azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

He looks evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil.Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk6vfqwTAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo2Rb9h788s
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

If you have to ask whether Hitler was good or bad you're just an ignorant mentally deranged turd, unworthy of notice or comment.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

So you gonna apply this to Farrakhan and his millions of Democrat followers...?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

He killed millions of Jews. How could he possibly be good? Are you lame?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

Do you bother to look into both sides of the argument, or are you ignorant? Also HE did not kill millions of Jews, he gave the orders for people to kill them, I'm sick of dumb-fucks making that ignorant mistake in every single post on this bloody debate.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

Okay... What the fuck is the difference? He didn't kill someone himself but ordered someone weaker to him who cannot say no to him to murder... While he watched. Wow.... Is something wrong with you?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

I was just making a point, I wasn't saying it made a hell of a difference. So if you can't argue intelligently then just go fuck yourself you arrogant prick.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

you arrogant prick.Hey, your the one who started the pricking. I was just making a point, I wasn't saying it made a hell of a difference. So if you can't argue intelligently then just go fuck yourselfThis wasn't very intelligent either okay?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

So are you saying that if YOU hired a hitman to kill your wife, YOU can still be a good person even though YOU gave the order?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

So are you saying that if YOU hired a hitman to kill your wife, YOU can still be a good person even though YOU gave the order?NOOOO.. I said that he is a BAD man!!!
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

"""naturally the Germans are like "SHIT YEAH!" and they all have a sexy party. SO Hitler does bring the country back from the Ashes and builds an entire army, funds schools and other organisations, and overall just fixes the country - so everyone loved him""" Everyone loved him or majority his country which is a bias opinion being they received benefits during the chaos. Asking Jewish, homosexuals, and human beings in general; you'd get no he was scumbag leader! In order for his country to be prosperous him and his regime oppressed and tortured hundreds of thousands
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

If we hadn't we would have had to invade Japan.Civilian casualties would be in the possible millions and so would American soldier casualties.In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead. In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.a total of 150,000 (estimate) died from the bombing of BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The alternative would have been truly immoral.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: Cold War

I agree that the alternative to bombing Japan was unacceptable. However, I bring up a different point for consideration, one which suggests that nuking Japan directly influenced the decision-making polices of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and prevented the ultimate destruction of both countries, thereby saving the world from a costly lesson in playing with atomic matches. By providing a small taste of nuclear warfare to both countries' leaders and citizens, the smoldering ruins in Japan left little to the imagination as to what would happen when two countries hurled hundreds of such weapons at each other. If the U.S. had not nuked Japan, I doubt either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. would truly appreciate the devastation caused by nuclear warfare (other than atomic testing). They might not have been as cautious in exercising nuclear restraint as history proved, and thereby could have ended the existence of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. in an incredible display of humanity's capacity for destruction. Thus, by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. avoided unnecessary deaths and indirectly helped us all learn a lesson about the consequences of nuclear warfare before it was too late. I am extremely grateful that the history books do not write that the world finally decided nuclear bombs were a bad idea after the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. obliterated each other in the late 20th Century. I welcome any counter-arguments and comments about grammar.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

"I welcome any counter-arguments and comments about grammar."<3 Can I hug you?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Exactly, that's another thing that people don't realize. When we bombed Japan we showed the entire world just what the A bomb is capable of.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Don't you think there would have been a better way to show off that power: like say, blowing it up on a small island, and have some representatives of different world powers watch it from a faraway boat? They had television back then too.For example, we know that a hydrogen bomb is way more powerful then an a-bomb, but we never had to kill over a hundred thousand people to do it.I know you're a fan of assault rifles: when you buy one do you ask they guy selling it to you to shoot some people with it?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

we already knew that it explodes big time. What no one knew was it's destruction potential. Plus, don't make it seem like that's the ONLY reason why it was good to drop it; but considering the Cold War afterward, it's pretty good that we did drop it.The destruction of the Atom Bomb was like that of no other anyone has ever seen. Dropping it showed just how much America doesn't fuck around.plus, everyone knows exactly what any gun larger than a .22 does to someone when you shoot them, it's nothing the same. Especially the type of person who's willing to spend so much on any gun with a large caliber, they know exactly what it does. The atom bomb was much different in that what it could do was practically unknown. They knew it would destroy a lot, but they didn't know that the people's shadows would actually get imprinted into the ground and there would be fallout everywhere. that's just the destruction argument. There's still the fact that the alternative would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides of the spectrum.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I still maintain that a demonstration that didn't result in the deaths of over a hundred thousand civilians would have:1) sufficiently showed the power of the a-bomb and2) forced the Japanese to surrender without a significant loss of U.S. (and consequently Japanese) troops.Even the bombing of some other part of Japan that wasn't filled with civilians would have been more acceptable than what we did, which was kill people who had very little to do with the war (in fact, a significant portion of the Japanese population wasn't even in favor of the war. They weren't a democracy, like the U.S.).
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

