The Instigator
DebaterMaster18088
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOpposition
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

WW2 Atomic Bomb usage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TheOpposition
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 51097
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

DebaterMaster18088

Pro

Using atomic bombs to end World War 2 was the best way possible.
TheOpposition

Con

The atomic bomb in WW2 was not the best way to end the war. Nuclear deterrents have not been the answer, are not the answer, and never will be the answer. While it is true that the looming threat of a powerful weapon can cause wars to end (and this has happened in the past many times throughout history), the use of nuclear weapons cannot be justified in any situation whatsoever. The effects of nuclear weapons on the Japanese is simply atrocious. Thousands of innocent lives ended in a split second because America decided that it was needed.
How could you justify such an act? Such needless death and pain? To inflict undue agony and hardship unto generation after generation of children in the radiation radius? Hundreds of children were born with birth defects, or even worse, not born at all after the payload was delivered. And yet you would suggest that this was the best way for a war to end? Literally EVAPORATING innocent people?
The Opposition strongly opposes the use of nuclear weapons
Debate Round No. 1
DebaterMaster18088

Pro

Firstly, looking at the amount of fortifications Japan had on islands near it, it is hard to imagine how many fortifications there would have been in the Japanese homeland. It has saved Allied lives which would otherwise have been lost in two invasions like the one that occurred during the D-Day where around 156,000 Allied troops lost their live trying to invade the mainland, and would have had the similar results in the invasion of the main islands of the Japanese homeland. If we had not dropped the bombs on the Japanese homeland, the Japanese would have not surrendered. They would have rather committed suicide missions. Studies estimate that if we had gone through with the invasion, in the first 30 days about 40,000 Allied troops would have lost their lives. Like the military the civilians had the same mentality due to Japanese propaganda.
TheOpposition

Con

My opponent has stated that the Japanese had many fortifications, and that because of this it was necessary to nuke the Japanese. But he has failed to provide sources for his statistical evidence! However, this is irrelevant. Whether or not it was necessary does not affect the fact that: A nuclear deterrent is never the best way to end a war, And the debate is an argument over what would have been the best way to end the war, not whether it was necessary.
I still stand by my argument that nuking Japan was not the best way to end a war. The best war to have ended that would would have been through peaceful negotiations. Despite what the proposition might think, a peace treaty may have been forged! This is entirely possible when you look at other situations which were deemed impossible to create a neutral agreement between two warring parties. Despite the mutual hate between Axis and Ally they were able to make a treaty after the capture of Berlin, so a Japanese treaty would be possible!
Debate Round No. 2
DebaterMaster18088

Pro

DebaterMaster18088 forfeited this round.
TheOpposition

Con

My opponent has failed to counter any of my arguments. The opposition stands by its argument that there are better ways for the war to have ended, such as through peaceful negotiations. While the possibility of a peace treaty was in question, it was not impossible. Nothing is nonnegotiable, and this is especially true with peace treaties. While the opposition recognizes the fact that a peace treaty would have been very difficult, I would also like to remind the proposition that a treaty was not impossible, as many peace treaties have been formed in situations that were deemed impossible to do so. Examples of "impossible peace":
The Egyptian"Hittite peace treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Treaty of Lutatius (First Punic War): http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Treaty of Ghent (War of 1812): http://www.eighteentwelve.ca...
Parties in all these wars had extremely bitter "blood grudges", but made peace in the end.
Debate Round No. 3
DebaterMaster18088

Pro

DebaterMaster18088 forfeited this round.
TheOpposition

Con

My opponent has once again failed to present an argument. I will now summarize my arguments:
Whether or not it was necessary does not affect the fact that a nuclear deterrent is never the best way to end a war.

I still stand by my argument that nuking Japan was not the best way to end a war. The best war to have ended that would would have been through peaceful negotiations.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Of work to do. And try to stray away from using emotions as your arguments basis. When you have Emotion vs cold hard logic and facts logic will win EVERY time.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Con seems to be dwelling in fantasy land. He is under the impression that peaceful negotiations could have ended he war. This is naive at best and delusional at worst. For starters if peace talks were a possibilities for ending the hostilities them the war never would have happened in the first case. The very fact that the war was being waged is testament to the failure of diplomacy. Also, peace negotiations were already in progress and had been for the past year. These talks failed as well. And in fact one week before the bombing of Hiroshima we sent out messages to all of japan via radio, television, and pamphlets dropped into cities from planes literally begging them to surrender or else they wound face "prompt and utter destruction". The fact that we didn't level japan to the ground is proof of our morality.

You have called out pro that he needs to prove that the bombs were the best way to end the war and not just a necessity. I contend that by proving the were necessary he is in fact proving they were the best way and I will remind you that it is YOUR job to disprove their necessity and prove that something else would have done a better job at ending the war. You have yet to do so even slightly.

The very feeble argument you have put forward to say that peace talks would have worked is referencing the fall of nazi Germany. What you fail to mention is that their surrender only came after they were completely surrounded on all sides, had lost almost all other territories, lost all sources for resources and manufacturing capabilities, suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties (in this single battle alone) the allies lost 10s of thousands, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, the destruction of around 70% of Berlin, and the death of their leader Adolf hitler. This is hardly an example of the success of peaceful negotiations. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything I'm just trying to give you a hand by letting you know you have a lot
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
DebaterMaster18088TheOppositionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct- pro forfeit. arguments- pro forfeit and unopposed con case that was logical and concise. Sources- con had solid sources to back up his case, pro had none.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
DebaterMaster18088TheOppositionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits.