The Instigator
Shadowhuntress
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheDevilsLawyer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Was Pearl Harbor more important than 9/11

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Shadowhuntress
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,402 times Debate No: 55451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Shadowhuntress

Pro

Round one is acceptance
Round two is arguments
Round three is rebuttals
I am saying Pearl Harbor was more important than 9/11
TheDevilsLawyer

Con

I accept this debate.
I will be arguing that the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001 were more significant than the military attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Navy that occurred on December 7, 1941.
I thank the Instigator for initiating this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowhuntress

Pro

Pearl Harbor was more important then 9/11 for several reasons. To begin, Pearl Harbor is considered one of the turning points of WWII, countered only by Operation Barbarossa. Pearl Harbor placed America into the war. It has been proved in several polls and debates on this very sight that without America, the allies would have lost WWII. (http://www.debate.org...). (http://www.debate.org...). To bring it back to the subject, Pearl Harbor played a huge role in WWII, while 9/11 didn't really bring us into a world changing war. The war in terrorism is big, sure, but as big as say, a world war?
2,403 people died in Pearl Harbor. (http://history1900s.about.com...). 2,996 died in 9/11. (http://www.statisticbrain.com...). True, but considering that many of them died in the following fires, their deaths were much less gruesome then the deaths of 1,177 sailors blown to bits on the USS Arizona."
Following Pearl Harbor, the US economy boomed (http://www.u-s-history.com...). This was due to F.D.R's goal to manufacture 60,000, aircraft in 1942 and 125,000 in 1943, 120,000 tanks and 55,000 antiaircraft guns. (http://www.pbs.org...). Entering WWII was one of the main reasons the Great Depression ended. We wouldn't have entered WWII without Pearl Harbor.
So, now you can grasp the reasons why Pearl Harbor was more important."
TheDevilsLawyer

Con

I will define important as: "of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being."

In regard to "of great significance or value," I would say that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were of greater domestic impact. For one thing, these events lead to a common purpose and sense of unity in our government, which does not happen often. One example of this is the original Patriot Act, which passed 98 YEAs to 1 NAY, and one not voting (http://www.senate.gov...).
In addition to this, the Department of Homeland Security was created by President Bush, 11 days after the terrorist attacks of September 11th (http://www.dhs.gov...).
These pieces of legislation and agencies continue to play a significant part in our daily lives.

Next, I am focusing on "likely to have a profound effect on (...) survival." According to CNN, 2,753 died in the Twin Towers attack alone (http://www.cnn.com...). I believe it is fair to say that most of these people did not expect that, when they boarded this plane, it would result in a horrible death. As opposed to the victims of Pearl Harbor, who were mostly, if not entirely, military personnel. A notable difference between these two groups is that, military personnel had a chance to defend themselves and had access to weapons to aid in doing so. The civilians on the planes were not armed, and most likely they were not trained in combat. Another significant difference is that military personnel volunteered, knowing that they may lose their lives in service of their country. The innocent passengers did not expect to be flown into a building instead of onto a runway (This should be considered common knowledge; considering military bases have military personnel and commercial planes have civilians or off-duty military personnel).

Another key point in the definition is "likely to have a profound effect on success." An economic recession came after the 9/11 events. As William Browning of Yahoo News said, "When spending on post-9/11 activities such as wars and the military were added to emergency bailouts, the size of the government grew even bigger. American taxpayers were now on the hook for disastrous foreign policy measures as well as propping up banks that caused economic turmoil in the first place." Our great nation was lacking in the money it would need to quickly resolve an economic recession, making the recession have an even greater impact (http://news.yahoo.com...).

