azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

First of all, it may have been less than a million? How is that acceptable? Approximately 200,000 civilians died immediately, with hundreds of thousands more to follow. One civilian death in wartime is too many, but I recognize that this is an ideal that can't be fulfilled.Secondly, it would be selfish of... whom, exactly, to send soldiers in? Selfish of the Japanese? Selfish of the Americans? I don't understand.Thirdly, to choose what is "in the United States' best interest" at the cost of others is absolutely selfish, and it's ethnocentric to assume otherwise.Fourth, there are several military bases around New York, as well as a high level of industrial activity. Would it be appropriate for the Japanese to atomize New York City if the United States wouldn't surrender?Fifth, the choices of the Japanese government are not the fault of its citizens.Sixth and last, how do you feel about the firebombing of Dresden? Another "necessary measure"?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

First, I wasn't saying that 200,000 was a small number. I was just correcting your exaggeration of the facts.Second, it would be selfish to put American soldiers at such a high risk that is completely unnecessary.Thirdly, as the leader of the country, it was Truman's responsibility to protect his people at any cost. He was not going to have his soldiers killed to save civilians of the enemy country.Fourth, New York City is completely different. Not only did it have a population of about 7.5 million people in the 1940's, but there are no military bases withing New York City. It is not a major site of military manufacturing either. If Japan had to either bomb NYC or invade, it would be its best interest to bomb. That may be bad for us, but its our fault for not surrendering.Fifth, any mistakes by any government badly affects its citizens.Sixth and last, I doubt that the bombings of Dresden were necessary.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

So it's okay to bomb New Yorkers if the American government was being uncooperative? And it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour because it's a military base?And how is the bombing of Dresden unnecessary, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"So it's okay to bomb New Yorkers if the American government was being uncooperative?"- like I said before, New York is a completely different story."And it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour because it's a military base?"- in war, anything goes. People die, you need to accept it."And how is the bombing of Dresden unnecessary, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?"- the alternatives of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were much more costly. I already explained to you why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

People die, you need to accept it.If brutal massacres can be avoided, why not avoid them?Whether or not you agree that the bombing was unnecessary, you can't possibly know and understand the suffering that Japanese citizens were put through and agree with inflicting such horrors.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"If brutal massacres can be avoided, why not avoid them?"- a brutal massacre could not have been avoided either way. The cost of invading still yielded civilian casualties, Japanese soldier casualties, and American soldier casualties. Combined, this could be higher than what actually occurred.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

No, an invasion is not a brutal massacre. An invasion has civilian casualties, of course, but hopefully they're not purposeful mass murders.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

An invasion is a brutal massacre to our soldiers. We would have suffered HUGE casualties if we invaded Japan.If the issue here is to save human life, then the atomic bombs were the better choice.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Absolutely not. Hundreds of thousands of people would not have been wiped out in mere seconds. How is that valuing human life?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Hundreds of thousands of people would have been wiped out over a period of months or years. You cannot make human life your most valuable possession to be a good general of warfare.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

What is war fought over if not the value and preservation of human life?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

In war, it takes lives to save a higher number of lives..
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Ah, so you're all about a "Hot Fuzz"-esque Greater Good.The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"a "Hot Fuzz"-esque Greater Good."- im not sure what that means, but if soldiers werent used in ww2, millions more people would have died. Probably more than the amount of people lost to end the war.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

The problem we're facing is that bombs were dropped on two cities, with the sole purpose of destroying civilians as an act of power and look-what-we-can-do. That is wrong.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Showing off our power to other countries was not the sole purpose of dropping the bombs. Japan lost WW2, they refused to surrender, and therefore suffered the consequences.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

No, the Japanese government refused to surrender, and the citizens suffered the consequences.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

The government represented the citizens. Who else would have made the decision on whether to surrender or not? We couldn't have asked all the citizens, therefore the government was the decision-maker.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I suppose that means that my government represents me, although as an underage non-voter (like many of the children who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I didn't elect any of the officials. Therefore, there's no way to determine whether or not I support the decisions to, for example, bomb the cities, invade Iraq, et cetera. And yet, according to your argument, I could be punished regardless.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Well since your underage there is no reason to determine whether you support any kind of government action or not because you have no say in government proceedings. As a representative of the people like a parent is to a child, they chose to refuse to surrender.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

