Bombing Japan was the best way to end WWII

You said: " I talked about how we weren't with the League of Nations, And how it wasn't a demonstration of power. And it was no test of the bombs by dropping them on Japan. " Now you're just flip flopping. You used the league of nations to wave away war crimes and then try to separate them after I debunked it so you could cleverly shift the blame onto the LON instead of the US. Nice try. You doubled talked and claimed that a demonstration of the bomb wouldn't help, Then you changed your position by saying that we had to "show japan our power to make them surrender" So which is it? You can't say we need to scare them into surrendering and then turn around and say that a demonstration wouldn't help. You said: "Ruling out ALL other options would take years and include government documents I don't have" This is a cop out. You're the one who made the positive claim that the bombs were the best way. You can't say that I you don't have the data to rule out the other possibilities. You basically just admitted that you don't have the evidence to support your claim. You said: "They had to convince the government to surrender" You mean with a demonstration? Flip flopping again I see. You literally just said that there wasn't a demonstration. Then you said: "But you also had to convince the people that they needed to surrender" This is nonsense. If the government surrendered, Japan's people would have surrendered with it. You're just trying to create a slippery slope fallacy. You said: "Two sets of leaflets were dropped in a bunch of military-related Japanese cities" I already debunked this. There is no reason to expect that citizens could have predicted the level of destruction. Even by modern day standards, The nuclear attacks are legendary in destruction power. Furthermore, You completely glazed over the point I brought up that one of the bombs were dropped in the wrong city and that city didn't get any pamphlets. You said: "Also, This actually wasn't my opinion. It was reasoning that came from Washington, DC (which meant Truman, Too) about why it was beneficial to bomb them twice, Not just once. " Okay, It's still an opinion. You've just traded your opinion for Truman's opinion. Where's the data to back it up? Why would we care about Truman's opinion when he's the one whose decision we're questioning in this very debate? You said: "The bomb didn't miss its mark either" This is false. You're trying to deny a fact that is so well known, That even a high school honors student could tell you that you're wrong. There's even an interview on record with the pilot who missed the drop. Just give this point up. You said: "I chose my words poorly, As you are correct about the economy being shot at this time. But you didn't address the morale part, Or the part where I talked about the people would've fought on (more on that later). " You can't prove that they would have kept fighting. Furthermore, If that was the case, Then dropping the bombs wouldn't have matter, Because I could just say the same thing as you. See watch "They would have kept on fighting if they dropped the bombs" See why I don't take bold claims as evidence? This is just another slippery slope fallacy. You said: "Yes, I agree with you in the fact it was a war crime, There is no evidence to dispute the fact it was. But had we lost the war after dropping the 2 bombs, The people that had anything to do with it would be persecuted as war criminals. " Yeah, That's the problem. The only reason that they got away with it was because they had the global authorities in their pocket. How am I suppose to believe they made the best choice when they committed a war crime and then snaked out of it? You said: " 3015 dead in B-29s over Japan. Had we kept bombing them, That number would've kept going up, Higher and higher, Along with Japanese death count. Civilians would've been nuked. 213, 000 Japanese died in the B29 bombings alone, Civilians and military both. " Slippery slope fallacy again. This one is even worse, Because what you're essentially saying is "if we didn't kill a bunch of people, We would have killed a bunch of people" That's vacuous. You said: "Demonstration = Blow up the bomb in the ocean or unpopulated land. I was fighting against why a demonstration would not work. " please look up the definition of demonstration. A water test and blowing people up to force them into surrender are both textbook definitions of demonstrations. I never claimed that a water test was a good option, You just claimed it to be a bad option unprovoked. My plan is don't detonate any nukes cause the jap had already lost the war. We didn't do this for tactical reasons. We did it to force a political surrender. You said: "The Navy Department estimated 1. 7 and 4 million casualties for Americans, And 10 million for Japanese I mean" That's not hard data. That's just an estimate. There is no way to prove that the estimate is correct. That would be like saying you could guess the number of gumballs in a tall silo without having any data to it's height and width. You said: "The Navy Department wouldn't know anything, Right" That's an appeal to authority. Just because they had experience doesn't mean that they can accurately predict casualties in any situation. This may be so or a small attack. But this would have been a big chaotic attack. 100% U. S. Casualties could have been just as likely as 0%. You said: " The Japanese government may have surrendered, But the Japanese people wouldn't have without a good reason like I said above (but you tiptoed around). It wasn't very known that there was a threat of a revolt against the government" Okay, So first of all, This is false. The japs worshipped their emperor as a deity and would have listened to him. Furthermore, The revolt wouldn't have happened in this scenario because the government would have went into healing mode and that tends to quell revolts. But let's just pretend that this is true for a second. If the people were going to revolt, Then why wouldn't America just let them rot from the inside out? Isn't that tactically better than risking two pilots? Zero pilots risked is better than two right? You said: "It ended the war, Didn't it? " That's not good enough. Please try to remember the topic that you made. You're here to show it was the best option, Not a candidate option. There were many ways to end the war. So you cannot make this appeal. You said: "And don't worry, I'll have fun continuing this on in the comments if you still need some convincing" Do what you want, But I don't do that. It ruins the debate by letting you sneak in extra points that you should have brought up in your debate. So basically what you're saying is that you didn't make a good enough case and now you're gonna go spam the comment section so you can get extra words over me. I'm here to improve my debate skills and maybe learn some stuff, So petty point scoring isn't really my interest. good debate.