Challenge me.

Alright. In response to my opponent's last round arguments, I would like to say that I think many of my points were either dismissed or misinterpreted. With that said, I'd like to clear some things up and make some new arguments. CONTENTION ONE: A. My first point was essentially that my opponent assumes that American lives are more important than any other lives. My opponent responded with, "This is not what I was saying." I certainly understand this. My critique stems not from my opponent's explications but from his implications. Although we were in a time of war, we set our citizens' lives above others. That, I would argue, is how atrocities are allowed to occur. (1) "If we were simply talking about an invasion of an innocent nation then obviously we were not justified." --My question here is how we are supposed to define an "innocent nation." Japan was 95% civilian-populated at the time of the bombing, with most of the victims being women and children. (http://www.lewrockwell.com...) If my opponent can't call this innocence, then I would really like to see what he does call innocence. (2) "we had been initially attacked by them without military provocation" --OK, so they started it, right?! This is such a childish argument. Just because someone hits you doesn't mean you have to slap them right back. (3) "The Pearl Harbor attacks made it very clear that war with Japan was necessary and inevitable." --This was long before Japan had surrendered. There is a reason we don't have an eye-for-an-eye system anymore--we've realized it can't be justified. This is why we take criminals to court after wrongdoings and figure out how to rehabilitate them. Japan was looking for peace at the point where we bombed them. --My opponent understands that we warned Japan about what we were going to do. What he doesn't understand is that Japan was fully aware of this as well--and Truman knew it! Take this into consideration: "Truman knew the Japanese emperor had accepted the terms for unconditional surrender three weeks before the atomic bomb was dropped." From Truman's HANDWRITTEN diary: "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…" (http://www.lewrockwell.com...) If anything, we can see here that Truman was racist in regard to the Japanese. B. "My question is why does it matter that a bomb war used rather than a bullet." (1) Fair question. Here's the answer: While bombs and bullets are both used to kill humans, bullets can be used with discretion, while bombs are used for (in the words of Truman) "utter destruction" without regard for innocent human life. So in that sense, I would say that I would, if anything, prefer the bullet over the bomb. (2) "My opponent also argues against the use of nuclear firepower" --This is true. In fact, I'm against the use of all useless bombing--nuclear or fire. The problem of the WWII bombings is that it created a terrible precedent for future American wars. Here's an article that came out this week: "Mass murder of civilians has been central to all subsequent U.S. wars." "[It is a] fallacy that bombing of civilians is effective, a mistaken assumption that has led to horrific humanitarian consequences for little strategic gain." (http://search.japantimes.co.jp...) My opponent needs to understand that I'm really against the use of any bombing of innocent civilians. It's a lost cause, and it's time we realize it. C. DEATH TOLL DEBATE "It was estimated at the time that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would result in more that 500,000 deaths" --I initially stated that my opponent must prove that the alternative to the use of the atomic bombs would have caused a greater amount of gross death. Although my opponent provided a source and a number, he is far from winning this point. Here's a few excerpts from John Ray Skates' "The Invasion of Japan": "Truman justified the use of the atomic bombs by claiming that his decision precluded a bloody invasion that would have cost one million casualties. The numbers varied with the occasion--sometimes two hundred and fifty thousand, sometimes five hundred thousand [as in this debate], sometimes one million; sometimes the numbers described deaths, sometimes total casualties, sometimes only Americans, or sometimes Japanese and Americans." "The source of the large numbers used after the war...has yet to be discovered." "Such prophecies of extremely high casualties only came to be widely accepted after the war to rationalize the use of the atomic bombs." With all of this in mind, we can see that nukes did not, as my opponent asserts, save lives. Therefore, my argument stands. CONTENTION TWO: "This was a noble goal but when the Japanese refused we had no choice but to end the war." --I strongly disagree with this. I have shown with evidence that Truman was aware that the Japanese wanted peace. My opponent, however, has given no evidence to support this argument. CONTENTION THREE: "I would say that war in Iraq was a good preemtive measure that may have prevent even more tragedy down the road" --Once again, I believe this is a terrible assumption to make. My evidence from the Japan Times proves this assumption to be a major fallacy. --I also think that our situation in Iraq can still be related to our WWII situations. "In Iraq, civilian casualties were high and intentional as part of a campaign to demoralize the population" (http://search.japantimes.co.jp...). Civilian casualties should not be tolerated. There is no conceivable benefit to them. CONCLUSION: I think that every single one of my arguments is still valid. My opponent has been making unjustified assertions based in post-war propaganda. My opponent must do much better if he intends to win this debate.