But the government is not a representative of the children. So the children dead in Nagasaki and Hiroshima deserved it, too?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

The children are represented by their parents and the parents are represented by the government.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

But, as any teenager knows, may parents are not at all representative of their children's beliefs.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I guess teenagers know best? Their parents don't have better judgment than them or anything.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

And thus they deserve to die for their parents' "better judgment."
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Well since it is "better judgment", doesn't that mean they couldn't judge the situation better than their parents? They deserve to die because the people who represent their interests deserve to die. Their representatives make a decision that represents them.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

They deserve to die? That is an incredibly horrible, callous statement. This debate is over.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

They deserve to die because they chose to die...............
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

You're useless.The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Good one.................................................................................
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

There has never been a time when two armies just met in a field and battled it out. Every war has seeped into the walls of cities and homes of civilians in the area where the war is being fought.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Of course not. But that doesn't make it right, and if specific actions can be taken to avoid it, especially if the seepage is as brutal and massive as this was, why not take these actions?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I didn't say that it's right. But your argument was based on the idea that war could have only soldier casualties, and that it had before. I don't believe this to be true.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

If there must be war, then there will be civilian casualties. Of course. Unfortunately.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

but they were on the verge of surrendering. I maybe we should of dropped on bomb and blockaded the nation.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

they were far from surrendering. They were just getting started. These people were fuckin' dedicated to destroying us.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

That's what I think too. I think other strategies could have been pursued to try to end the war. Dropping those bombs and killing so many civillians really can't be considered "right", even if it was necessary(which I'm not certain it was).
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

One thing you need to understand about the Japanese is that they were just as brainwashed as the Nazis. If we had invaded instead to try to avoid civilian casualties, eventually even the civilians would be drafted to fight. In their system, there were no civilians. they were brainwash victims.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Can you give me a source on that? Not that I think you're a liar or an idiot, but this is the internet and you very well could be. ;)
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Google it, ask a historian, ask an 80 year-old japanese person... It's common knowledge. "During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government. Many political enemies were assassinated, and communists persecuted. Indoctrination and censorship in education and media were further intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the prime minister. " aka brainwashing.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I can understand the effect that bombing Japan had on the overall outcome of the war. However, I don't believe that bombing two areas was at all necessary.There always have, and always will be wars and civilian casualties. But it is my opinion that such mass murder is unjustifiable.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

The Japanese didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. That's why we bombed them again.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I'm not convinced that everything possible was done to negoiate with the government to secure surrender and prevent the need for the second bombing.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"negoiate with the government to secure surrender"- the Japanese refused to surrender after such a high number of their civilians were killed, nothing could have been done to negotiate.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I'm pretty sure that given more than a few days, and with a more open communication chanel, a surrender could have been negotiated.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

How could you be pretty sure of that? Historians aren't even sure of that.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

...... If historians aren't sure one way or the other, than why are you so certain that they did do all that they could?It is my opinion that more could, and should, have been done to prevent the need for a second bombing. If you feel differently, fine. Simply going back and forth like this is not debating, it's nitpicking and childish.We have a difference of opinion based on all facts. That's the end of it.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"why are you so certain that they did do all that they could?"- when did i say that i was certain? You can't be certain or pretty sure on either side.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

You said, "nothing could have been done to negotiate."You use very misleading wording for not being "certain" about your opinion.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"You can't be certain or pretty sure on either side." <----- i said this in regard to factual evidence. In terms of the facts, nobody can be sure on either side because it cannot be proven. It is only are opinions that make us different.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

....That is exactly what I said and you disputed that......
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I disputed your statement in which you said i was certain. I wasn't certain because it is my opinion. An opinion cannot make anyone certain on an issue. It would have been better if i said "it is my opinion that ........"
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

the japanese were out of control and were doing things much worse than hiroshima. check out the nanjing massacre. they were killing people by the millions, and performing biological warfare tests on humans. they also forced women into prostitution.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Almost two months before atom bombs was trown Japan try to make deal with Russians and Usa for surender only not to judge or arest king,but Usa didn't make that deal maybe becose thay was afraid Russians will take Japan same way thay take almost all east Europe.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Thousands and thousands of women and children were killed in both of those atomic blasts.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: dropped for a different reason

