The Instigator
KINS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lolkittyz
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Was Hiroshima atomic bomb attack just?

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...
lolkittyz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 87088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

KINS

Pro

It wasn't just. Because lots of people were injured and Japan proudly stood as a nation and the US didn't have the right to "punish" a nation like that. I do not think that it was just, thinking that the US isn't the police of the world and they are not allowed to "punish" a country like that.
lolkittyz

Con

It was just. Not only had the war already caused tons of casualties. If the US did not drop the atomic bomb on Japan, the war would have carried on. More people would have died. The US did not do it to punish them, but to stop the war as fast as possible. And it worked. The Japanese surrendered.
Debate Round No. 1
KINS

Pro

It wasn't just. Because lots of people were injured and Japan proudly stood as a nation and the US didn't have the right to "punish" a nation like that. I do not think that it was just, thinking that the US isn't the "world police". Thinking that people were dying/brutally injured and they did not know anything about it, it just makes the whole act unjust. How could it ever be just? The US should have put it out using words. Also please do not be biased just because you are American.
lolkittyz

Con

While a lot of people did die,www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml saying 199000 total, a LOT more people would have died. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Also, at that time citizens were ready to fight too. Words would not have worked. Japan had bombed America, they had already shead a lot of blood. Invasion would have killed more. Again, the US was not punishing them but stopping a world war. The other option was an invasion, causing more death.

Not American
Debate Round No. 2
KINS

Pro

KINS forfeited this round.
lolkittyz

Con

lolkittyz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
[Feedback]: Pro should have cited scholarly sources that argue the atomic bombs were unnecessary in ending the war; this would have defeated Con's point about more casualties and utilitarianism.
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
RFD: This debate had 3 main topics: whether the US acted unjustly as a "world police", whether the atomic bombs reduced casualties, and whether the killing of civillians was justifiable. Pro lost the 3 points of contention. ["World Police"]In R1, Pro argued that the US didn't have the right to punish any other nation as a "world police", without explaining why nations shouldn't act as a "world police". Con responded by stating that the atomic bombs weren't punishment, but rather a way of ending the war. Pro failed to rebut this in R2, instead repeating their argument again. Thus, Pro lost this point. ["Reduction of casualties"]In R1, Con argued that if the US didn't drop the bombs, the war would have continued and the US might have needed to invade Japan, causing more casualties than the atomic bombs. In R2, Pro responded by stating that the US could have just ended the war "using words", but Con showed that that was unfeasible because the Japanese have shown themselves to already be willing to attack America. ["Killing civillians"] In R2, Pro argued that the civillians killed were innocent, making the action unjust. Con responded that America (and its allies') only alternative would have been invasion, which would have caused more deaths. Pro failed to explain why Con's fairly strong utilitarian argument didn't hold up. [Conclusion] Pro failed to prove their side and lost all the major points of contentions. Con won.
Posted by Lisen2Reason 1 year ago
Lisen2Reason
The bomb was used to bring a quick and decisive end to the war that japan started if the US had invaded japan there was a estimated to be around 2,000,000 us casualties on the ground it also forced them to pull out of china wear they were cause extreme human rights violations murdering millions of Chinese. Japanese people are a proud people and without that bomb the war could have carried on for a long time.
Posted by Sollertis 1 year ago
Sollertis
The United States of America had conducted a Human Rights violation that involved assaulting innocent civilians with the atomic bomb rather than targeting a military based that consisted of military personnel. The international community has confirmed that conventional war strictly involves a nation's military personnel combatting against another nation's military personnel without inflicting harm against innocent civilians that did not consent to the war. Collateral damage is a term that is utilized to describe the amount of innocent civilians that were unintentionally executed during warfare. However, The United States of America had intentionally assaulted innocent civilians by targeting two massive cities rather than assaulting an extensive amount of Japanese military bases with atomic bombs.
Posted by Octavion 1 year ago
Octavion
I would have to disagree with you on this. Whether it killed people or not more people would have died assaulting the beaches than the bomb has caused itself. Furthermore, the Japanese people allied themselves with the Nazi movement wand attacked the United States (Pearl Harbor), Cruelly treated Americans (Bataan Death March), And attacked United States allies (China, Great Britain). I believe that the bomb needed to be dropped in order to force the Japanese to lay down arms and surrender to a greater nation. Furthermore, in war people die, in war their is no such thing as a Innocent. Any person working or purchasing from that country is supporting its economy and its war effort therefore they should be stopped, not to mention they also add souls into the army. If the US did not drop that bomb than the war would have continued and resulted in a assault that would have cause tremendous casualties for both sides.
I am not one for attacking civilians but if a country were to march thousands of my soldiers, killing them on the way, than support a movement to wipe out jews, and would attack my allies than I would drop a atomic bomb on them in order to silence them and limit their power.
Posted by whooplaah 1 year ago
whooplaah
So, I'm a white, middle class American and I cringe when I think about what this must have been like for the Japanese.

Japan: I am going to attack a military target and blow up a harbor, killing 2,000 military personnel.
America: I am going to attack a city and kill 140,000 civilians.
Japan: ...
America: Actually, let's go ahead and make it two cities and add in another 80,000 civilians.
Japan: ...
America: By the way, no one else is allowed to do this. I'm looking at you, Iran and North Korea.
Posted by Omni 1 year ago
Omni
I'm interested in seeing how the Con could even begin to argue against it, considering how unnecessary and outright evil it really was when you look into the background behind it.
Posted by Omni 1 year ago
Omni
Definitely not just.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
KINSlolkittyzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments