YouDebateIt.com Return To Home Page

YouDebateIt.com -- Was Hiroshima Justified?
Topic: Was Hiroshima Justified?

Which do you prefer #1 or #2?
Vote below for the better argument.
Opinion #1
Debater: Matt S.
Politics and War
You hit the nail on the head. Too bad all war is politically motivated. Truman could not allow the Japanese army any standing room. Victory had to be complete; America did not have a complete victory after World War I. That was a direct cause of World War II. Truman did not want to be another Wilson, no one wanted him to make the same mistakes.

The fault can easily be shifted the other way. The Japanese were told unconditional surrender, but refused. No one makes the claim that their refusal was "politically motivated," and therefore, wrong-headed.

Impressing the Soviets may have played into Truman's mind. But also take into account that he had the problem of launching a land invasion of Japan, or using the bomb. Both were costly, but only one was extremely costly to Truman's men.

The bombings did instill fear into Japan. Japan had been fire-bombed, but nothing like the atomic bomb. If there wasn't a new fear after the bombs, why was a unconditional surrender offered after?
Opinion #2
Debater: The Wild Goose
Right and wrong remain even in exceptional circumstances.
It is probably true that "all war is politically motivated". This does not, however, constitute an excuse of unlawful behavior. As the old adage goes, "two wrongs do not make a right". It is one thing to say, for example, that "all war is a crime"; it is quite another thing to say that this means that war crimes are not wrong. If anything, it only makes those who prosecute wars more guilty. The Japanese offered to surrender through numerous channels, but because they wanted to keep the emperor, we refused. When we won, we got unconditional surrender and let them keep the emperor anyway. The only reason for continuing the war after this point was to boost Harry Truman's approval rating. This means that not only is Hiroshima NOT justified, but that there was an unnecessary, and therefore immoral, prolongation of the war- wars should NEVER be allowed to run longer than absolutely necessary. Finally, Japan surrendered more out of fear from the Soviets than from the A-bombs.
Which argument do you agree with more? #1   #2
Which argument is more persuasive? #1   #2
READ ALL ARGUMENTS ON THIS TOPIC
POST YOUR COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE MOST RECENT ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
START A NEW OR SEPARATE ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
READ & JUDGE OTHER COMPLETED DEBATES
PROPOSE ANOTHER DEBATE TOPIC
Share your view. Whose argument did you like better? I strongly prefer the argument of debater #1
I strongly prefer the argument of debater #2
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #1
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #2
I prefer the argument of debater #1, but I could do better!
I prefer the argument of debater #2, but I could do better!

  
Your comments will appear on SelectSmart.com. Look for ''Visitor Reviews''.

Welcome to YouDebateIt.com
This is the place for debate with an added element of friendly competition. This is a debating and essay resource and practice tool, not a debating society or club. There are no complicated rules, but these debates have structure. Each debate consists of a topic with two opposing views.

These are short essays limited to about 150-165 words. Present your strongest argument the first time, since you can't go back to change it--as with the National Forensic League and other speech and debate formats. Read these debates, then vote for your favorite arguments.

These debates are fun, informative and give exposure to all sides of the issues. Most debates will be archived (arguments that are obscene or offensive may be deleted). The better and more interesting debates will be featured.