It is true that Japan was definitely ready to surrender within weeks, so in general, it was not necessary. One thing that I noticed is that no one seems to think that the main reason for the dropping of atomic bombs was not to stop the war, but to rather tell the then-powerful and newly expanding Soviet Union "see what we got? back off"
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"It is true that Japan was definitely ready to surrender within weeks"- how could you possibly know that that was true? There is absolutely no way you could know that."but to rather tell the then-powerful and newly expanding Soviet Union "see what we got? back off"- that wasn't the only reason. Think about this: do you think that it would have been easier for us to drop an atomic bomb on another country if we never saw the effects it had on Japan? We could have ended up dropping it on a place with more casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I don't think it was right. If you want to know what CreateDebate was like over a year ago, check out this identical debate... Notice the effort that people put into their arguments.I miss this CreateDebate:Was the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 justifieble or not?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

A person who answers Yes to this question knows nothing of the history of world war II. Japan was already won at the time
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Japan had already won the war at the time even though they were surrounded by US forces after being pushed back through the Pacific to their home island? Its very hypocritical for you to tell people they don't know anything about WWII.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Read a little closer next time. "Japan was already won at the time." You just proved exactly what he had said.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

How did I prove what he said by stating the exact opposite of his argument? How had Japan won before we bombed them?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

As I said, read closer. He stated that Japan was already won. He was stating that the United States had full control over the situation before the bombing. Japan was won by the United States at the time. His wording was slightly confusing, but his point was that the United States had no reason to drop bombs on a country that was already won. Just to clarify: He stated Japan was won, not had won. A country that was won has no powerful means to resist.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I see what your saying now.Even with the meaning that he actually meant, I still disagree with him. Since Japan refused to surrender, it has to be seen that they were refusing to have themselves lose to the United States. This stubbornness lead to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I just disagreed with your reasoning, not your side. I agree with both now. Japan, unfortunately, chose not to surrender even after their obvious loss. The allied forces chose to adopt a policy of unconditional surrender with good reasons. The United States could not, as a nation, abandon this policy. This caused them to attempt to force Japan into unconditional surrender. Any surrender treaty that Japan would have proposed would have had conditions stated within it. The bombings ensured that Japan would surrender without conditions. The United States, and in aggregate the entire allied forces, would appear weak if they accepted the surrender with conditions.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

"Japan was won" means the oppisite to "Japan had won"Hate to be a dick in teching you EnglishAll the best
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

""Japan was won" means the oppisite to "Japan had won""- do you really think that i havent figured that out yet?"Hate to be a dick in teching you English"- believe me, you dont need to teach me English. A smart person would not have said Japan was won and expect people to interpret that correctly. Its not accurate, even in this case, to say that we won a country.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I dont know if I should support this or dispute - but you misread my statement.I agree with you
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

No becase inasent pepole got killed and they had to clean up all the mess
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

actually america came back in and helped rebuild the natioin so you are wrong
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

No! Those bombs killed so many innocent people and People say it was necessary, but I don't agree!
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

There is nothing so terrible as the loss of countless civilians in two different places to suffer the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As millions suffered under Hitler all the US could worry about was retribution for Pearl Harbor. A disgusting chapter in history for this country combined with the internment camps they threw the Japanese into in this country. There are no excuses for this type of warfare.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

It wasn't retribution for Pearl Harbor. If we had invaded Japan then even more civilians would have died, look at the number of German civilians that died when they were defeated, WOW. It would have been about 500k civilians dead on the Japanese side. There would have been millions of American and Japanese troops dead, too. If you compare a possible 1.5 million to 200 thousand it makes you realize that not dropping the bombs would have been less humane.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

And I've been down voted for what reason? Just a slight correction as well...we didn't throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we dropped bombs on them.
Debate: WAS JESUS CHRIST A REAL PERSON?
Side: yes

He was very much a real person, and by all accounts a pretty cool guy. However, his divinity is in doubt! Although, if he were divine, would he be a "real" person?
Debate: WAS JESUS CHRIST A REAL PERSON?
Side: yes

Good point. Actually, early Christians never even spoke of the divinity of Christ, they only followed his teachings. His divinity was declared centuries after the crucifixion when Rome, basically, became the center of Christianity. That one detail, alone, should make people stop and think.I identify myself as a Christian, though I have struggled with the divinity of Christ for that very reason. Why wasn't he considered to be divine by those who followed him while he walked the Earth? I still consider myself a Christian because I follow his teachings and believe he was sent here for a special purpose.