The Instigator
mil
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Bob_Manbook
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do

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 1 vote the winner is...
mil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 66482
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

mil

Pro

First round: acceptance
Second round: present argument
Third round: rebuttals
Fourth round: response to rebuttals
Fifth round: final thoughts and conclusion

I will be supporting the dropping of the atomic bombs over Japan in WWII and my opponent will be opposing it.

Have sources ready but they are not necessary unless the other person questions your facts.
Bob_Manbook

Con

Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed. There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore. People who hadn't been in this world for long. Killed. People who were pacifists. Killed. People who didn't support the Nazis. Killed. Many innocent people were killed. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
mil

Pro

You obviously did not read the rules, first round is acceptance. Because of this, I'll just post my first argument as if you just accepted, then you can just submit nothing or copy and paste your round 1 post for your round 2 post. I repeat, in this round, do not post your rebuttal, just repost your first one or submit an empty argument.

The dropping of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives. If we did not drop them, we would of have to have waged another year and a half of war. This would of caused countless more lives lost. There was very little we could do. We tried fire bombing Tokyo which killed 50,000. We didn't want to go through Japan burning everyone alive so we found a better solution. Prior to dropping the first bomb, the US army air corp dropped over 5 MILLION leaflets urging people to leave Hiroshima as we were going to an atomic bomb. It said that we did not want to hurt civilians and wanted only to destroy military areas and force Japan to surrender. Most people did not leave and the bomb was dropped. After this, the US did not immediately drop a second bomb. Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight in the pacific. We dropped more leaflets over Nagasaki but still very few people left. We dropped the bomb and many people died. Japan then did surrender but not definitively, it was really quite hesitant. Their was in fact, a coup that occurred against the Emperor as the people of Japan still did not want to surrender.

The dropping of the bombs was unpleasant but necessary. If it had not been done, millions more innocent people would have died including Americans. We did not simply blast them mercilessly, we gave multiple chances to surrender but they refused. In no way can the dropping of these bombs be considered an unjustified act of terror, it was the moral choice.
Bob_Manbook

Con

Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed. There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore. People who hadn't been in this world for long. Killed. People who were pacifists. Killed. People who didn't support the Nazis. Killed. Many innocent people were killed. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
mil

Pro

Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed. There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore. People who hadn't been in this world for long. Killed. People who were pacifists. Killed. People who didn't support the Nazis. Killed. Many innocent people were killed. Thank you.

Round 3: Rebuttal, remember rebut my round 2 post with your round 3 post, not this one
"Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed... People who were pacifists. Killed...Many innocent people were killed. "
Yes, many innocent people were unfortunately killed. However, substantially more innocents would have dies if we did not drop the bomb. We would of had to continue firebombing Japan. The war would have continued for another year or so. Millions would have been killed.

" There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore"
What does that even mean, they could not think anymore. Well obviously not, they were dead. I mean I don't see why you need to write that but its really not that important so I'll move on.

" People who didn't support the Nazis"
Nazis had nothing do with it. Do you even know anything at all about WWII. I'd appreciate if you actually learned a thing or two about what your argument is before you join my debate. The bombs were dropped over JAPAN, not GERMANY. We were trying to get Japan to surrender. The war with Germany had already ended, they surrendered about three months prior to the bombings. You do realize the Japanese were not Nazis correct?

In conclusion, the main flaws of your argument are that even more innocents would have been killed without the dropping of the nukes, the Nazis had nothing to do with it, as well as some issues with your writing coherence in general.

I await your rebuttal to my first argument.
Bob_Manbook

Con

We could have reached a peace agreement
Debate Round No. 3
mil

Pro

Round 4: Response to opponents rebuttal (Respond to opponents round 3)

Any evidence? We tried to reach a peace agreement. It was just not that simple. If we could have reached a peace agreement, why did Japan not surrender after the first bomb was dropped over Hiroshima? We gave them enough time to respond and when they did they rejected the treaty. We then dropped the nuke over Nagasaki and at first they still refused to surrender. Later, when the Emperor suggested the idea to his nation, a coup was formed which tried to kill him in order to prevent him from signing the treaty. Finding a peace agreement was always the goal, that is literally the only way wars have ever ended ever, and eventually the agreement was made, after dropping the 2 nukes. Any other agreement would have costed excessive amounts of more time, money, and most importantly lives.
Bob_Manbook

Con

Bob_Manbook forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
mil

Pro

mil forfeited this round.
Bob_Manbook

Con

Bob_Manbook forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
Probably shouldn't try and debate for pro in the comments, but consider the planned American invasion of mainland Japan called Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Would've cost a lot more lives and probably would be a lot worse for US-Japanese relations in the long-term. It could even, if it ended up being dragged out, result in the Russians trying to get involved in northern Japan and Hokkaido. Possibly even more atomic bombs dropped.
Posted by mil 2 years ago
mil
Oh sorry, I must have misread, thank you for correcting my opponent.
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
I'm just correcting Con.
I know why we dropped the bombs. It wasn't to kill Nazis. There wasn't any Nazis in Japan.
Posted by mil 2 years ago
mil
@smlburridge dont want to have a debate in the comment section, just a quick correction. The bombs were not dropped to kill nazis, in fact germany had already surrendered when we dropped them. We did it to destroy japanese military areas and force them to surrender. And factually, the dropping of the bombs had no real cons, they saved millions of lives.
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
Problem is with any bomb, Con, civilians tend to get in the way of the blast. Look at those who died in Europe. In the firebombing of Tokyo. Many more died then. Also innocent. Some, also pacifists.

Also, there weren't Nazis in Japan.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
milBob_ManbookTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited rounds, thus neither deserve these points. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to properly rebut mostly every argument raised by Pro. Con also broke the rules regarding first round policy. Then Con just forfeited, which was followed by Pro forfeiting. Regardless, Pro at-least provided rebuttals. Thus, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources, thus this is a tie.