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

I appreciate my opponent taking the time to write a thorough response this time. I will begin with rebuttal and then provide my own points: "He makes a mockery out of the death of the various impeccable and innocent civilians who died without a cause, some of who even became a prey to the irrefutable act of 'suicide'. In fact, my learned opponent debates a topic which he himself isn't fully aware of. " Strawman. I did no such thing. Bold assumption fallacy. I argue they are not innocent, but my opponent has yet to raise this point. And a dash of Ad Hominem. And once again my opponent is using an emotional argument rather than a logical one. "Unfortunately, his assumptions are truly based on hearsay and I myself am not fully convinced with the fact that his grandparents or his parents might have even shared anything about the actual devastation of the World War II. " Ad Hominem once again. My relationship with participators in WW II has absolutely no bearing on the case. And my opinions are based on sources and history as opposed to my opponent's personal assertions and emotional appeals. My opinions are based on a priori axiomatic reasoning concerning the nature of war. "He himself is not aware of the series of events that took place in the war and is so damn proud of it, that he criticizes the reality and tries to make wrong the right. " A bit of Ad Hominem here as well and a bold assertion without claim. The entire nature of this debate is for my opponent to accept the BOP and say that the bombing was not "right. " He has yet to do so. He is engaging in circular reasoning my assuming the answer from which he draws his conclusion. "His arguments make me realize his pitiable condition as well as his stand at the global basis and he makes way to denigrating others in a field where he himself is devoid of complete knowledge about a particular subject. " Some more Ad Hominem and bold assumptions founded in opinion and not historically documented fact. Just because my opinion claims something does not make it true. He has to prove that something is true. If he questions my sources or quotes he is allowed to refute them, not just say 'they aren't true because I say so. " "Well, there was a pretty good number of countries involved in it ranging from USSR to U. K. and Germany. ' So why didn't the U. S. attack some other country? '" Well as for the Soviet Union and the U. K. .. They were allies of the U. S. And "German forces surrendered in Italy on 29 April 1945. " But the attacks:"Atomic explosion at Nagasaki, 9 August 1945. " So Germany had already surrendered by the time the U. S. implemented nuclear attack. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) "He criticizes me on the grounds that 'there's not a single cited source and many fallacies' but he himself is unaware about his extraordinary intelligence which is only capable of citing sources from the net to prove himself in part because his own intelligence isn't enough to contradict the allegations made. " Debates are found in fact, not opinion. (Now who is promoting hearsay? ) And I am intelligent enough not to suggest that the U. S. should've bombed the Soviet Union or U. K. instead of Japan. 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. He cites the Federal Council of Churches (for which he provides absolutely no sources) and a scientist who makes a similar moral claim as well as a sympathetic Japanese party (go figure. Once again no sources cited for me to view these opinions). I don't deny that by some the act of bombing the two Japanese cities was considered morally reprehensible, I didn't need to hear sources saying it. I needed my opponent to raise at least some semblance of a debate with proof debating it. He needed to establish a basis for morality. 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. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 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. I won't continue to say that the cities bombed were the home to thriving military factories and headquarters. 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 simply stated his opinion. But as we all know, on this site you have to do more than just provide an opinion to be a good debater. Hopefully, my opponent can learn from this experience. "Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two. " I said no such thing. .. I didn't realize Japanese consisted of so many countries. "Unlike my intelligent and most hard working opponent, I would now request my voters to be unbiased and vote for the one who has really put in effort, the one who is deserving. " Yes please. Do this. My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP. He has stated personal opinion and the unsited opinions of others. He has attacked me in a lame attempt to give credence to his words and he has presumed (Via circular reasoning) that he is right because his morals say so. Finally, as per the rules my opponent IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE ANY NEW ARGUMENTS in the final round (if he does he automatically forfeits). He can defend the ones he has already introduced, which are none (unless he wants to defend personal opinion. ) So this debate is a foregone conclusion and quite disappointing to be honest.