Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

-----Defending------- I never said that there weren't over 200,000 casualties... What difference does it make? Well you ignored my argument on this which said this "What's the difference? With normal bombs there a) isn't fallout and there is a smaller blast radius and less chance of people getting massively burned (of course you could but it was more common with nuclear bombs) and b) regular bombs didn't genetically mutate the citizens and make the area unusable for years on end. So your argument here doesn't work either." So basically my argument on that still stands regarding that. Moving on, I am aware that what was there was a military plant but it was a civilian city as well and we had no regard for that. My argument about civilian loss of life has fallen? Lol how so? When did the Japanese bomb an American city? The quote? I was just showing that there was anti-american sentiments contradicting your claim that there weren't in the previous round. But here you make another contradiction, //. Anyway, hating your opponent after they beat you is to be expected in most wars// so you conceded that there was hate and thus my argument about anti-americanism still works. About the next phrase, //er or not that hate stands is is what matters// it lasted for a great many years and there are still people who do hate us AND my original argument was that it made anti-americanism which is true as you conceded just a moment before thus my argument does work. :) I was giving an example as to a time when anti-americanism did take its toll. I was not arguing that the bomb made Hitler come to power I was just showing that anti-americanism did happen. So once again, my claim stands. My opponent ignored my argument about proliferation by saying that it doesn't matter how many bombs are built. Isn't that a perfect cop-out to no answer my arguments? My argument for proliferation still stands seeing as my opponent barely made an effort, and a terrible on at that, to refute it. ----------Refutation-------- Ok, clarifying what you were arguing there helps but it doesn't prove your point seeing as Japan was already discussing a conditional surrender with the Soviet Union but we wanted and unconditional one and that is why we bombed. A land invasion would have been necessary seeing as there would have just been another type of surrender. So your argument that it saved lives fails utterly. "While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms " (1) The leaflets made no mention of an atomic bomb and since surviving regular bombings wasn't all that rare they, somewhat rightfully, took no notice. So your argument there doesn't work. Also, the only reason we wanted to nuke them was to get them to surrender unconditionally, essentially humiliate them. What? Columbus had a major plant the supplied most of the wings for planes and was a big trading area but it wasn't bombed. Regardless of whether or not nukes were involved it still was left alone. So guess who's argument still stands? Mine. Regarding the burns, considering nuclear weapons have a) a bigger blast radius and b) usually a bigger yield and c) they burn hotter it is true that they do produce more burns. Therefore my argument stands. The mutations could have occurred without the bombs? Oh yeah, because massive amounts of gamma rays just burst out of nowhere in a condensed area. But really, you've got to be kidding me right? When a nuclear bomb goes off intense amounts of gamma rays are produced in a very rapid time and all condensed together thus making a deadly combination. So my argument here stands whislt your's utterly falls. It was unusable for years after, remember that it has been over 60 years since then.... And regardless of what you were referring to my argument about the massive differences and the much greater scale hold way more water. ---------Overview--------- So basically my opponent has failed to negate my claims regarding the civilian causalities in just 2 days, he has failed to negate my argument regarding anti-americanism, in fact it is quite the opposite, he conceded it and he has failed to negate my argument about proliferation so all of my arguments still stand. On the flip side, none of the arguments that my opponent has made stand and thus I strongly urge you to vote Con. Your turn Pro. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...