The Instigator
bigdanny27
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
niltiac
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 5 votes the winner is...
niltiac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 869 times Debate No: 34155
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

bigdanny27

Con

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have happened as many children and people died. We were trying to prevent people from treating other people poorly, like the holocaust, when we are doing the same thing to other places.
niltiac

Pro

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to save lives. We knew that if we invaded Japan, that even more lives would be lost from both sides. Also, this bombing ended WWII, which resulted in a US victory.
Debate Round No. 1
bigdanny27

Con

I believe we fired those bombings as we were not the bigger people. Although Japan destroyed our base in Hawaii we should have over come that and tried to make an agreement with them.
niltiac

Pro

Weather or not we were the bigger people or not, it still ended as a result of the bombings. Japan destroyed our base in Hawaii to get to our oil, which they needed. If we hadn't fought them off, they would have kept attacking and soon, many more landmarks would have been destroyed.
Debate Round No. 2
bigdanny27

Con

As North Americans we always try to save people, not destroy their homes. the bombings took away valued family members, it took away places people called home, it took places of worship.
niltiac

Pro

No matter our decision, lives would have been lost either way. Also, flash back to Pearl Harbor, which you brought up recently, and think what Japan did to us. If we had not bombed them, they would have kept attacking until we went into yet another full out battle or war inside a war.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Chaotic_Neutral 3 years ago
Chaotic_Neutral
You said they were trying to get "our oil", which they were not. The oil embargo was the reason they needed resources elsewhere, yes.
Posted by niltiac 3 years ago
niltiac
Im glad you're using wikipedia as a "reliable source". I have gone through many years of US studies and History, therefore I know that the attack was a result of our oil embargo on Japan.
Posted by leprechaun 3 years ago
leprechaun
http://www.debate.org...

please vote for me in this debate. My opponent forfeited rounds and it would be sad if that debates ends in a tie. Please Please spread it and vote for me
Posted by Chaotic_Neutral 3 years ago
Chaotic_Neutral
Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor to get our oil. From Wikipedia:

"The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and hence protect Japan's advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, where it sought access to natural resources such as oil and rubber."
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
*forgot the period*
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
Terrible debate. I can't vote
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
bigdanny27niltiacTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: No convincing arguments on either side. Was there a word or time limit? Oh well. No sources, either. Neutral conduct. Pro made a lot of glaring spelling errors.
Vote Placed by handywandy 3 years ago
handywandy
bigdanny27niltiacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: clear winner
Vote Placed by Logan94 3 years ago
Logan94
bigdanny27niltiacTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Yep
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
bigdanny27niltiacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar to Con because Pro does not know how to spell whether. I don't find one paragraph arguments at all convincing, so nothing else.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
bigdanny27niltiacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar goes to pro. Both had errors with commas, but Con also had some capitalization errors. Pro wins because of the cost of a ground war in Japan. Con could have won by proving the Nagasaki was unnecessary, and a mistake caused by a translation error. Nether side bothered to cite any source, and both had equal conduct.