azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Throughout the Island hoping campaigns the Japanese showed their resolve. In Okinawa the Japanese civilians would rather commit suicide than to surrender to American troops. The Japanese also treated American P.O.Ws with sever disrespect. The Bataan Death March subjected 78,000 American and Allied Pow's to a grueling march aimed to simply kill captured and wounded American and Allied troops. Many Japanese soldiers would rather charge American lines with bayonets drawn knowing that the American lines would respond with heavy machine gun fire instead of just surrendering. Throughout the war there are many other examples of how the Japanese showed their resolve to fight in World War Two. In the end it would take two nuclear weapons to bring the end of the deadliest war in human history. Its also important to understand that in war civilians do get hurt it is not the goal of most militaries, but it is the price that ultimately comes with war.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

If Japan was about to surrendor why didn't they surrender after Truman offered the Potsdam Declaration? That was the perfect time for them to have surrendered. Yes, it is a tragedy that so many lives were lost but how many more could have been lost continuing on with the war? Truman did not take pride in his decision to drop the bomb as he said "The atom bomb was no great decision. It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

They wanted to keep their emperor. I don't think jumping straight to nuking them is a reasonable counter-offer. There was no need to continue the war at all. Just surrender negotiations followed by the end of the war. The end.Actions speak louder than words.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree wth you. Who is to say they were going to finally surrender? They had proven to be relentless in their fighting. They would fight to the death i.e. Kamikaze attacks and their ritual suicides. Thousands of American soldiers' lives were lost in the battles of Okinawa an Iwo Jima. The Japanese had underground tunnels, bunkers and pillboxes with the intention of inflicting the most possible damage in the event of military invasion. Even though they knew defeat was inevitible, they wanted to take out as many American soldiers as possible. Why let that happen if it doesnt need to?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

They did. The Japanese said they were going to surrender. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? Nuking a quarter million Japanese civilians is not a reasonable response to Japan putting forth a counter offer to Potsdam. Japan wanted to surrender. Even after being bombed they didn't put up any militaristic fight. They were out and they wanted to stay out.We were the ass-holes, not them.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Japan would have agreed to a conditional surrender before the bomb was dropped. All they wanted was to keep the same executive power in office. After the 100,000 plus were killed and Japan surrenders unconditionally the United States lets Japan continue under the same rule! None of this had to happen. Japan was on its knees with no chance of victory over the U.S., let alone the entire group of allies.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

First of all, morally speaking, it was unacceptable to drop the atomic bomb. The bomb’s purpose was to kill innocent people. While it was completely wrong of the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor was a military base and they attacked it to weaken our navy; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not. Thousands of civilians lived there so the target became the people and not the military. Even high ranking military personal of the United States said that the atomic bomb was not necessary. Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, is quoted saying, “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender”. Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed with, "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." At this point the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the emperor could keep his position on the throne. The US was just stubborn and didn’t see this as “complete surrender”. The US acted too hastily in the decision to drop the bomb without considering the repercussions or possible negotiations. The United States also did not wait long enough after Hiroshima to bomb Nagasaki. The death tolls weren’t even in and the US didn’t wait for Japan to respond before launching the second atomic bomb. The US had several options, but again the immediately acted and dropped the second bomb. This really shows how merciless the United States was.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Well said, morally speaking, it was the wrong thing to do.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I agree that it was morally wrong to drop the atomic bomb. President Truman and other American officials were aware of the utter destruction that the bomb would cause and how many innocent civilian lives would be lost from it. It is still difficult for me to believe that there was absolutely no other way to end the war then to kill 100,000 within a few minutes. Had the Japanese been ready to surrender, as many have argued, then his decision was definitely not justified. I also do not believe that a decision this grave should have been made in haste. Not only was the first bomb catastrophic, but the second bomb also had terrible consequences.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I think you do make a good point in that morally speaking, the decision was not necessarily acceptable. President Truman did have a number of options to choose from to end the war, and dropping the bomb may not have been the best one. But to support Truman's decision, it would end the war quickly. I think that the ideas floating around that maybe Truman had an ulterior motive or that maybe he was seeking revenge and wanted to feel superior to other countries and show the kind of weaponry the U.S. had may possibly have been true, but as the President he was just trying to get his country out of a bad situation. So although I do believe Truman's decision was, in a sense, justified, you do make a few very valid points.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I am against atomic bomb .................................... I am afraid one day it will end this civilization
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Honestly it probably will. The fact that if we are alerted as to one firing upon us triggers the firing right back is a scary concept. I think that no one should be able to own a weapon that could ultimately put an end to the world. Who is really trustworthy? Our Allies? What happens when we want something that they have? It will turn into and every country for itself in the near future.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

So America killed nearly 100000 people on purpose. How is that justifiable? Not even the Annoying Orange deserves that.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Exactly! HOW is that justifiable?? I don't and never will understand the hypocrisy of our Christian nation and killings of so many people. Even our own.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

