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

Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in hopes of ending the Second World War is perhaps one of the most controversial and scrutinized choices made by any United States President throughout our entire history. It is also a decision that I find completely justifiable. Here’s why:Reason 1 - Operation Downfall:Outside of the President – Roosevelt and, subsequently, Truman – along with a select group of scientists, almost nobody knew about the Manhattan Project prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb. This included U.S. military leaders, who had no knowledge, whatsoever, that the use of nuclear weapons had even become an option. Instead, military leaders had created a plan to invade Japan – Operation Downfall. Operation Downfall would have resulted in an estimated 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, and over half a million American deaths, as predicted by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. The military made enough purple hearts in anticipation of US casualties and losses from Operation Downfall that those same Purple Hearts have been used in EVERY WAR (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) following World War II – no new hearts have had to be made yet. Truman was informed of these figures before making his decision, a factor that obviously influenced his decision to drop the bomb and, in my opinion, justifies that decision. Reason 2 – Level of Destruction: Before Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, nobody actually knew the kind of devastation that an atomic bomb could cause. There were predictions, of course, but in no way could Truman have understood the results of the nuclear bomb before actually choosing to drop it. I am confident that if he had known, he wouldn’t have dropped it. Since the US dropped the bombs in Japan, no nuclear bombs have been used to attack an enemy. This is because we now realize the potential that these weapons have for causing mass destruction. When given the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on North Korea during the Korean War, Truman refused. This is because he now understood the level of destruction that an atomic bomb could cause.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

But in terms of your second reason, that's actually one of the main things that bothers me about the bombing. Nobody could have known how terrible it was, and while that's not exactly unfair, so to speak, it was extremely inconvenient and tragic. Furthermore, if the situation had somehow been less urgent and the Japanese had more time to respond, for example a month or so, then they would have realized the effects more acutely and Nagasaki could have been saved, at least. But unfortunately, the Japanese got nuked twice, and then surrendered, and then the severity of the effects really sunk in.It was no doubt an unavoidable situation, but there are a lot of things about it that just make it particularly terrible.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

President Truman had a number of choices think over for ending the war, but the dropping of the atomic bomb was Truman's final decision. Although this event caused chaos and controversy, it seemed that by the end of World War II, Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accepted by most individuals. Most of those who were alive at the time thought that Truman did it strictly for military reasons; to quickly end the war and prevent invasion of Japan. Most Americans realized the obvious reasoning behind his decision and at the time of the bombing, it seemed it was not a problem that there would be so many casualties on the opposing end. Eventually, people questioned if Truman had an ulterior motive for dropping the bomb but when it comes down it to it he was the president and was looking for the best route to protect his country. Although there were many opinions from different sources criticizing Truman’s decision, when you look closely at the full spectrum of the situation, it becomes clear that Truman's final choice to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was essentially based on the purpose of saving lives and ending the war quickly in order to avoid a destructive invasion.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Although you made some interesting points I still disagree completely! We wanted justice and an end to the war! Is that not all that we wanted? YES! It was all we wanted, to end WWII! There is evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender but the President did not accept their surrender because it was not "unconditional" enough for him. To me that does not sound like a President that only wants to end the war and keep his country and countrymen out of harms way. This to me sounds like a President that wanted more than to just end the war! He brought upon misery that was of no need! This event did not have to happen and this injustice has put a scare to the whole world! This issue has sustained itself to present day and we fear that some country's will do the injustice that President Truman has done. NOTHING justifies injustice!
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

