azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Atheist are more peaceful than religious people
Side: Religious people more peaceful

The question and options for this debate are very narrow-minded and is extremely stupid.
Debate: Atheist are more peaceful than religious people
Side: Religious people more peaceful

It would be hard to say who exactly. So many chrisians still struggle with happines and peace. Same with atheist. In fact, both groups can easily say and come off to be this peaceful person but only the person themselves know if they truly are or not. Some could even convince themselves that they are when they're really not. And when i say some i'm talking about both christians and atheist. Now, the only reason why i side with christians is bc i base my truth off the bible. According to the bible, it lets us know that a peace will come over us once we decide to follow God. That doesn't mean we'll just be this super happy person 247. We will still get mad, sad, hurt, and etc. However, its God's peace that at the end of the day should have us reassured that everything will be ok. I know this might frustrate a lot of people just by reading this simply bc i talk about my God the way i do, but if anything that should make you question yourself and ask "why am i getting so mad???". We're so quick to look at others and get mad and point out everythingt that they did that justifies why we can be mad at them, but never look at ourselves.
Debate: Atheist are more peaceful than religious people
Side: Religious people more peaceful

Being peaceful comes when you look to something other than yourself. Anger comes when you feel your out of control, and you MUST release control to be peaceful. The Atheists I've met are more bitter than happy, a need to win rather than talk. (this is only my little piece of the world).Serving others is a great thing, and there's no accident on why "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you," is in the Bible. It just works for peace.
Debate: Atheist are more peaceful than religious people
Side: Religious people more peaceful

I think its your on faith what your thinkings are....Religion can never define some one's personality.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Yes, we only used the bomb because the war would have dragged on for much longer, not to mention that if we invaded the mainland the death toll would have been much higher. It wasn't great, but it was better than the alternative.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Do you also support the second bomb ?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The atomic bombs were not used to save lives they were used to save American lives. Under whose authority does can one country decide that its soldiers are worth more than innocent civilians?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Their civilians were assembling a militia and were going to fight, I don't mean joining the army I mean they were sharpening sticks and finding anything they could use as a weapon and preparing for invasion, if we stepped on to the island their would have been much more deaths (soldiers and civilians)
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Isn't that that we did against the British? Using machine guns and WMDs against rocks and sticks is considered massacre not warfare. An invasion would have been much better because many more civilian lives could have been saved. The Japanese Navy and Aircraft were nothing compared to the allied forces so an air raid would have been a much safer option than guarantying excessive civilian deaths. The A-Bomb created one of the most painful ways to die, while leaving radiation to harm people for their ancestor's war.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Guitaristdog, I agree that it was necessary to drop the atomic because if we invaded Japan it would have resulted in more deaths of civilians and soldiers. The Japanese soldiers and civilians were ready to fight until the end of the war and it was necessary to drop the atomic. The civilians were preparing for an invasion and many more American lives would have been had we invaded Japan. Although the civilians may not have played a pivotal role in the outcome of the war had there been an invasion, their involvement would have made it much more difficult and costly for American soldiers. An invasion would have resulted in the loss of 250,000 American lives. I agree that it was justified to drop the atomic bomb because the Japanese civilians were forming a militia and a land invasion would have resulted in more soldier and civilian deaths.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Actually, if we invaded the American death toll for the invasion alone would have been around one million, that is not including the soldiers and civilians of Japan. But I agree with you on all this.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Very well said. The Japanese people were brainwashed by the government into thinking the Americans were going to rape, murder, and torture them.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

But there is a great chance this bomb could have been avoided. Japan was willing to agree to surrender as long as Emperor Hirohito was allowed to remain in power. The Truman administration was adamant that Japan agree absolute surrender, and proceeded to drop the a-bombs. Following the unconditional surrender the same administration allowed Hirohito to remain in control over the nation! This all reads me to believe the bomb had little to with Japans surrender and more to do with testing our nuclear capabilities and showing other nations that we had the brass b---s to use them.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

