declared war on Japan before Pearl Harbor, since it wasn't in her source.

Moreover, the Japanese did not do what they did in hope that the US would lift the embargo. The Japanese planned Pearl Harbor as a pre-emotive strike against the US so that the Japanese could better control the Pacific(1) so that their push into China would go uninterrupted.

With her scant paragraph refuted, I shall move to an argument of my own that will probably be a talking point in this debate.

The oil embargo against Japan was a justified measure to stop the Japanese's brutal push into China. The oil we were sending to Japan was fueling the same machine that was butchering hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. Specific instances of this was like the Rape of Nanking(2), where officers had competitions on how many people they could decapitate with a sword(2) and a total of 250,000 to 300,000 civilians were murdered(2). Without oil, they would eventually have to stop operations there, thus sparing lives. This impacts te debate because my opponent is trying to claim that because of the American embargo on oil to japan, the Japanese were justified in bombing us. But this is false because the embargo was justified to stop Japanese war crimes.

So the debate breaks down really simply. My opponent has the burden of proof to show why the bombing of pearl harbor was justified. This isn't being done at all. So you vote con.

Sources:
(1) - http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(2) - http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Calvincambridge

Pro

First of all i am not a she i demand a apology, second of all this may have been true but the Japanese may of only had enough for war machines. the US was being belligerent towards Japan while it wasn't their place. it said in the source that embargo meant war. It is really none of our business what Japan does to China or any other nation.
Zaradi

Con

"First of all i am not a she i demand a apology,"

I'm sorry? Your icon kind of looks like a girl...
Just saying.

"second of all this may have been true but the Japanese may of only had enough for war machines."

Exactly my point. Without oil for their war machine in China, they would've had to stop killing innocent civilians.

"the US was being belligerent towards Japan while it wasn't their place."

1. How were they being belligerent?
2. How is it not our place to assist an ally? China was our ally (they had yet to turn Communist at this point, and we were still friends with them), thus giving us an obligation to assist them.
3. Even if we weren't allies, how is it not our place to try to save lives that would otherwise end?

"it said in the source that embargo meant war."

1. What source?
2. The embargo wasn't an act of war. The embargo was the US's action to attempt to force the Japanese to stop advancing into China, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians along the way. It was an attempt to PREVENT and STOP war, not start it. Bombing Pearl Harbor, however, WAS an act of war, and was what caused us to enter the war in the first place.

"It is really none of our business what Japan does to China or any other nation."

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just ignorant. Refer to points two and three above, as this argument is basically the same as the one when he said "it wasn't their place."

My opponent's third round, line for line, has been refuted. My arguments can clearly be extended. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not justified in any way.
Debate Round No. 3
Calvincambridge

Pro

1. by taking action against Japan when it wasn't their place
2.it is not our place because of the neutrality policy the real basis of foreign policy not the Monroe doctrine.
3.same as 2
Zaradi

Con

-.- I was hoping for an actually good debate, but I guess I'm out of luck.
Oh, and feel free to deduct conduct for saying that. I could care less at this point.

His first point relies entirely on his second point being true, since if I prove it was our place to assist then by his arguments, we weren't being belligerant.

So, his argument is that it wasn't our place to do anything because of the neutrality policy, and not following the Monroe Doctrine.

1. Placing the embargo was within the neutrality policy, as an embargo is not an act of war. Thus, we were still within our neutral bounds.
2. You don't respond at all to the fact that since China is our ally, we become obligated to assist and protec them when they are in need. Both of these reasons show why it was our place.
3. I'm sorry, but what the heck does the Monroe Doctrine have to do with anything involving Japan? What the Monroe Doctrine is about is the US threatening military action back in the 1800's against Eastern powers who were looking to colonize South America and Cuba. This literally has nothing to do with Japan.

Since I'm proving it was our place to assist China, it proves that the Embargo on oil was justified, thus making the bombing of Pearl Harbor not justified.
Debate Round No. 4
Calvincambridge

Pro

We are not supposed to have allies.

"As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war"
This is what i meant.
2. Netrual we weren't supposed to have allies.
3. the Monroe doctrine does say that but it seems as if America began to expand the idea to concern all the world.

It was not is not and ever will be our place to assist anyone and get us into more trouble than it was worth.
Zaradi

Con

"As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war"

He misreads the text. This means that if we do the embargo, the Japanese will probably attack us, which means we will be in war. This does not mean, however, that it is an act of war. Thus, we can still do it even if we're a neutral country.

"Neutral we weren't supposed to have allies."

Misinterprets what it means to be neutral. Neutral meaning that we don't enter into a war for any side. This doesn't mean we can't have allies.

"but it seems as if America began to expand the idea to concern all the world."

1. That doesn't make it the Monroe Doctrine. That just makes it an American ideology.
2. Even if we were, this would only justify us actually doing what we could to help China. So this is another reason why the embargo was justified.

It was justified for us to go and help China. This makes the embargo justified, and Japan's bombing unjustified. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'" A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

Obvious anti-gov bias, which would in turn make him view the decision to cut japan off in a bad light. But I'll go more in depth in my argument.
Posted by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
How is the article biased towards Japan?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
The bias in that article is practically palpable.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
CalvincambridgeZaradiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: my brain took a poopy reading the pro's.... arguments?
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
CalvincambridgeZaradiTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: What the hell did I just read? Pro has a win percentage of 6%, and this debate solidifies the reason why. Con eviscerated Pro's weak arguments.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
CalvincambridgeZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wiped the floor with Pro
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
CalvincambridgeZaradiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: BAD "DEBATE" (if you can call it that) Pro's horrible arguments were thoroughly destroyed by Con.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
CalvincambridgeZaradiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It was kind of self-explanatory. PRO's arguments were weak and refuted.