Challenge me.

Alright. It looks like this is the final round. My opponent made some interesting arguments, but I think he dismissed too many of mine. I'll try to take it line-by-line. CONTENTION ONE: A. My opponent dismissed the argument that I thought he was implying that American lives are worth more than other lives. As I've previously stated, it is this type of mindset that leads to more atrocities. My opponent had more than enough space to address it, so don't let him bring it up in the final round. (1) My sub-point (1) was about innocence. My opponent touched on it by saying that soldiers are all innocent, but Japan had made terrible decisions. Here's the thing: You can't judge a population by the decisions their leaders make. Take the United States as a perfect example. There are tons of people who didn't agree with former-President Bush's decision to go into Iraq. Can you really blame EVERY American for Bush's decision? The land invasion would have taken care of those who actually made the decisions. Japan was 95% civilian-populated at the time of the bombing!!! Look back to my source from the last round. (2) My point here was that just because someone starts something it doesn't mean you have to get them back for it. My opponent retorted by saying that its completely different because "it's war." But here's the thing: The human condition is war. What I mean to say is that a petty slap in the face isn't really that far off from declaring war on someone. It's all caused by the same thing. (3) My opponent argued against this point by saying that my source wasn't citing Japan's surrender. This is incorrect. Even my opponent's own source understands that it was Japan's attempt at negotiated peace. My opponent and his source also lecture about the threat of Russia. Take this into consideration: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (http://www.ibiblio.org...) My argument stands. B. My point here was that the bullet would have been more effective than the bomb. (1) Without addressing my point here, my opponent is accepting the fact that the atomic bomb was used without regard for innocent human life. That should be enough reason to vote for me. (2) My opponent also dismissed this point. The use of the atomic bomb set a terrible precedent for later U.S. wars. This went completely untouched. This is yet another reason to not stand for the use of the bombs. C. Additionally, my opponent, for all intents and purposes, conceded the death toll debate. By looking at the evidence in the third round, you can see that I have shown that more lives were lost in the bombing than would have been lost in the land invasion. Keep in mind this is total lives lost as well--not just Americans. CONTENTION TWO: My argument stands that Japan wanted peace. Therefore, no moral high ground was taken here. I should win this contention. CONTENTION THREE: Using bombs as preemptive measures against further attacks has been proved a fallacy. There was no need for unconditional surrender. There is no way to prove that Japan "needed" to be nuked because they are doing alright now. That is, in fact, a logical fallacy. The land invasion, as I've argued, would have left Japan in better shape, with less lives lost. My opponent dropped most of this debate, not even addressing the loss of civilians. CONCLUSION: I don't think any of my opponent's contentions stand. In fact, I think many of you will find that you don't like the the implications of many of his arguments. How, with any reason, can we justify the killing of innocent people? It doesn't work in a practical sense, and I really hope it doesn't make sense in your heart.