...,not to mention that if we invaded the mainland the death toll would have been much higher. It wasn't great, but it was better than the alternative.Well, this is a fair assumption, but since this didn't happen, this is impossible to prove.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

From what i could recall Japan had already reach out for surrender but the terms were not acceptable to the US. Japan wanted to keep the emperor when they surrender but were denied by the US. I can see why would Hitler still be in power once Germany was defeated but why drop a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent civilians just to make someone leave their throne. It would of been much easier to accept the surrender and later kick the emperor out of his throne.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

There is a huge difference between war and targeting a civil area. The bombs were war crimes, the targets were cities. The bombs killed people that had nothing to do with anything. In my opinion any attack to civil targets is plain wrong.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Enough was enough already! Shut up Japan... and besides, they're one of our strongest allies to this day, Germany and Italy too...
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Out of love or fear ?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree with the United States but it doesn’t mean I like it. Basically it came down to whose lives were going to be lost and who was willing to lose more. The Americans had already lost too many soldiers; they weren’t willing to lose anymore. The war with Japan needed to come to an end. Negotiations between the United States and Japan had reached a stand still. Japans imperialistic leaders believed in the Samari code which would mean death before dishonor. The Japanese made it very clear that they’re intentions were to draw this war out to the point there would be millions of lives lost. The Japanese had no intentions on surrendering so the United States would have had to invade the mainland of Japan. With the dropping of two atomic weapons, the war was brought to an end. The amount of Japanese civilians loss of life is sad but the invasion would have left more dead.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I like that you posted a support in this fashion and I can understand your point of view, even though I posted in the "not justified" section. I think that it was not an action that many people did like, and it was very sad how many lives were lost, but as many people stated in the justified category, it was necessary to end the war and invading Japan would have cost the United States many casualties. I like the fashion of your response because you stated the simple facts such as, "the Americans had already lost too many soldier; they weren't willing to lose any more." I believe that this was true, and Truman most likely felt that this was the only option to end the war and save American lives. One thing that I did not like reading from our text was that fact that Truman said, "the atomic bomb is a weapon, and weapons are meant to use." I thought that this was a juvenile comment and really did seem like he was not thinking the situation through. As you said I did not like the fact that the atomic bomb was used, and it would have been terrifying if it had created an atomic war with all countries participating, but because of the outcome it is easy to see the reasons why the United States believed that this was justified. The Japanese were not planning on surrendering and as you stated if we had invaded it would have left more dead (both Americans and Japanese). What I feel is the saddest part, and one that I feel makes the dropping of the atomic bomb not justified is the fact that so many innocent lives were taken. Do you think that if the United States would have invaded that some of the innocent Japanese people would have been spared and it would have been more of a military battle?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree that the decision to drop the atomic bomb was morally wrong and cannot be justified in a sense of killing over 100,000 people. However with that said, the U.S. had a difficult decision to make and had to weigh the number of American lives that would be lost and the number of Japanese lives. Had the Americans invaded Japan, there would have been catastrophic effects leaving thousands on both sides dead. It is also unsure of how long the war would continue. It is in fact the government's job to protect the lives of as many Americans as possible and this was the reasoning behind it. It is also true that Japanese culture is filled with pride and honor and they would not surrender without a fight, prolonging the war even more.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The Japanese could not fight anymore. No matter how much their leaders were willing to stand, the war was over. Moreover, there is no justification for targeting civilians. The argument pro bomb consists on saying that more AMERICAN lives would be spared, with that I agree, but Atomic Bomb?? over 200 thousand lives combining both cities, people that had nothing to do with the war, that is just too much
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Yes, because case United States did not use the atomic bomb, would put an end to the second world war. Sorry, I'm brazilian and I don't know very well english
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Justified insofar as it saved American lives. People died, but they were the enemy. Killing anybody is never good, but it is the duty of the American government to protect American citizens, not Japanese citizens.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

