The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan.

First off, mongeese has committed a major rule violation. I clearly stated in the 1st round, "Please accept or offer new definitions before starting the debate." The debate starts in round 1, mongeese offered a new definition in round 2. Mongeese should undoubtedly lose the conduct vote because of this. Also, I do not agree with the definition; therefore, I will offer a new definition; mongeese can not debate this definition, it is what it is. viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... "In fact, his contentions support two of my options." -What contentions support your opinions? You never stated which of my contentions supported two of your options. "Here is a course of action that would have guaranteed the end of World War II in Japan: withdrawal...." -This is not a viable option. This option is not "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are." To end the War, the U.S. had to win the war. Why would the U.S. spend all the time, men, money, and resources fighting Japan only to call it a draw? This is not viable. This option completely contradicts my 4th point (about Russia) in the 2nd round. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." If the U.S. withdrew, then the U.S.S.R. would have surely invaded Japan. When they invaded and conquered Japan, they would have a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more. "Another more viable option: blow up Tokyo...." -The U.S. already had blown up Tokyo. But to no avail. "The bombing of Tokyo by the United States Army Air Forces took place at several times during the Pacific campaigns of World War II and included the most destructive bombing raid in history." The most destructive bombing raid in history stands out to me. If Tokyo already had been the most destructively bombed place in history, then how could it be bombed any more? The Japanese obviously were not going to surrender due to Tokyo being "blown up". (1) ***B-29 missions against Tokyo*** -19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area -25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings -4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area -10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000 civilians -2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory -3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo -7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory. -13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area -15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area -24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace -26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace -20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at -but missing the Imperial Palace -8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal -10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex "If the government was blown up, then Japan would no longer have a governing body to participate in the war." -As can clearly be seen, the U.S. tried many times but without avail to bomb the Imperial Palace. And saying that Japan would not have a governing body to participate in the war is like saying the U.S. would not be able to participate in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without Washington D.C. Also, if the Emperor was killed because of the bombing the Japanese would have never gave up. They have a deep history of respect for their Emperor, and if their Emperor had died, they would also have fought to the death no matter what. "And yet another option: blow up all of Japan over time...." -The U.S. already were bombing Japan everyday. The Japanese got bombings, air raids, and firebombings for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Japan had proven that they were not giving in to conventional bombings, the atomic bomb needed to be used against them. (2) ***Air raids against Japan*** -Doolittle Raid: attack by 16 USAAF B-25 Mitchells in April 1942 -US air raids on Iwo Jima, Minami Torishima, the Kurils and other outlying islands -Operation Matterhorn: B-29 air attacks from bases in China, beginning in June 1944 -Carrier air raids on Taiwan and Okinawa -Land-based bomber raids on Taiwan -Frequent B-29 air attacks from bases on Saipan and Tinian against major metropolitan areas, including the major bombing campaign against Tokyo -US and British Pacific Fleet air strikes against the Ryukyu Islands -Tactical operations by US Navy aircraft against Kyūshū, Shikoku, Honshū and Hokkaidō -US night raids against Japanese cities -Soviet air attacks against Japanese forces in Kuriles, Chosen and Kantogun during August-November 1945. (3) All of my opponent's options have been proven to not be viable. My opponent practically conceded the debate himself, "My opponent has defended his arguments very well. I don't have anything to say to directly refute his arguments." So, obviously, all of my points stand as my opponent supports them. By my count, I am winning this debate 4-0. Also, my opponent should lose the conduct vote because of his major rule violation. The resolution is affirmed with my opponent's approval "The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan." Vote Pro. ---Sources--- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.worldwar2database.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...