No I do believe that dropping the atomic bob was necessary. I am grateful that it was not my decision to make. I do not believe that innocent people deserved to lose their lives, nor do I believe the devastation of the aftermath is something that any human being should endure. It was not those peoples fault that their government angered ours. The reasoning that was given was that it ultimately saved American lives that could have been lost through warfare. That is not a good enough reason. The amount of suffering that followed was not only life altering but affected many generations of people. This could have been dealt with in a much better way.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The usage of the atomic bomb on Japan or even the usage of the atomic bomb is not justified and in my opinion it will never be justified! So many innocent people died because of the atomic bombs that where dropped on the Japanese cities. To think that those people were just going on about their day, with their families and loves ones, and within seconds, everything was gone and they were destroyed! There is just no justice to that at all. It was not even a necessity because Japan was ready to surrender on the condition that their Emperor Hirohito could keep his spot on the throne. President Truman did not think that this surrender was unconditional, so he decided to kill innocent people whom government was going to be of no harm anymore. It was a very bad decision and it started a terrible trend among countries, and now we have many countries with the ability to do what we did to Japan. This is a very scary thought to endure!
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Unfortunately, in all wars, innocent civilians get bombed and killed. Until it is allowed to just stealthily go in and assasinate horrible dictators, that is what will happen. It seems that the dropping of the bomb showed the world what a horrible weapon it is and NOBODY wants to use it, and thankfully, nobody has.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Nobody wants to use it???! Have you been watching the news for the past couple of years? If we think that nobody wants to use it, then why are we so scared of the fact that Iran has nuclear weapons? There is no calmness to this because it has happened in the past and America has demonstrated this by the wrong doing of President Truman! Remember that if the lesson is not learned, then history repeats itself!
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Many can argue wether the japanese deserved to be nuked for bombing Pearl Harbor. Many say yes and others no. In other to find the answer we should put it in to perspective. After American forces bombed Iraq for reasons i still cannot understand, would Iraq be justified to nuke America? would we the civilian population be punish for the wrong doings of the Bush Administration? I can understand bombing strategic military posts but purposely aiming at civilian population and causing mass murder, that would make us no more better than the Nazis. The killing of innocent people is all i'm against and usage of the Atomic Bomb on civilian population was one of the lowest points of American History.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I have to say dropping the bomb was unjustified at the time. If Japan's allies were still a threat then I could see that using the bomb could threaten the Axis' power, but at the time the bomb was dropped Japan had no chance of winning a war. One of Truman's justifications of the drop was that Japan did not agree to an unconditional surrender. Japan refused because they wanted to keep their ruler in power, but after the bomb was dropped an the unconditional surrender was reached we ended up leaving with the same executive power as before. It was a senseless bombing that, yes, struck fear in the heart of other nations, but also gives reason for other countries to justify using nukes on us in the future.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Actually it has not given other countries justification for using nuclear weapons on the United States in the future. We know this because one has never been used since. Also they are aware that the US has to power and resources to fight back with their own weapons or anticipate the attack and have their own aimed and ready to go. If Japan was not going to surrender, then everyone believed that there was going to be an invasion on the US so the United States did all they thought they could do and decided to drop the bomb.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I don’t think that Truman should have dropped the bomb on Japan. Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. America’s refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki. Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

If Japan was ready to give up they should have signed the agreement the U.S. made or made it more clear that they were ready to end it. We will never know wether or not the Japanese would have continued on in the war but I think Truman made the decision he had to make at that time. He wasn't proud of it or just waiting to throw the atomic bomb out there, and there are probably hidden things that were going on that the citizens didn't know about. Yes, many lives were lost but many were saved as well.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The United States was not justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. The use of the bomb was inhumane and resulted in thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. There is a reason was the United States is the only country in the world to this day to deploy nuclear weapons. They have deadly and lasting costs. Not only were there the immediate deaths of thousands of civilians, but thousands more died in the months to come after the bomb was dropped due to the radiation produced from it. Additionally, thousands more lives were lost even further down the like during the Korean War because of many suffering from starvation due to loss of so much land and sources of food. No potential loss of lives from a Japanese invasion outweighs the long lasting effects of the tragic dropping of an atomic bomb on another country. The United State's decision also played a large role in igniting the Cold War.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

While it is true that the bomb did have lasting effects, it would have been nearly impossible to determine the effects of radiation before the bombs had been dropped. While it would be a much more inhumane form of warfare today because of that knowledge, the aftermath of the nuclear effects were most likely not predicted before the bomb was dropped. I saw a video last week of five American men standing near ground zero of one of the atomic bomb tests; had we known about the medical conditions that could be caused by radiation, it is unlikely that those men would be allowed to be at ground zero with no protection.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The United States had no right to drop such a powerful weapon on so many innocent people. Not only did the atomic bomb kill civilians, it also destroyed their city that was virtually unharmed prior to the bomb. While it was believed that they saved American soldiers, no real plan was set out for a land invasion. A land attack using American militia could have been successful. Also, America came out of the war looking like a bully. Being the first to drop an atomic bomb left the country feared by other nations. It also sent the country into the Cold War.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Although you make a point, I believe it wasn't the intentions to kill "innocent" people, but to make a point that America is powerful and in the end save more lives at the end of the war. If nothing was done, the war would keep going on, more people dying. No war is justifiable, but Truman did what he thought was best for America at the time, I don't think they looked like a bully but more powerful, knowing what our country is capable of such a thing. You make a point when you say it did lead to the Cold War, but to end this war this is what needed to be done.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

