The Instigator
Orman
Pro (for)
The Contender
PFJones
Con (against)

was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Orman has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 99905
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Orman

Pro

Even though it was unethical it was the only way to end the awful Pacific war with the least deaths.
PFJones

Con

My opponent presents a messily formatted, self contradicting, and all around flat argument. Today I will easily dismantle any semblance of logic they tried to make and then negate the resolved to top off.

They first state off that the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki were the right thing to do with the least amount of deaths possible. Using the 'most conservative terms possible' in the words of UCLA, an estimated 220,000 were killed/injured, as opposed to the only 2,403 deaths that Pearl Harbor brought. It should be noted that according to Pearl Harbor's own website, only 68 of these deaths were civilians. This means that if you multiplied the amount of civilians killed in Pearl Harbor by 3235, you still wouldn't have the amount of people killed in Pearl Harbor.

So no, it wasn't the 'least amount of deaths possible', as my gruesomely misinformed opponent suggests.

The argument I would make is that it was a highly unethical way to go about striking against Japan. I would await my opponent's response to this claim, but they've agreed with me before I even said it. This means that my point is agreed upon by my opponent and his only real claim has already been destroyed.

For these reasons, I urge an obvious Con/Neg vote.
Debate Round No. 1
Orman

Pro

the bombing of Japan was unethical but War in general is immoral. As I stated in the first short argument we had two options: 1. Use the new atom bombs or 2. Operation downfall. If we went with the 2nd it most likely would have led to the end of the japans government since they did not which to surrender because of their pride. The government even issued a special police were in the case of American invasion everyone (including the civilians) would have to fight for their homeland. And this was shown in the many battles of the pacific were even japans solider even though they knew they were defeated would keep fighting in till death, some would even take a grenade and kink's a group of soldiers. It would be the same if we invaded their mainland. The dropping of these super weapons was a fast and quick way to end this horrible war. There is not much to say on a topic that only is based on moral because this is War no mater what you do War is and always will be the true hell on earth. That is all I shall say for now.
PFJones

Con

My opponent continues to present a self-confused, contradictory argument that I shall easily dismantle. I will first start off by using a quote from a source that is quite literally impossible for my opponent to refute. Former United States president, Herbert Hoover.

". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142.

So already, no. What my opponent is saying about having to do it due to the Japanese's refusal to surrender is already null and void as a point completely. I will refute every single thing my opponent has stated by simply pointing out that they have yet to use a SINGLE source.

My points about a needless amount of casualties stands. My opponent either agrees on this point or has no way to counter it. In a similar way, I will bring up the argument made about ethics. My opponent, on the topic of ethics and morals, has contradicted themselves more than I could understand. They are trying to somehow negate my arguments by saying war is immoral, without realizing that he/she is in DIRECT support of the previously mentioned 220,000 deaths.

At the end of this second round, I am still winning, and my opponent still has yet to provide anything of substance, anything with a source, and anything logically supporting their argument. For these reasons I continually urge a massive Con/Neg voter turnout.
Debate Round No. 2
Orman

Pro

you state that the Japaneses were willing to surrender in 1945, But this statement is untrue. The Japaneses were not willing to accept are unconditional surrender at the post dam conference of 1945. this means that they were given time to stop fighting and were warned (and i quote from the post dam conference) "prompt and utter destruction.".

The Japaneses government had time to reply and were even warned about the destruction that would follow. so you were wrong. And next it leads to what will cause the most deaths.

I will state that the atomic bomb was only a small fish in the big lake of WW2. There were even worse crimes committed beside the war itself. A good example would be the holocaust which killed up to 11,000,000. And if you are to mention this is irrelevant this you stated the pearl harbor indecent which should have nothing to do with the bombing of japan.

And when i state the bomb was unmoral remember this is war, everything to the first gun shot makes it a crime against mankind, and in war the only thing that matters is which will lead to more deaths.

we only had two choice since japan did not want to make peace:
Operation Downfall
or use the atom bomb

the atom bomb killed 246,000 , But operation downfall would have killed 1.7"4 million american troops and a estimated 50000 would only return. That is only the american troops, the deaths on the Japaneses side would have been way more.

I do hope that this argument will be enough to state that it was the best choice even though unmoral and wrong the deaths were the only thing that mattered. and if japan only surrendered this would not have been a problem.
PFJones

Con

I will follow up my previous argument and the one my opponent has made in the best way possible.

First - the holocaust is completely, and I mean completely, 100% unrelated to this debate topic. Was the Holocaust worse than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Definitely. But that's not what we're here to debate about, which is why it's irrelevant. My opponent, showing a general lack of knowledge on the history of World War II, tried to argue that Pearl Harbor was irrelevant. My opponent also fails to realize that it was the attack on Pearl Harbor that ultimately brought the US in the war, and the reason that the US ended up bombing in Japan. While Pearl Harbor and its death toll has direct correlation to the argument, the holocaust does not - thus my opponent's point is null and void.

It should be noted that Operation Downfall holds no relevance to this argument. Not only did it not happen, but the only numbers of people that would've happen are purely estimates. Due to the risk circumstances of Operation Downfall, there was actually no way to accurately even get close to how many people would've died. This means my opponent has clearly cherry picked estimates that point towards the highest number possible. There is a great possibility that the amount of US soldiers that died in Operation Downfall would be less than or equal to the amount killed in Hiroshima. This means that my opponent's own logic can easily backfire, and Operation Downfall could very well be the 'least amount of deaths possible' that my opponent so greatly is arguing for.

My opponent still provides insufficient sourcing, among other flaws in their argument. This means that my point about Japan's ability to surrender and my point about a massive amount of casualties stand nearly unscathed. For these reasons, I will continue to support a massive Con/Neg voter turnout.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Orman 1 year ago
Orman
I do hope you under stand that what i have stated in the debate shows that the Japaneses government did know about what would happen and they ignored it. And in war the only thing that matter is what leads to victory and cause the least amount of deaths.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Quite sporting. Wishing you all the best!
Posted by Orman 1 year ago
Orman
And also if my opponent is listing to this I wish you to know that I am new to this system, and vary little experience in debates, but the only way to get better is to practice. So I hope you understand that this is only mere practice as I shall get better, but don't go easy give it everything you got and win. I hope you understand and wish you good luck.
Posted by Orman 1 year ago
Orman
True this was just a lazy attempt to be a part of something that I only believe in in fact the bombs never
Changed the mind of the Japanese government. It was Russia closing in to Japan. They surrendered to us because they thought we would go easier on them then the Soviet Union
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
That kind of implies you may not be equipped to judge debates; just being honest.
Posted by Orman 1 year ago
Orman
I just made this so I can get the three debates to vote on others this was never ment to be professional
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Your opener is tantamount of forfeiture. You already conceded it was unethical. You opponent is 90% of the way there. They need only lean on you and watch you fall over.
Posted by Orman 1 year ago
Orman
true like i said it was unethical yet operation downfall would have been even more horrific. and sadly the Japaneses government did not wish to surrender due to their pride.
Posted by micromanagedbehavior 1 year ago
micromanagedbehavior
No. There was no logic to condone such brutal military action against japan, eapecially due to the circumstances of japan's military power at the time. It was the biggest crimes against humanity in my opinion, a crime that is hardly mentioned. The bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki as well as the deciimation of the native americans, are two crimes that are hardly mentioned in modern times. Excuse grammar sentence strucutr
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.