The Instigator
lmudude
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
guesswhat101
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

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 4 votes the winner is...
guesswhat101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,103 times Debate No: 32525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

lmudude

Pro

Was it just, Yes. America was attacked, it was the first major terrorist attack on the USA ever. Since we were at a time of war it was just. Its like the saying says 'its better safe than sorry' for all we know someone could have been a spy and we could have been attacked. America at least gave them a place to stay if they could not get enough money to move and get a better home. Even though the places were not the cleanest or the healthy-ist they had a roof over their heads and food and water. Those are probably the three most important things you need to survive besides air. America did and always will have the right to do any action if it is for the well being of are country.
guesswhat101

Con

I will accept this debate and show how the removal of American citizens (who happened to be of Japanese descent) during WWI was unjust.

After Pearl Harbor, everyone panicked. It was, as my opponent points out, the largest attack on American soil ever. Not since the War of 1812 had foreigners attacked Americans on American soil. However, was it just? No it wasn't. Hawaii was simply a territory of the U.S. at the time, not even a state. We removed these people from their home because we overreacted and propelled by racism, we kept these American citizens in camps for the duration of the war, even though they showed no threat to the U.S. We removed all the rights that they had been promised when they had become U.S. citizens. There was no trial by jury nor was habeas corpus used. The due process of law which they had been promised by us was suddenly revoked just because people who shared their ancestral homeland had attacked the U.S. Also, since America is capitalistic, there were people who took advantage of this. As these American citizens were being forced to leave their home and bushiness with no indication of when they would be allowed to return, greedy entrepreneurs bought the properties at next to nothing. The U.S. could have prevented this but did not, as they only allowed these people to bring what they could carry. Finally, these camps that the U.S. sent their people to were not the best places in the world. They were located in the middle of the desert where these legal residents of the U.S. had to deal with rattlesnakes and other environmental conditions as well as being surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers all day long. Shootings weren't unheard of either, as these people were sometimes killed just for straying too far (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Debate Round No. 1
lmudude

Pro

My opponent says that it ways a form of racism. Well lets think if we did not take that action we might not be here, we could be part of Japan. It was for Americas safety that we did this. Even the supreme court agreed that it was just. If we had not of been in war times i think it would have been un just, but we were not we were in one of the biggest wars of all time. It was safer to ask them to leave. And we did not put them into camps we gave them a option to go there if they could not afford to move. It was a act of kindness to actually give them a place to stay. If you were asked to leave from your home wouldn't you per-fer to get a place to stay rather than you just be kicked out on the curb. We could have easily just said get out of out country you are a threat, but we did not we asked them to leave certain states. We provided them shelter and sources of living. Japan through the first punch and we hit back. We asked them to leave the states that Japan would have the best places to attack us. If we did not ask them to move one of them was probably a spy and could have told them and we might not be here today. If a American was really a American they would see that it was beyond fair to ask the Japanese Americans to leave four or five states!
guesswhat101

Con

Yes it was racist. First of all, why didn't we put all the Germans or Italians in camps? Granted the Nazis never attacked our country but they got much closer to the mainland U.S. than the Japanese ever did, as there were reports of German submarines just off the U.S. coast [1]. Also, we had been racist to them prior to the war as well. Why else would the San Francisco school system segregate those of Japanese descent from the white students [2]? Finally, this video should show our racist attitude towards the Japanese during WWII . We considered the Japanese race to be subhuman before and during the war.

Also, you say the supreme court said that it was just in Korematsu v. United States. They ruled it was constitutional. And at the time considering the political makeup of the supreme court, they made this decision because there was nothing in the constitution saying they couldn't do it, not that it means that the constitution said that they could (broad vs. strict interpretation at work). Finally, there is evidence showing that one of the judges withheld a U.S. naval intelligence report saying how Japanese-American citizens showed no threat to the U.S."s security. Even so, why did Ronald Reagan apologize for this if it was just? We kicked them out of their homes without any reason than "The country that your grandfather grew up in attacked one of our territories." Sure we gave them a house and food. Except it was in the middle of the desert surrounded by armed guards and barbed wire and they were crammed in there with hundreds of others.

And if I was kicked from my home like they were, this would still be a flagrant violation of my rights as a citizen of the United States of the America. When one becomes a citizen of the U.S., they give up some of their natural born rights for other guaranteed and protected rights. This social contract promises all U.S. citizens the writ of habeas corpus as well as trial by jury of your peers. The 4th Amendment guarantees the protection of a citizen"s property and yet this was violated. No charges or evidence was brought up against a single American citizen that could give any sort of reason for those American citizens who just happened to be Japanese to be locked up. In fact, evidence was to the contrary [3]. And even so, what in the world could a normal American citizen, like all of these people were, have told the Japanese military about us? They never got close enough to launch bombers at us. If Pearl Harbor had been taken under Japanese control, then we could have been looking at the possibility of an invasion. However, that did not happen.

