Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

Where did the argument about civilian casualties go? Read my first paragraph! I specifically deal with the civilian casualties argument. So you are just saying it was dropped because you missed it. My opponent then makes the claim that "the radiation should be gone by now". Ok so what? My original argument was that it was unusable for years on end still stands. You have done nothing to refute this and thus it flows through the entire round. So even if, and let me stress IF because my opponent has provided no source, the hot air balloon tale is true he himself said "a few were killed/wounded" where as over 200,000 civilians were killed in the atomic bombings. So if we go off sheer numbers 200,000 is way greater. About the conquered peoples, first off, you using the word "Japs" is just a tad racist don't you think? It sounds a little ignorant... but regardless it is true that they made life a "living hell" for conquered peoples but usually, not always, but usually they were POW's not civilians whereas we dropped and two atomic weapons on two cities killing over 200,000 civilians! So my argument about civilian casualties still stands seeing as my opponent has made a minimal effort to negate it, and not a very good one at that. Hate and anti-americanism are closely related. Anti-americanism is hate, just specifically directed at Americans so as I said in my last speech, you conceded that there was hate toward Americans thus it is anti-americanism. My argument regarding the bombs breeding anti-americanism still stands. About the treaty of Versailles, I was giving an example of a time when hatred stood for years on end and lead to another war. I'm sorry if you missed the point of that but just because you didn't understand what I was arguing doesn't mean it falls. What are you talking about? You have now just conceded my argument about proliferation. You said //It doesn't matter how many are built. If one gets dropped, then they all start being built and dropped.// The key part here is "If one gets dropped, then they all start being built and dropped". That is exactly what I am arguing about proliferation. You have successfully conceded my entire proliferation argument in one sentence so obviously it still stands. But we knew they were going to surrender yet we just had to show that we had more power by killing 200,000 civilians and then making them suffer a humiliating defeat. Kudos America! But the main point here is that a land invasion would not have been necessarily which my opponent claims it would have been and since he made no attempt to defend that argument it flows to my side. So now my opponent is arguing that if Japan surrendered to Russia they'd become Communist but by now it is obvious he has done no research into this surrender. The condition was that Japan kept it's Emperor! It would not have become Communist and thus your entire argument here falls. So now you are arguing that if you have a super weapon it must be used and it's better for one to use it than all but a) he ignores the point that it lead to proliferation which he previously conceded and b) he has no evidence that other nations other than Russia would begin developing them at that time so this argument doesn't work at all. I didn't say that there was no worry that you could die, I said that surviving them wasn't all that uncommon where as nuclear bombs destroy almost everything. So basically what you are saying here is that US was just trying to show the world that we will mess you up if you piss us off. Oh, that's real good for our global image! That's why anti-americanism spread, because we looked like terrible people for killing 200,000 civilians in just two days! No, Columbus wasn't bombed because it was a city with civilians. //Mutations occur naturally, but not as in as great a quantity.// Conceded! I was arguing that mutations occurred more from the fallout and your line that said: //Probably not in as great a quantity// just proved my argument. And I must point out something, mutations aren't what drive evolution, it's natural selection, which organism is best suited to their environment. My argument about mutations still stands. ---------Voting Issues--------- My opponent has failed to negate my argument regarding civilian casualties and therefore it flows through the round and you must keep it in mind while voting. My argument about proliferation was never negated, in fact it was conceded by my opponent therefore it obviously still flows through the round and you should vote Con solely on that. My argument about anti-americanism not just flows through but was also conceded as shown above. My opponent has failed to defend any of his claims as well as refute any of mine and therefore, based on these and any other voting issues you see in the round, I urge you to vote Con. Thank you Pro for this debate. ~~Peter