It's not America's duty to kill Japanese citizens either.Not protecting them is one thing, bombing the shit out of them is something else entirely.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I agree with you on the part where America had to take this huge risk by protecting civilians in the United States. The United States took a risk on impulse I think, but this measure was made quick not only protect the nation but themselves as well. I think though they should've thought of a better strategy, but who knows if there could've been another option then the atomic bomb.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. President Truman made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb. They were nearing an end to the worst global war in history and something needed to be done to defeat Japan. If the United States just invaded Japan it would have resulted in the death of as many as 250,000 American and many Japanese. Although many civilians were killed in the attack, many civilians were also killed by Japan and the Axis throughout World War II. The dropping of the atomic bomb was not the first civilians were a casualty of war. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are a reality of war. Many more civilian lives may have been lost if the United States invaded Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb. The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb because Japan also attacked the United States with the attack on Pearl Harbor and that was when the United States declared war on Japan. When we are at war we must use whatever force is necessary to defeat our enemy and in this the atomic bomb was necessary. The United States created the atomic bomb as weapon and weapons are supposed to be used. It was important to show the rest of the world the power of the atomic bomb we created. The atomic bomb was also justified because the Japanese were also ruthless to American soldiers and committed war crimes during the Bataan death march. They mistreated American and Filipino prisoners of war by not giving them food, water, executing them and many other horrendous things. The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb because of the war crimes committed by Japan, the attack on Pearl Harbor, it saved American lives and United States needed to try something drastic to defeat Japan swiftly. Sources:Give Me Liberty! Chp 22 pg 841-874
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Hi Melody,I am going to have to disagree with you that the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. Some of why Truman made his decision to use this horrible weapon was at the prompting of the scientists who had built the bomb. Of course they wanted him to use it - that is why it had been invented - to use. Since it was a new technology, there was very little known about the effects. It is too bad that it couldn't have gone through more rigorous testing before its use. When the United States began the war (any war) it was "expected" that you would have casualties - on both sides, including civilians. When Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, it was a naval facility. That would have been a likely target, just as the Americans would target Japanese military bases. When the location was chosen to drop the bomb, it was deliberately dropped in a densely populated area that was comprised of mainly innocent citizens and very few soldiers. It was not a military facility. You brought up how the Japanese treated American soldiers. Throughout the years, Americans did not treat Japanese fairly - on American soil, at war or not. I would have to guess American soldiers did not treat the Japanese kindly either. As the book pointed out, Japan was on the verge of surrender - I would like to believe that had we negotiated and compromised a little more, we could have ended the war without using the bomb. The United States could have shown its strength using non-violence instead of violence.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I would have to disagree with you Melody. The United States was not justified in dropping TWO atomic bombs on Japan. Granted, Japan did attack us at our naval base in Pearl Harbor and civilians lives were lost. The U.S. didn't drop the bombs on any military base but on two cities full of civilians. Just because we created weapons, does not mean we need to use them. You also stated that the Japanese committed war crimes against American soldiers. I would like to point out that the Americans were just as ruthless to the treatment of Japanese solders and Japanese-Americans living in the U.S.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree with you whole heartedly that the decision to nuke Japan sent a psychological message. I know how horrible the anihilation appears from what we know about the atomic bomb. Yet, I must ask what is worse the painful death from a weapon, or the agonizing torture of the evil Axis Power Japan. I served in the Marines and I have seen Museums documenting the Bataan death March. I have spent months on end in the Philippines talking to these people about it. The Japanese were on a blood thirsty war path. Unfortunately sometimes in extreme circumstances good must match evil gear for gear. Some say the Atom bomb was horrendous, I say it was a necessary evil.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I believe that the United States was justified in dropping the bomb. I think ultimately it had to be made known that the U.S was not to be messed with. Who knew how long the Japanese would continue to fight and how much more lives and money would be spent on the war. The Japanese should have just surrendered when given the opportunity and I believe that Truman made that correct decision.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I agree that America needs to defend itself and defend its role as a “power house” but targeting civilians instead of the Japanese army in my opinion makes us look weak, not strong. Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender. They wanted to negotiate the conditions of surrender with America so that their emperor could remain on the throne. It was America that would not negotiate with them because we were being too stubborn and demanding an unconditional surrender. We very impatiently just attacked the Japanese with the bomb instead of giving them any opportunity to speak out. There are several quotes from military personal (IN the warzone) whom spoke out against the use of the atomic bomb. For example, "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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. So we did not need to launch the bombs for any productive reason other than simply exterminating thousands of civilians unnecessarily.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I believe at the time that the best decision was made with the resources they were given. Japan knew that thousands of their citizens would fall victim, and still they refused to surrender. Imagine how many more lives would have been lost.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

