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. .. " Well, I was expecting that you would define "viable" in Round 2. You did not. At that point, a definition for viable was needed, as it was what the argument revolved around. I could not debate without a definition for "viable," and you didn't give me one. It was too late to offer the definition before accepting the debate, because I had already accepted the debate, and I didn't need a definition for "viable" until my arguments in Round 2. This is a Catch-22. When there's nothing that a debater can do besides break a rule, the rule needs to be broken. Plain and simple. I could not debate without a definition for "viable. " Losing the conduct point to a Catch-22 is, in itself, a Catch-22. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) "Also, I do not agree with the definition. .. " Well, my opponent has introduced a definition in the last round of the debate. This presents me with yet another catch-22: I have to introduce a new plan that fits this new definition of viable, and yet I'm not supposed to introduce new contentions in the last round of a debate. "To end the War, the U. S. had to win the war. .. " Not necessarily. The U. S. was perfectly capable of withdrawing all troops from Japan. Therefore, it was viable. It also would have ended the war in Japan. It doesn't have to be a particularly smart option; it only has to be viable. People can do things that they are not willing to do. Ultimately, my opponent does not effectively point out why withdrawing could not be done; he only pointed out why it should not have been done. There is a difference. We were perfectly capable of withdrawing our troops with circumstances as they were. The fact that we didn't want to do it, and decided that we shouldn't do it, is ultimately irrelevant. This option was viable because the U. S. had complete control of its troops, and could have easily commanded them to return home. This supports the definition of "viable. " By blowing up Tokyo, I don't mean just dropping bombs on it and making random parts explode. I mean dropping the atom bomb on Tokyo, rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this way, your contentions do support my plan, as it is essentially the same positive effect, but it only involves blowing up one city. The point you make about the Emperor is a strong one. However, it introduces a new plan. We could have dropped four bombs all at once that surrounded the Imperial Palace, but wouldn't have a blast radius large enough to actually hit the Imperial Palace. This way, the Emperor and his government could see first-hand the effects of an atomic bomb, and the Emperor would very quickly realize that Japan was doomed if the war continued, and he would immediately surrender. Cheers. Finally, blowing up all of Japan would have been instant success. If, all at one time, we dropped one atom bomb on every major city in Japan, there would be no more soldiers to fight the war, no more equipment to run the war, and no more government to oversee the war. The war would be over in Japan. This is better than blowing up only two cities, because we wouldn't have to bother waiting for a surrender; there would be no more Japanese to surrender! Now, take a look at all of my opponent's contentions. He says that the bombing ended the war. He says that the bombing saved lives of Americans. He says that the bombing saved lives of the Japanese. He says that the bombing showed America to be a powerful nation. However, none of his contentions show how viable the bombings really were. None of them. At all. He talks about how great it was, and why we should have done it, but he does not relate it at all to how capable we were of doing it. From what my opponent says, for all we know, we may have barely been capable of actually getting the atom bombs on site in time. The Manhattan Project may have barely been financed by the government. From my opponent's first round: "I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate. " He didn't prove this. At all. He said nothing about the viability of the bombings. Nothing. "My opponent. .. will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate. " I have done this. I have shown that the most viable option was to withdraw all troops from Japan. For this debate, it doesn't really matter how smart the option was, or whether we should actually use the option; this debate is about viability. In that case, I win. "By my count, I am winning this debate 4-0. " That's funny; I thought of it as 4-0 in my favor. Three points because you failed to do what you said you had to do, one point for using improper grammar ("whoever," not "whomever"), and one point for setting up your opponent with two Catch-22s. "Also, my opponent should lose the conduct vote because of his major rule violation. " Last I checked, setting people up with Catch-22s isn't very good conduct. "The resolution is affirmed. .. " Actually, according to Round 1, this debate isn't about affirming or negating the resolution. My opponent already laid out how this debate is won or lost. "I am for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate. My opponent will be against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate. " This is not a resolution debate. This is over the most viable option, as outlined in Round 1. Because you failed to do what you had to do, and I did what I had to do, I am the clear winner of this debate. "Vote Pro. " Nope.