Lastly, my final point and summarization; "likely to have a profound effect on (...) well-being."
Let's look at another definition, that of "well-being." Merriam Webster defines this as "the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Each and one of the 2,996 total people that died had a family. It's obvious everywhere, nearly everyone has parents, siblings, significant others, or children. Surely the families of these innocent victims were crestfallen, nay devastated, when they heard the news? I seriously doubt the owners of all the property that was destroyed were happy about that. So it's clear that these horrible attacks caused an astounding drop in well-being nationwide. That's not to say that the same wasn't true for all of the victims of Pearl Harbor, but my point here is that the 9/11 attacks did have significant emotional impact on countless people. To top this off, Merriam Webster says "the state of being (...) healthy." With health meaning the state of being free from illness or injury, it is impossible to argue that the thousands of victims killed were healthy after the attacks. Need I go on?
To conclude, with the large casualties caused by these acts of terror, and also the economic effects as a result of increased government spending in an effort to deter future effects; surely you will agree that the events of September 11th had an important effect on the well-being of our nation.

Thank you for this fascinating debate. Back to you, Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowhuntress

Pro

The "common sense and unity" you mentioned also occurred following the events of Pearl Harbor. Congress declared war on Japan one day later, with one negative vote (http://www.nationalww2museum.org...) . Compare one day to over a month. Which had more unity? Also, it would take a great deal of unity to create the amount of weapons stated in my first argument, which was a result of entering the war, which was a result of Pearl Harbor
The statement 'they play a part in our daily lives" is incorrect. Do you go to the airport everyday? No.
"Most of these people did not expect it."
I believe it is fair to state that those aboard the USS Arizona did not expect it either. Even if they were military, who expects their boat to be exploded in a time of peace? America and Japan were on good enough terms for Pearl Harbor to be a surprise attack. And the sailors at Pearl Harbor were not as able to defend themselves as they seem. Many of the weapons and guns at the base were taken out immediately. (Source: visiting Pearl Harbor National Memorial)
"William Browning..." I'm sorry, but the author of the stated article is a yahoo contributor. He has no credentials to his name that would make him an expect on this subject.
"The families of the victims..." And are you trying to say the families of Pearl Harbor members were not devastated? To top it off, Christmas was right around the corner. How many Americans do you think had a happy holiday knowing they would soon loose family members if they hadn't already?
TheDevilsLawyer

Con

TheDevilsLawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 3 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Yeeeeeah...... no, Revic. There is no evidence that America proceeded to allow the attack on Pearl Harbour, and even if so, why use that as a excuse to attack Japan? The world was already at war, the Common wealth was fighting in three theaters of war (Europe, North Africa, Pacific) and America didn't need time to mobilize, need I mention Classic American industrialism? America could even have attacked Japan BEFORE Hong Kong and the Phillipines. Why? Because of the first and second Sino-Japanese wars. It may not have been completely justifiable, being that America and China were hardly diplomatically friendly, but they still could've and had a half-assed reason.

Not everyone supports the mobilization of American troops Afghanistan. Many of the troops have family, friends, and Spouses, and the last thing those people want is for them to die. Jeez, you dramatize American Patriotism almost to the extent of the Japanese Imperialist regime during and slightly before WW2.

Neither events were morally or detrimentally worse then each other, and debating about it is kinda ignorant to those afflicted by said events.
Posted by revic 3 years ago
revic
I don't have the nerve to source all what should be sourced on this topic, but I'd say no.
Because:

1. America let Pearl Harbor happen, but if it hadn't happened, they would have still attacked Japan. The reason it happened was so that Japan would make the first move. All pacific war consequences do not originate from pearl Harbor, they originate from the embargo on Japan.

2. To the public, 9/11 has become such a huge shock that everyone now fully supports the government in actively eliminating terrorists. Even if it costs us alot. And, ofcourse, here civilians were targeted. It could have been anyone. That's the major difference between American soldiers who choose to risk their lives, and civilians who are left with no choice.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
ShadowhuntressTheDevilsLawyerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ShadowhuntressTheDevilsLawyerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved Pearl Harbor caused more change, more quickly, for a longer time. Con used a bad source, and fewer than Pro. Con ff'd.