Should the United States have used the atomic bomb on Japan?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 3/28/2014 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 789 times | Debate No: | 51146 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)
 Con |
 |
|
Con Bareswilte forfeited this round.
 Pro 2,536,800 American and Japanese men had died during WW2[1]. But at the end, there was still a possibility of Japan waging war. A single month of battle would have cost about 43,000 men then if you take the average. But that is a single month. The Battle of the Atlantic lasted the entirety of WW2, so there was simply no way of knowing whether 50,000 to 1,000,000 would die in a ground battle. Let us not forget the cost of war. For food, equipment and supplies. Let us not forget other possible countries that would have got involved and the fact that it could spiral. In short, America simply had no way whatsoever of knowing how the battle would spiral if they'd got involved. If they had attacked and it was only partly successful, that wouldn't have been enough. The safest option was something that would damage and deter Japan. Yes, 135,000 people were killed, but a land battle lasting six months on average could have cost twice more, and still have a chance of retribution. The deterrence came from the fact that it was new technology, and it was successful, ending what was left of WW2. Sorry that this was so rushed, I am quite busy. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk... |
 |
|
Con Bareswilte forfeited this round.
|
 |
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tiger5573 7 years ago
Report this Comment
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 6 years ago
| Bareswilte | CJKAllstar | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: CON FORFEITED
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 years ago
| Bareswilte | CJKAllstar | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits, Points pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
| Bareswilte | CJKAllstar | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited 2 rounds and left Pro hanging.
S&G - Tied. Both failed to make any spelling or grammatical errors.
Argument - Pro. Con did not present any argument throughout the debate whereas Pro presented an argument that was supported with sources.
Source - Pro. Con failed to present any sources to verify his position on the resolution, whereas Pro presented sources to validate the claims made within his argument.
