The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

But this time I would rather prefer to make another way out. He clearly is in a state to wipe out his opponent but in the way leaves his matter presented in a very scattered manner. He argues the fact that the Japanese were innocent but here I can say no more but suggest reading and analysing the history of World War II which clearly states about the innocence of the Japanese. But in fact, I must say that even though my opponent has thoroughly rehearsed himself and exaggeratedly stressed on pin-pointing out my fallacies he has skipped the part where I mentioned the whole history of the World War which is probably the answer to all his questions that have been raised by him in Round III. My opponent questions the fact that I have yet to raise the point of the innocence of Japanese. Don't my historical facts reveal how pitiably these Japanese were pestered about by the Americans even if they wanted to sub-due the states of China which was by principles out of the boundaries of USA? And so USA had no right to intervene upon the privacy of such matters which did not concern any of their business. And by a matter of fact, my opponent is obviously in a situation to to mock at the deaths which is already proved by his statements. It is not actually a bold assumption fallacy at all because my opponent has already criticized my emotional appeals thereby indirectly mocking at the deaths of various civilians unarmed, which is perhaps the answer to his another question. He tries to over-weigh, (as understood by his philosophies), logic in comparison to emotions. Isn't this mockery? Trying to repress the emotions evidently, by following the path of logic? And doesn't he know that howsoever the world may progress there's always a softer side for morality. Morality and empathy(a part of morality) form the basis of living and are necessary for guilt and remorse. And this is nothing additional added, this is just what can be clearly understood from what I have written till now. Ah, yes this connects me to another accusation made by my extraordinary opponent--if he can be called so-- he says there's basis I have yet to assign to morality. But isn't this the basis for morality that he requires? One more thing that strikes me about my opponent is that he is continuously pressing on the fact that's swayed by cold logic by mere facts. What the people require is not the facts alone but also morality. I should say that morality is certainly the more important aspect in life rather than factual depiction. And its the sole aim of this debate to have morality on one end and logic on to the other. The debate is actually a debate on morality and logic in the view of 'The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. And my opponent has certainly given no proof on why we should neglect morality and follow what's logical. My opponent this time is truly misconstrued as what can be understood from his statement--" The entire nature of this debate is for my opponent to accept the BOP and say that the bombing was not "right. " He hasn't got into the depth of the matter and I would again say that he has not taken any notice of the series of events of World War II. Unfortunately he hasn't read between the lines. In contrast I would only say that though my whole history has gone vain I would still make an effort to imprint on my opponent's mind the bombing was not "right" just by asking a simple question--"Was it right to have wasted so much of human resource on the implementation of the plan and the implantation of the bomb just to make a simple assertion of 'saving the lives of many more'? My opponent again makes use of his commanding language and tries to sway us with what's supposed to be a bouncer from right above our heads. He says that his opponent had foresighted his presumable answer and then contradicts it. But he should realize that what's the use of a debate where the opponent doesn't foresight his opponent's answers. The debate would then be as uninteresting as the boring lessons of geography and political studies. He even emphasises on BOP. But I would ask when I cited my various sources (sayings of the American Church Council and the various scientists against the immoral behaviour of the U. S. army) were they not a part of the BOP's that clearly justified my topic and partly made clear accusations on to my opponents points. His statement "Just because my opinion claims something does not make it true. " is clearly unjustified because I have listed many examples which support my topic against the dastardly tricks employed by the US. The only difference is that where my opponent has through a neglect, thrown over the whole of the link to you, there I have cut and pasted the necessary part that is to be taken in account for supporting my allegations. This becomes another reason to my opponent's statement--"Ah, and here we come to the part where my opponent cuts and pastes large amount of text in some misguided assumption that another person's personal opinion will make the debate. " As for the allies of USA, it is quite unfortunate that my opponent doesn't know that USSR entered into an alliance with U. K. which was in fact an alliance of USA. But in reality there was no such alliance of US and The USSR. It was just a matter of an indirect alliance though tensions were propagating between both the countries through cold war. So you see , there was absolutely no reason why US might not have attacked the USSR. "Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two. " Well about this I can only say that mistakes are sometimes made by everyone, sometimes even by your history text books. So this was just a matter of mistake nothing else, but it clearly illustrated what I actually meant to say. Finally, I have noticed that my opponent has also tried to introduce some additional information which is NOT PERMITTED according to the rules of the debate. " He needed to realize that this was a time of war. I won't even delve into my prepared notes on the fact that 58% of allied casualties were civilian casualties and that the axis forces were strafing London and dismantling the civilians of the Soviet Union. I won't go on to say how only 4 percent of Axis casualties were civilian in opposition to 58 percent allied civilian casualties. I won't, because my opponent hasn't given me a need to raise a defense as he has mounted no offense. " "And I certainly won't say that the act of killing 200,000 people saved nearly 3 million lives in projected casualties if the battle had continued. No, I don't need to because my opponent has raised no issues determining what is justified in war, what is a 'moral' what one 'ought' to do based in fact. " He has actually said that he won't go on to delve into his notes for the statistics and all that follows but he has humorously inculcated those thoughts though through his negativity. Regarding Ad Hominem, I would just like to say that it added to a bit of spice in the debate and much more, satirized the importance of morality in a life. Life without morality is like a house without an infra-structure. So if a person's morals are correct he is sure to achieve success. The end actually lies in the hands of the voters. So I would now like to leave the decision in the hands of my voters. .. .