explosions don't scare people like the Japanese. These are people who are ready to die. Almost like al-Qaeda.We NEEDED to show them that we don't fuck around. Plus, dropping the bomb on a target not filled with people would have only showed them that they need to prepare for more and would have not scared them at all.If we did what you suggest, we would have given them an advantage.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Who doesn't love resorting to misinformed national stereotypes to justify mass killing?Let's talk about the Kamikaze pilots as an example. These were some of Japan's best students who were then told that they had to kill themselves for their country. Obviously some of them went along with this as a matter of pride, and because they didn't want to let their country down, but there were a surprising number of them who had no desire to kill themselves. In fact here is a book written by one of them: Kamikaze Diaries.If you look at the chapter names one is: "War is another name for murder" and it is not unique. Really, the people of Japan weren't much different than us.Then again, as I said, the people weren't the ones leading Japan. However, if you think that the Japanese leadership would be stupid enough to continue war after seeing the awesome power of an atom bomb... well come on.I kinda like bradford's suggestion of nuking Tokyo Harbor. Minimal civilian casualties, and it gets the message across.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

hmm, random down vote with no rebuttal.you know what this means. I'm right ;)
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Technically speaking we didn't "throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki" we actually just "dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." ;)
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

They were hardly even people. More like apes.............
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Well they may have thrown a pebble and we launched a boulder but it was perfectly sane and the correct thing to do. Since we ( the US ) were not going to stand around and do nothing we could have A,) invaded Japan and conquered Japan or B.) dropped nukes.A.) Would have resulted in millions of casualties B.) Resulted in less than 200 thousand casualtiesWhich sounds like the better idea?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Im sorry I think this is a rediculous debate. Most historians don't even debate the fact that if the bombs were not dropped there would have been much higher cassulties on both sides both soldiers and civilian casualties. Estimated to be in the millions. There are also many reports before the bombings and the emperors surrender that entire villages of women taking their children to cliffs throwing there children off the cliffs and then jumping off after them while soldiers begged and tried to stop them. That was the way of the kamakazi so I'm sorry but that was the least deadly of the two options.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Of course it was. Would you rather 140k Japanese die or 500k+ American soldiers who would have to invade the islands in order to stop the war? I choose less death.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Yes, it was the only way. One cannot fight a war where the enemy finds honor in dying. Kamikaze pilots do not surrender. We face this same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy will never surrender. A holy war is what they think they are fighting and there is no logic in these enemies, only duty. A country of martyrs, not one can be left.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Well, technically the bombs were dropped not thrown. But anyway, the bombs did convince the Emperor of Japan to surrender. So the war was over quickly and decisively. Japan would have starved anyway, but than the possibility of facing invasion, would have been truly terrible. This way, getting it over quickly means less people probably died.Remember though that the firebombing raids were far more destructive than the atom bombs were.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: The Smart Move

The dropping of the atomic bombs was the only reasonable answer to the war. We're lucky we got to Germany so quick, otherwise we would have dropped the bomb on them and then had to invade Japan. America was ready for the war to be over. An invasion would have extended the war 2 years and cost way more lives. At that time, Americans saw the atomic bomb as just another weapon in the US arsenal
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

I feel really bad for how terrible life was for the Japanese because of what we did;however my dad went on a mission for our church to Japan and a women thanked him for the bomb, for stopping her ancesters from continueing to do what they were doing.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Yes it was right because if we did not do that then we would have had to invade Tokyo which would have resulted in more lose of life on the American side, and on Japan's side.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

yeah semper fi and i agree with you we did stop more casualties and the marines at iwo jima didnt hurt our image either ps used to want to be a marine now im gonna be a marine then run for senator but im only 14 right now
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

It was America's responsibility to protect it's citizens. If Japan posed a threat, then why bother to worry about them - after all, they attacked USA.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Yes, it ended the war sooner and saved more lives on both sides in the long run.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Were there no other options for ending the war? Perhaps some with less collateral damage and that didn't show the world what nuclear bombs can do?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

The simple answer is...no. Look at Pyg's argument for the numbers and at the destruction of France and Germany as a consequence of the Allied invasion. Take account for the Japanese almost fanatical devotion to the war and it becomes abundantly clear that no conventional method would have been effective against the Japanese. Only a display of overwhelming force could force the Japanese to surrender. Hell it took two nuclear bombs before they were willing to concede defeat. The alternative would have been potentially years of conventional bombing and ground warfare resulting in millions of casualties and more collateral damage.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Hell it took two nuclear bombs before they were willing to concede defeat. This isn't fair, considering that the second bomb was dropped merely three days later. That doesn't exactly give a country coping with that kind of devastation much time to react accordingly. The second bomb was absolutely morally reprehensible, even if you believe the first was ok.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

if we waited to drop the second one they would have come up with preventive measures by then.if they couldn't surrender within three days, then there's nothing else we could have done. imagine dropping the bomb and then having to invade anyway. talk about morally reprehensible.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I've already made this point before, but they could have dropped them off of Tokyo Harbor as a display... Japan had already agreed to surrender until we came up with an outrageous treaty for them to sign, and we were slowly chocking them out, they had no choice but to surrender.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Yeah, we could have dropped them off somewhere as a display of shock and awe... but what fun is that ;)
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