It was a tragic necessity to finally have to drop the atomic bomb on Hiiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody wants war, nobody wants dead civilians or thousand of dead American soldiers or having to explain to their families why they would not be returning home from overseas. There had already been enough of that and it was time to just end the war and bring American soldiers home where they belong. Unfortunately, Japan was unwilling to give up and they were unwilling to unconditionally surrender. Some might argue that they would have because the Soviets were also planning on going into Japan to defeat them. By this time, the Allies were not very trusting of Stalin and did not want the Soviets in eastern Europe AND Japan as well. Not using the bomb which took 2 billion dollars to develop with the Manhattan Project, defeated the purpose of having it. It ended the war without having to send more American soldiers into a ground war, and it also showed Stalin and the Soviets (and the rest of the world) the full extent of American military power. The horrific tragedy of civilian deaths had been and will always be, a reality in wartime
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Showing the Soviets the full power of American isn't really a justifiable reason for dropping an atomic bomb. It almost makes the US look like bullies. America knew that other countries had the nuclear technology, but was it necessary for them to be the first to use it. If anything the use of the atomic bomb made the US targets during the Cold War. During World War II Americans and Soviets were actually fighting on the same team against Germany. Of course many factors caused the tension of the Cold War, but the use of the atomic bomb was the start of it. Some times being powerful is not showing what you have.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Yes, I agree with the decision of the American government to use the atomic bomb. Truman took over after FDR died and as president, he gave the order to drop the bomb. After the fierce fighting in the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and so many other islands during the war, the American forces knew what lay ahead with the invasion of mainland Japan. The American high command estimated it would take over a million American lives to invade mainland Japan. Truman noted that the amount of American lives that would have been lost was more than America was willing to lose. Truman did not want to put more American lives at risk, so Truman looked for alternatives to invasion. The atomic bomb was being developed and after being tested in the New Mexico desert plans were made to use the atomic bomb to end the war. Although the love of life was great for the Japanese people it would ultimately take two atomic weapons to bring Japan to the negotiation table to finally achieve peace. The Japanese people showed their resolve by still not willing to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped, proving that the resolve to fight on would have been greater if America did not use the atomic bomb.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Does it not bother you that Truman had several alternate plans in place that he didn't try first. I think that when the case of mass murder is at hand, more than the military should give their opinion. He made that call based on military advisory. It is not only the Japanese people that have to live with this. This one event changes how people look at America as a whole. I believe that if the people had the right to vote on matters this large as well that this horrific event could have been avoided. How does one debate that power is more important than morality? How can we say that we are seeking peace and yet we seek to destroy? I think that this just opens the door for future carnage at the sake of world domination.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

During a time of war it is impossible to put plans, actions, or tactics to a vote. By the time votes have been counted and a course of action decided the tactical advantage would be lost. The reason you have elected officials is so that during a time of war these officials can make the hard decisions. It may not seem at the time that these decisions are made for the right reasons, but rest assured that these officials do have to live with the decisions they make. Being an elected official is not an easy task, people tend to remember the bad more than the good. I could only imagine what it would take to put in motion a plan that would cost so many lives, but if it meant putting an end to the blood shed after so many years of war it would not be a decision i couldn't make.