The only reason that the dropping of the atomic bombs was “accepted” by most people was because the Americans were so brainwashed by the propaganda that depicted the Japanese as animals and not deserving of basic human rights. The brainwashed Americans had no compassion for people, but rather a bitter hate for what they believed to be primitive creatures. The wanted to exterminate the Japanese as one would exterminate a pest. The most lethal and quickest way of doing this would be by dropping the bomb so of course they supported Truman’s decision. Also, a lot of prominent military figures were completely against the bomb and agreed that Japan had pretty much already surrendered at the point. Lots of officers and commanders said that the US did not need to drop the bomb to defeat the Japanese for military purposes (see my initial argument). I think that it is true that Truman wanted to end the war quickly, but more lives would have been saved if he had actually taken the time to listen to the conditions of the Japanese and tried to negotiate with them before acting.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Hi Cici,I feel that Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb was wrong. You are correct in pointing out that event caused "chaos and controversy". I don't believe that his use of the bomb was "accepted" by most individuals nor was it's use strictly for military reasons (ending the war). I do not believe most US citizens knew enough about this type of warfare for it to be accepted. Truman based his decision to use the bomb on the fact that "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used". Yes, he wanted to end the war but I believe that he also wanted to show others the United States was a powerful world force - the "don't mess with us" attitude. Yes, war brings casualties, both soldiers and civilians, but to consciously bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, areas that contained primarily civilians was horrific. Yes, it did bring an end to the war - who wanted to deal with a nation that was going to resort to using an atomic bomb? However, Japan was going to surrender. If we had held out a little longer and compromised a little, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bomb. I do not believe that Japan would have ultimately moved forward and invaded the United States. We were already known as a formidable power to be reckoned with, along with the support from our Allied Nations, an invasion seems unlikely.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Yes the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. They were justified because the alternative to dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima would have been an invasion on the United States by the Japanese. It is estimated that 500,000 Americans lives would have been lost if this invasion ended up happening and millions more of Japanese lives would have been lost. Also, rather than invading Japan themselves, America decided to save their lives and drop the bomb instead of going there themselves and losing their lives. Today, Japan is a prosperous nation. According to someone who had the opportunity to visit Hiroshima it is a very strong and prosperous nation. Children come to the bombing site to learn about it and pay their respects. The area is decorated with thousands of colorful paper cranes and it is no longer a city of mourning. It appears as though the tragedy that took place actually brought a city together that now thrives.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

At the time the United States had the Atomic bomb, Japan had almost no navel army and were pushed back to the Nation's main islands. The Japanese innovation was only believe to happen right after the Attack on Pearl Harbor and not during the Atomic bombing. Many say that Japan has healed from the bombing but it could never be forgotten. With around 3000 Americans died on 9/11 and we still remember the pain we felt. Killing civilians is never the answer to anything doesn't matter who is doing it.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Yes, I believe the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb during World War II. While the end of World War II was ending, many people questioned President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals think he could of used some other means to get the Japanese to surrender, yet Truman justifies his decision. In the beginning of the war most Americans accepted the fact that atomic bombs would end the war faster, not having a problem with killing over half the enemy seeing as they are the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor. Although as the war went on some began to question Truman if the bomb was “saving lives”, coming up with theories of their own. In the end Truman justified his answer to using the atomic bomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving more American lives, and to ultimately end the war quickly in order to prevent a destructive invasion. There are two main arguments that criticized Truman’s actions. One being of the Revisionists, people who attempt to revise common perceptions in history. Basically, these people believed he had ulterior motives, one of not saving lives. They also think that Truman should of chose many of the available ways to get the Japanese to surrender other than the bombing of two cities, and if they making of the atomic bomb was not justified, Truman could of faced up to two billion dollars in debt. On the other hand, many individuals as well as veterans thought Truman’s decision was entirely for military purposes, ending the war quickly would return soldiers back home and the women on the home front back to their normal lives and jobs.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The thing is that the human cost of the bombings was the price that had to be paid to avoid the potentially far higher cost in lives that would have occurred had the US decided to invade the Japanese home islands. The decision by the US to drop atomic bombs on Japan was based on two factors, The first factor was the desire to save American lives, the second was to demonstrate and warn the Soviet Union of the power of the US military. By bringing the war to an end quickly the US saved American lives. It may even have saved Japanese lives, but this depends on how long Japanese forces would have continued fighting. Do I agree on a moral stand point, no, but I do believe at the time that it was a necessary evil.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

