The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
mil forfeited this round.
Bob_Manbook forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.