[1]http://www.allmilitary.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://articles.latimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lmudude

Pro

Ok really first your gonna say its racist because of a stupid cartoon. Second how was it racist its not like we gathered them up and shot them one by one, No we gave them a HOME not a killing field a Home. So what if its not the best at least they had a place to stay that was more safe than the streets of America. And the only reason I think it was just is because WE WERE IN WAR TIMES. We would have done it to Germany, Ireland, Italy, Britain, or Mexico if they had attacked us. Japan started a fight they could not when and America wanted no chance of loosing so they took a freaking safety precaution. If you knew someone was going to sneak in your house and kill you would you just sit in your room. NO you would get ready for the worst. Thats exactly what America did. I see that and the Supreme court saw that if you dont see it than you are BLIND.
guesswhat101

Con

No I am not saying that it was racist simply because of simple cartoon. It was merley an example. Here's ten more for you to look at: http://brainz.org.... I also pointed out the segregation in the San Fansisco school system. How in the world can you argue that America wasn't racist towards Japanese? And racism doesn't need to be violent to be considered racist. Was segregation racist even though we didn't kill the blacks? You also talk about giving them a home. We kicked them out of their homes. You also say how we would've done it to anyone else. That is false. The only time we've been invaded was the War of 1812 and did we lock up all the people of British descent then? No, because they were white. Yes Japan did start a fight they couldn't win but locking up people simply because of who their parents or grandparents were makes no sense. Even the U.S. Navy Intelligence said this measure was ridiculous, as I have pointed out before.

If we apply your logic to the hypothetical you have brought up, then shouldn't you lock up your family in the basement so they don't tell the robbers any info? Finally, you say that I'm blind for not seeing what the Supreme Court saw? Justice Frank Murphy who ruled on this case said "I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must, accordingly, be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment, and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution." He agrees with me. If you're going to say that it just because the Supreme Court upheld it, then you would agree that segregation is just (Plessy v Fergunson)? How about forbidding interracial marriage (Pace v Alabama)? How about refusing several black families an education simply because they weren't white (Cumming v Richmond)? Your logic is flawed.

Finally, there's a reason we apologized for this. When Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Rights Act of 1988, there's a reason it included an apology and reparations. There's a reason George H. W. Bush apologized again in 1991.

"In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated."

Kicking out AMERICAN citizens from their homes simply because of who their fathers or grandfathers were is and was not just. I rest my case, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
By Pro's logic, it is just to kick Muslims out of certain states in the aftermath of 9/11.
Posted by totenkreiger 4 years ago
totenkreiger
yes, we did not kill them, or make them run, or anything else in the holocaust but with the camp we essentially did the same thing, those camps were barley better then the ones from Nazi Germany, infact i would probably like to of left then be in those damn camps then stay here, they were not lucky cus of how bad they were, weather the supreme court and most of america thought it was okay to do does not make it good to do
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
I dont care if your taking a college history class it doesnt change the fact that most of america and the supreme court at that time thought it was just and if your taking a college coarse then why do you need the stupid faulty internet use a textbook.
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
No the reason they apologized is not to say sorry it was for voters. Japan is lucky we didnt kick them out of are country for good. If you actually cared about the USA you would easily see that it was just to use these actions. The united states beame the most powerful country because of these actiones and there constant winnings which might not of happened if we didnt move the Japanese people
Posted by guesswhat101 4 years ago
guesswhat101
I am taking a college course on the history of the U.S. I think I know what I'm talking about.
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
also you shouldnt go on line and get your facts you should know them from school or actually look inside a bloody textbook.
Posted by guesswhat101 4 years ago
guesswhat101
Let's not get confused here, what we did to the Japanese wasn't nice or fair (which I am arguing) but it is nothing compared to the Holocaust. A genocide for the sake of eugenics is nothing compared to this.
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
Really dude no we didnt go off and kill them. We gave them a roof and food and water. We didnt starve them or burn them or shoot them. In reality we were being nice to give theM A HOUSE.
Posted by totenkreiger 4 years ago
totenkreiger
we didn't give them a roof over their head and food and water, we gave the a concentration camp to live in basically, we did to them that nazi germany did to the jews, so by you (the starter) saying that we gave them the necessities of food water and a roof over their head thats like saying that nazi germany gave the jews the same thing, but what nazi germany did to the jews was terrible, the fact that we did that to the japanese americans is wrong even if we were under attack, if one could be a spy you don't punish a whole group of them, the reason why we do not kill civilians when we are at war, atleast try not to
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
They terrorist attack i am talking about is if you dont know is Pearl Harbor.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Controverter 4 years ago
Controverter
lmududeguesswhat101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: One word can describe pro's debating style: Terrible.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
lmududeguesswhat101Tied
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: con had this one in the bag from the start and pro's own idiocy didnt help him... Pro's arguments were horrendously bad and con more then blew them out of the water. Con also gave sources and had much better conduct than the pro, complete win for the con
Vote Placed by 4saken 4 years ago
4saken
lmududeguesswhat101Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has better arguments, more sources and Pro is very rude.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
lmududeguesswhat101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to show the fallacy of Pros argument, and Pro failed to counter.