What I think is important to consider is that Truman and his advisers did not even try to plan a land attack. He was simply advised that it would kill many more American Soldiers. Later, they learned that Japan was nearing a surrender anyways. A small American land invasion could have been good enough to end the war, and little to no civilians would have died. The actually American death toll would probably not be nearly as high as it was originally estimated.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I completely agree with your argument. From a moral standpoint, no it was not right but in the end it showed Japan what the United States is capable of, and I believe ultimately is saved many lives and stopped us from another war coming. Although many people who think it was not a justified action might believe it killed more lives than saved some. At this place and time in history I do believe Truman made a good point and jut proved that America is an extremely powerful country.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Although the dropping of the Atomic bomb caused thousands of innocent people to die, and left to areas of Japan nearly inhospitable, it was a justified action. We were steadily making progress towards an invasion of mainland Japan by way of "island hopping". Japan had been preparing for an invasion and had dug in, making an invasion a suicide mission. We had been experimenting with a new weapon called a Atomic Bomb, which would clearly cause extreme collateral damage. Although the dropping of the bomb would mean thousands of Japanese dying, the alternative was an extended war and an uncountable loss of American life. This decision couldn't be made with haste, but we were at war and had to make a tough call. In the end we chose to save American lives and hope for a quick resolution to the war.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I would argue that innocent people do die in times of war, but there was no need for Truman to order the two atomic bombs to be dropped in Japan. Japan was on the verge of surrendering. There's no justification for bombing innocent people. I'm not saying that we should have bombed military personal either. I believe the President wanted the war to end sooner rather than later but his motives were more towards showing off our new weapons to the Soviets.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree with you because at this time, Japan was our enemy from all the issues with Pearl Harbor and the Japanese attack on America. President Truman knew that this would be an effective way of ending the war in a timely manner and knew it would cause casualties on the opposing enemies. Of course he knew that it would harm Japanese lives but it would also keep Americans from loosing their lives due to the war. I must say that there was probably a better way to go about ending the war, hopefully one that wouldn't have cost so many innocent lives but when you control your whole country and you must decide on what will help protect your country, the decision was essentially justified.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Regardless of our emotions and ethnic ties, this was a decision not made by us. The leaders we had then had different pressures than we had now. Today we benefit from the lessons learned from past warfare. The atomic bomb would have been inevitably created by some power, and eventually used. It is human nature to create then recreate. The beautiful thing to come about so much destruction is that the events have not been repeated. The goal of the dropping of nuclear bombs was to bring a world war to a standstill. It was terrible, but all is fair in love and war, right? I am American. I have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also served in the United States Marine Corps. I have an intimate understanding about this. I have seen it from both sides. There is no doubt it was necessary, the same way all of Europe had to unite against Germany and Italy. The main point is why did negotiations breakdown and war start. If we are civilized enough to allow a war to begin, we cannot deny the ends that justify a sanctioned means.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

So your argument was that it would have been done by someone else anyway. I think this a little more than a lesson learned. The people that marred by this bomb were outcasts to the rest of their own society. I don't think that it was a lesson learned. If it were, would we still be searching for weapons of mass destruction? I think not. The only thing that was learned is that you can knock out a wide area including everything in it. This will be knowledge will be used to someone's advantage one day. Hopefully it won't be in my lifetime.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I really didn't want to choose a side. Both have good backing. The bomb saved millions of lives takeing only thousands. But those thousands were civilians. Yes, they were making weapons for Japan, but what say did they have?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

yup, but I do not debate anyhow one lah. I love atomic bombs
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

It is impossible to justify any action which directly causes loss of human life, especially when that loss of life is the purpose behind the action. Not only were hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but many weren't even soldiers, they were civilian losses!
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