First, I'd like us to consider this: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[41] ~Leo Szilard, one of the first researchers on the atomic bombSecond, there's evidence that Japan would have surrendered before the end of 1945 without the bombings or an invasion. US Strategic Bombing Survey But really, this is inherently unknowable as it is not the way history played out. At any rate, the question asks if it was right, not if it was necessary. Was it right? No certainly not. But is the bombing of civilians ever "right"? I say no, regardless of the bombs used. If you take the stance that the purposeful bombing of innocent people is wrong regardless of the end, then you must oppose all bombings, not just atomic ones.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Bah, I upvoted you and some idiot downvoted you. Idiots.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: No

I recognize that it's considered to be a 'necessary evil' that was required to end WWII, but I absolutely cannot justify such significant, planned loss of civilian life.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

the casualty rate would have been larger for civilians if we had invaded instead.Could we justify that instead?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I really don't know why the loss of civilian life is ever justifiable. And why it's necessary, even in an invasion. I miss the good old 'two armies meet in a field and battle it out' days.But I mean, at least with a military invasion the civilians have a chance to flee or defend themselves. With power so absolute and so horribly destructive, nobody stands a chance.Also, although a military invasion would expect loss of civilian life, ideally a military would try to minimize that. Which is impossible with an atomic bomb.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Those figures are designed to consider the fighting style of our military and the usual reaction of civilians. running and hiding won't do shit, unfortunately. the two armies meet in a battlefield were just as bad, if not, worse. Modern Warfare allows us to be out of harms way... the enemy and collateral damage... not too much. the old days put everyone in danger. look at the Civil War. The only way to win it was Total War, which was basically "if he's on the battle field, he's an enemy combatant".the less we need ground troops, the better. even if it means we need highly destructive weapons in order to do that.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Modern Warfare allows us to be out of harms way... the enemy and collateral damage... I'm not opposed to our military being out of harm's way, but if the cost of that is the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of civilians, then it's not worth it. The men and women of the military enter knowing the potential danger and willing to give their lives for their country. Civilians are people who are just trying to live out their lives. These civilians in particular were just men and women unfortunate enough to be born in a government that opposed a stronger power.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

but without the bomb, even MOAR civilians would have died.the bomb saved quite a few lives.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

I understand your argument, but to unleash an absolute destructive power is simply wrong. This weapon is meant to destroy everything, regardless of who or what it is. Armies can make choices; soldiers can make choices. I mean, war movies (and, yes, I do know they don't represent reality) like "Platoon" give an idea of this.An absolute power is something no man should wield.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Why would the United States put its own soldiers at risk when it could just go after its enemies? Many civilians died, but it was Japan's choice to refuse to surrender.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Soldiers are men who are paid to fight. It's their job and their duty to defend whatever it is that the States is defending. Civilians had no choice in the situation.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

When Japanese chose to refuse to surrender, they knew that they were putting their civilians at risk. Even if the US didn't bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, an American invasion would have killed Japanese civilians.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Not so completely and so ruthlessly. Ground forces have at least some ways around it. A bomb, aimed at civilians who had no choice in Japanese governmental decisions, that wiped out millions (including those who died from aftereffects)? That's okay?
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

Its okay because those civilians deaths are taking the place of what could have been American deaths. The United States government chose to save its own American lives. It may be gruesome to kill civilians, but it is also gruesome to put your own citizens at risk when the risk is unnecessary.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

It's unbelievably ethnocentric and selfish to believe that sparing the lives of paid soldiers of our own nation is worth destroying millions of innocent civilians of another.
Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: yes

First of all, even after accounting for the after effects, millions were not killed. It may have been less than a million.Second, its selfish to send a group of soldiers into a foreign territory, where they would probably be killed very easily.Third, the combined total number of casualties for each side for an invasion of Japan would probably be equal if not higher than what actually occurred. There would be high Japanese casualties and high American casualties. The innocence of the people we would kill could not have been a good enough excuse to kill our own soldiers. President Truman chose what was in the United States' best interest, how could you say that that is selfish?Fourth, Hiroshima was not only an assembly area for troops, but partly a military base as well. Nagasaki had a very large amount of industrial activity.Fifth and last, Japan new exactly what would happen if they didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. It chose to not surrender and accepted that its innocent civilians would die. The US could not have backed down, but Japan could have and chose not too.