In my opinion, the main argument in support of dropping the bombs was to save American and to end the war. Typically, the main argument against dropping the bombs were the fact that these were horrific bombs with terrible repercussions. After seeing photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm convinced that the U.S. was not justified in dropping the bombs. I believe President Truman's decision to drop the bombs was 1. to save American lives, 2. seek revenge on the Japanese for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 3. demonstrate our military power to the Soviet Union. Granted, number 1 is the only justifiable reason but that depends on how long the Japanese would have continued fighting once we invaded. That to me was the only legitimate reason for dropping the bombs. To save lives and end the war but I also strongly believe that reasons #2 & #3 were a driving force in the decision which makes this unjustifiable.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Nothing in war is justifiable. War is the only human attribute barring us from differing from beasts.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I think President Truman had other options to stop the animosity between the U.S. And the Japanese. The United States wanted to establish firmly that they were the dominant world power, Truman basically proved it by sacrificing two entire cities full of innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with Japan's military armed forced. These two Japanese cities where picked out because they had been the least affected cities throughout the war. The same thing that the U.S. was helping to fight against during the conflict with Hitler and his massacre against "inferior races", now America was doing the same. I think it was unecassary another method had to be sought, but then again maybe we probably wouldn't be the country it is today, if that event had not occured.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I do not think that Truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb. The fact that he said that "it is a weapon so it should be used as a weapon" for the reason why it was used is not justified. I feel like it did got the war to end and some good things came out of it, but it was not worth the innocent lives that were taken. There were other ways that this war could have come to an end and more needed to be done before just dropping the atomic bomb. It was a risky decision because the other countries could have easily retaliated created an even bigger war. If all presidents just dropped bombs because we have them readily available the United States would have started many wars. Truman and the United States simply were not justified in dropping the atomic bomb because it was not the last resort needed to stop the war and there was no need for retaliation in this form.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Bullshit! Would you have preferred more innocent lives on both sides to be sacrificed by an invasion of Japan?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I do not believe that more innocent lives on both sides would be sacrificed by an invasion of Japan.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I do. That's what opinions are for I suppose.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

When the US dropped the Atomic Bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a combined total of between150,000 to 250,000 people died from the direct effect of the bomb, not to mention the many injured, the structural damage to the cities, and the nasty effects of radiation that haunted Japan for many years after the explosions.  War has a different code of morality, and that is understandable, but is also true that Japan had no more chance of coming back. For a simple analogy, the US had Japan locked on an arm bar, and knew they were going to tap out, but broke their arm anyway. Moreover, not only the US knew they were going to surrender, but some scholars defend that they already had. The brutal truth is that the United States government, most likely viewed the japanese bombing as an opportunity to show the USSR they had a weapon of power unheard at the time, making the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not the last act of WWII but the first of the Cold War
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

This is a great argument! I too believe that there were ways that the Atomic bomb could have been avoided. It was not necessary to destroy the lives of so many people, and because of this power struggle that was going on in these times it definitely seems just like a show of power. In the text it did not say that they knew they were going to surrender, but there was for sure a sign that the United States had more power at this time. If they United States had simply invaded the Japanese most likely would have surrendered not long afterward. Your argument perfectly segues into the Cold War and I agree completely. This was the start of the Cold War because it started the show of power from the countries who believed they were able to compete. I think that it is really sad that we actually used the atomic bomb, instead of just using it as a threat, as the Cold War would do.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I can see why it can be 'justified' in loose terms- it was unleashed with the intention of saving lives there were over 20,000 American lives at stake and not to mention it saved Japanese lives as well, an estimated 20 million would have been killed had the American troops invaded Kyushu and who's to say they wouldn't have acted first given the chance? However, in my mind it cannot ever be fully justified. It was mass genocide because not all who were killed were military personnel, it was inhumane and those who survived either succumbed to radiation poisoning or were impaired some how for the rest of their lives or suffered from cancer and other bomb-related illnesses. Truman called it "the greatest thing in history" but I ask at what cost? Let's face it he wanted to get one over on the Germans and this next quote from him supports what I have put forward: "we have won the race of discovery against the Germans, we have used it in order to shorten the agony of war" And that may be so but I personally cannot ever see a way to fully justifying the atrocities caused by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The united states should not used atomic bomb due to a lot of innocent lives are involved.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The united states used the atomic bomb to end the war faster in order to stop the success of the Soviet Union in "liberating" asian countries taken over by the Japanese.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Those two atomic bomb attacks in Japan killed thousands and thousands of women and children.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

The argument that it is just a clump of cells is misleading. ;)
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Good point. I mean, the same is true of human adults too. Just a larger clump of cells.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Yes!!! One down, half the American population to go ;)
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

I have been on the site for nine years. How long have you been here?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

9 years. Just like you ;)
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

I agree. If a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and that makes it okay to kill it, then technically everyone is a clump of cells and effectively, murder is legal.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

If a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and that makes it okay to kill itA fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate