CreateDebate


Debate Info

55
27
Yes, explain No, explain
Debate Score:82
Arguments:65
Total Votes:89
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, explain (41)
 
 No, explain (22)

Debate Creator

ekinnaird(8) pic



Was the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do?

This has been one of the most controversial topics ever debated in history. Did Truman make the right decision? Make sure you back up your points of view with facts, figures and evidence!

Yes, explain

Side Score: 55
VS.

No, explain

Side Score: 27
4 points

ended the war 2 years earlyer a lot can happen in 2 years

Side: Yes, explain
4 points

I think that it was th right thing to do because it ended ww2. The war went on for to long. It also saved many peoples lives.

Side: Yes, explain
2 points

It was the right thing to do as it restricted the Japanese from building up a big army. The bombing stopped the Japanese from causing more harm to the world.

Side: Yes, explain
2 points

the japs got what they diserved for bombing pearl harbor so they brouight it on themselves

Side: Yes, explain
2 points

Sure! Who wants to watch Japanese game shows for the rest of their lives?

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Yes, i think it was the right idea because the war had gone on for long enough and it should have been finished before more people died. The Americans also were protecting Europe from invasion by showing their power.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Brrt. .

Side: Yes, explain
0 points

i think that it was justified and that it shouldve been done earlier to save even more lives

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

I think that the Americans choice in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both justifiable, although both of these actions were inhumane they both had a reason. Japan needed to be "taught a lesson" they needed to be controlled and America needed to show the rest of the world that they were a country to be feared.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yea i beleieve that they are a powerful contry and not to be mestwith

Side: Yes, explain
cod-pownage(126) Disputed
1 point

How is wiping out a city and killing thousands of civilian targets and commiting one of the worst war crimes in history justifyable? Explain

Side: No, explain
proxy1(5) Disputed
1 point

It was justifyably since it ended the war and saved lives. The japanese were fanatical and wouldn't stop fighting until they win or all die. A lot can happen to if the two cities weren't nuked. it was very beneficial to end the war asap.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yes because it ended world war 2 and japan bomed pearl harbour without notice, usa gave them notice and they disagreaded to the terms

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Yes because the americans did it in a form of self defence and they gave the japanese many opportunitys to pull out of the war.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Droping the bombs on hiroshema and nagasaki where very effective and quick but came at the cost of many civilian lives

Side: Yes, explain
Kenny123(3) Clarified
1 point

Translation: During world war 2 we supported our country and through that we needed to take action in order to not only help out country but to teach japan a lesson. YOLO

Side: Yes, explain
Milbs(2) Disputed
1 point

Kony, go back to stealing children where you belong. I didn't buy my action pack!

Side: No, explain
1 point

yes, because them japs arnt gunna shoot emselves 'mericaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yea cuz they a CRAZY vcountry and WANTED to end the world war 2 yea dawg.... STEVE OUT!

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

i had chicken in my freezer but aint nobody got time for that

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Because bombs are dangerous and and can kil people if it not used properly

Side: Yes, explain
Kenny123(3) Disputed
1 point

I apologize for the previous comment placed here and would like to say "I'm Sorry".

Side: No, explain
1 point

sup brah sup sup brah emcee kerser brah sup sup sup brahhhhh

Side: No, explain
1 point

The bombing saved many American and Japaniese people, this is because if the Americans had attacked the Japanese in a land battle many people would have been killed. the japanese had pulled back all their forces to protect Japan from invasion

Side: Yes, explain
TheDestroyer(6) Disputed
2 points

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Side: No, explain
1 point

I totally agree. When Truman planned the invasion, his generals predicted severe losses on both sides.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

As I said in my previous comment I do not believe it was necessary in causing the surrender of japan as it did not only destroy one of the largest threats to America but it also demonstrated the power of America to other countries such as Russia

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Yeah, the bombing may not of been the best idea but it happened and there were consequences for the actions

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

The dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do because it benefited America in the attempt to create peace and end World War 2. If atomic bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, victims of the Japanese army would have been increased. During the war Japan had a powerful army and captured Asia. The result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left the world a message of how dangerous a nuclear bomb really is. 140,000 people of Hiroshima directly died and after five years another 60,000 people would die of effect of the bomb. In Nagasaki a total of 140,000 died within five years.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

One time I woke up and i was all like, " i gotta go to sleep". and then i was all like " wow man I'm hungry. So i like went and got some food and then i went to bed

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Hey, you know when your walking down the street and then you like remember something? that like happend to me the other day.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yes cause americans wanted to bomb so if they want the can

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yes dhddjdjdjjdjdjdjdjdjdjddjjdjd

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

the war ended;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yes. BUT NO.................................................................................

Side: Yes, explain
maitbraun Clarified
1 point

who ever knows about politics will understand..................................................

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Of course it was the right thing to do, they bombed us so we bombed the back,......only abit harder. It showed we aren't to be messed with and it shows don't drag a war with us out for 4 years

Side: Yes, explain

if we didnt the war wouldve gone south for us. Japan wouldve made it onto US soil and aided Europe possibly hindering the victory over Nazi Germany. It would be a totally different world now.

Side: Yes, explain

I don't think there should be any limitations or rules on the conduct of war. I think war should be as horrific and brutal as possible so that it ends quickly and dissuades people from wanting to engage in it again. And I don't find thousands of civilians and soldiers dying in an atomic blast any more brutal or horrific than thousands of civilians and soldiers dying from bullet wounds and lacerations and shrapnel and burns.

Look at is this way. Japan and America got into a bar fight. Japan swung first, and America left Japan gasping for breath on the floor with two black eyes, broken bones, and missing teeth. Arguably America might have used excessive violence in putting down Japan, perhaps a simple, straightforward knockout would have been sufficient, but if Japan didn't want to get hurt they shouldn't have swung in the first place. And now Japan and everyone else in the bar knows not to fuck with America.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

yes all chinese people are stupid and ugly and need to die,they are an abomination to society

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

Yes, dropping atomic weapons was the only thing other than a ground invasion that would have gotten the Japanese to surrender. Yes, there were civilian casualties; however, if there were a ground invasion the war would have dragged on, and many civilians, and US soldiers would have perished needlessly. Additionally, this invasion could have weekend the US substantially.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

If you believe in morals that promote more good than bad, then an argument can be made in support of the bombs. It is one of the most notorious wars in the history of men and it needed to end. Dropping the bombs made a decisive victory that potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Who knows what other tactics would have been used to win.

Side: Yes, explain

These weren't simultaneous events. Hiroshima is justifiable, but not Nagasaki. I at least the second nuclear weapon was a bit of overkill. The intention was to end the war quickly for US advantage against the Soviet Union.

Side: No, explain
TheDestroyer(6) Disputed
1 point

you are wrong! your argument is bad! and you should feel bad!

Side: Yes, explain
2 points

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Source(s):

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

the all mighty destroyer disagrees with you, you are wrong

Side: Yes, explain
matt123(2) Disputed
1 point

japan did not back down and so needed to be told to back down again

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

英文を書けるようになりたい人の ためのライティング専門の学習サイト

Side: No, explain
2 points

Yes i agree with you completly. your views on flavoured ice cream are very deep and meaninful

Side: No, explain
1 point

the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not right if you dont agree just get out of my face

Side: No, explain
1 point

for real dawg. I feel you mannn, i don't know you but i'm sure your an awesome fella

Side: No, explain
1 point

Excuse me if i'm wrong but i believe you are referring to an old wooden ship

Side: No, explain
1 point

No, They didn't need to bomb Japan and kill innocent people. They could of invaded and saved more innocent lives but instead 'mericaaaa wanted to be 'mericaaaa and wanted to prove world dominance, so they bombed Japan.

Side: No, explain
Scout143(651) Disputed
2 points

Actually, invading would have created even more deaths. Even though a Nuclear Bomb killed a lot of people, the invasion of mainland Japan would have killed more Americans and even more Japanese! The Japanese were ready and waiting for the Americans to invade and were fanatical to defend their homeland. The Ameicans would have been slaughtered to gain only a few miles of Japan and bodies would have piled up. Even though Nuking Japan killed a lot of people, it probably saved even more lives. That doesn't mean I support nuking to save lives! I prefer not to use nukes for any reason. Frankly, I wish they were never invented, but they were and we have to deal with what we wrought.

Side: Yes, explain
1 point

No I do not believe it was necessary for America to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though it was affective in causing the surrender of japan but in the process many innocent woman and children were kill. Less men were killed in this manmade disaster as they were of fighting in the war.

Side: No, explain
1 point

In the end it may have been an affective method and it got japan to surrender but i do not think it was nessicary

Side: No, explain
1 point

We did it at the time to strike such fear into their hearts that they would be forced to surrender. At the time, completely necessary!

NOW, we look at the past, and the Japanese Emperor told his ambassadors in Russia that he wanted peace long before the bombs dropped. He told them about near the end of the European Front. The problem is that the ambassadors directly ignored him and disobeyed a direct order to spread the word of the Japanese surrender. We discovered this deep in Japanese archives and several found documents from the past. Because of this, the Japanese continued their Pacific war, even though the Emperor wanted to stop the war. If the ambassadors listened, the bombs wouldn't be necessary.

It's sorta sad what a bit of insubordination can do. The ambassadors involved should be shot over that event if they weren't then.

Side: No, explain

How can killing millions of people ever be justified? It is simply just immoral.

Side: No, explain
1 point

Were other, far better methods. Like dropping one in the sea and saying " We'll do that to you if you don't listen." But no, just another chance for America to say "look at us, we're the greatest country on earth! Unnecessary.

Side: No, explain

Yeah, killing thousands of innocent civilian targets using atomic weapons was the right thing to do. Doing a war crime is right. I mean, its not like wiping out 2 cities is wrong.

sarcasm

Side: No, explain

Was it necessary? Yes. But it was not moral.

This is probably my most passionate topic, and I've written arguments for at least five or six other versions of this debate on here, but here's the basis of what I think about it:

1.) On at least some level, it wasn't all about ending the war. Dropping the bomb was also beneficial for the Manhattan Project. In other words, we used the civilians as freaking guinea pigs for atomic bombs.

2.) Many effects of the atomic bomb were delayed. Who says it wasn't possible that the emperor would have surrendered if they had been able to wait a month or so and get a taste of the long-term effects? Then Nagasaki could have been avoided. I know that the situation was imminent, but that just makes it all the more unfortunate--that they got two bombs dropped on them, and then they surrendered, and then they experienced the after-effects.

3.) The power of the bomb is nearly impossible to wrap one's head around. It's unimaginable that we could kill about 70,000 people in around two seconds, especially when at least some of those people didn't even become corpses; they were incinerated.

4.) I don't care if it was "total war" or not. The Japanese people we killed were most likely not personally responsible for the things we were mad at Japan for doing. For all we know, they might not have even agreed with doing such things. The people who were nuked never did anything wrong.

5.) It's not actually entirely true that the Japanese refused to surrender; they merely refused to surrender unconditionally. I don't actually know how much of a threat the emperor was to America, but either way, it it incorrect to say that the Japanese were entirely uncooperative with this agreement.

6.) The whole event has encouraged the dehumanization of the Japanese both during the dropping of the bomb and afterwards. They may have done things that were wrong, and it's okay to acknowledge that. We just have to make sure to remember that they were people too; just because that wasn't relevant in the midst of total war, doesn't mean it can't be relevant now.

Side: No, explain
1 point

Can right or wrong really exist? What moral viewpoint would this question be coming from? Assuming that one's morals are based in more good and less bad, an argument can be made against it. The bombs were dropped on civilians and they were innocent in the war. They were simply living their lives. How can the leader of a 'moral' country have the authority to murder hundreds of thousands of people to save themselves. Why should their lives be sacrificed for yours?

Side: No, explain

Many women and children were killed in those blasts. It was horrible and inhumane.

Side: No, explain