In time of war, there are always civilian casualties. That is tragic and there is no way of avoiding that. The United States needed to make a decision to save as many AMERICAN lives as possible. War is horrific and nobody wants it..this is why.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The decision to drop the bomb was a difficult one to make. The fact is that many more civilians would be affected than soldiers. We didn't attack military installations, we targeted cities. The other option was a land invasion, which Japan had been preparing for throughout the war. It would've caused extreme loss of American life, and had no guarantee of ending the war. Even though dropping the bomb was a savage act against Japan, not just their military, it was absolutely justified because the other option wasn't as concrete. The fact is we were at war with an enemy who attacked us on our own turf, and we couldn't be afraid to take decisive action to end the war immediately without the further risk of losing American lives.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I do understand what you mean by the loss of human life being unjustified, but you have to understand why the decision was made to use the bomb. The American government and military had to make a decision whether or not to allow for the further loss of American lives. After the bloody fighting from island to island the invasion of Japan grew closer and so did the ferocity of the Japanese to protect the mainland of Japan. The Japanese started even more aggressively with the use of suicide attacks. The American High Command estimated the invasion could cost America more than one million lives to take mainland Japan. It is also important to note that the Japanese did not surrender even after the first atomic bomb was used. It would take the use of a second atomic bomb to successfully bring Japan to surrender. With that in mind imagine how the invasion of Japan would have gone and how many more American and Japanese military and civilians lives could have been lost to finally bring Japan to surrender.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I agree it really is impossibleto justify actions causing loss of life but there would have been many more lives lost. And as you said not only were the soldiers lives lost, but also thousands of civilians lives lost as well. If the bomb had not been dropped there would have been hundreds of thousands more that would have been lost. It is terrible the war even began but everything happens for a reason, so the dropping of the atomic bomb had to happen as ugly as it was it came to that decision and it had to be done in order to keep others alive.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

It is hard to stomach the pain and suffering that those suffered in Japan from these weapons of mass destruction. Yet, I cannot agree that we cannot justify the decision to nuke Japan. We as Americans support this in our own lives. By being citizens and paying taxes to the same government we are supporting their past, present, and future actions. I agree the loss of human life is tragic, but humans have been killing each other since time immemorial. This can even be observed in our closest genetic relative the Chimpanzee who can be powerful and brutal among other characteristics. The fact of the matter is that life is a live and learn process. If we are so truly against nuclear weapons, we should not support a government that maintains a stockpile on U.S. submarines abroad and at missile silos at home. Also we cannot be unhappy that the cost of wisdom is expensive, but we must be progressive to improve diplomacy to the highest levels of success so that the same mistakes are never repeated. If you do not like this fact be the change you want to see.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I agree with your reason for the Atomic Bomb, not being justified. There had to be another strategy to stop the opponents from conflict. Also there had to be another form of plan to protect the United States rather then resorting to the worst form of strategy of dropping an atomic bomb on a city that was pointed out because it had no destruction from the conflict surrounding other parts of Japan.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I do not believe that the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. President Truman's mindset was "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used" - and he did not hesitate using it. It seemed like he made this decision for a couple of reasons; first, to show the world what a powerful nation the United States was so that other nations would think twice about challenging us, and secondly, to end the war. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it had not yet suffered any damage. It seemed there was no consideration given that it was a highly populated area, that not only housed soldiers but innocent civilians. Since it was a fairly new technology the long term effects were not known. So there were deaths and side effects occurring long after the actual dropping of the bomb due to the radiation. Japan had been close to surrendering, but because the United States/Allies demanded "unconditional surrender" they were not willing to compromise. It is unfortunate that there wasn't a little more dialog between the nations and that Truman didn't show a little more patience and restraint before making the decision to drop the atomic bomb, not only once - but twice.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I could not have said it better myself! How can you justify a President who's mindset is "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used". This kind of mindset can only come from a man that has no heart! Indeed it was new technology and because of this, many scientist that worked on the bomb urged the President to do a practice round, so that they would know the outcomes of it. But did he listen? No! He did not listen and he went about his way because he was in a hurry to use the weapon that was "made to use". The US indeed demanded a unconditional surrender and this is just outrageous! Because of a minor detail, some Japanese were murdered! This could have been avoided and no one on this planet should have the ability to go about something like this! President Truman should have been stopped!
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

There were more reasons for dropping the bomb. The main was that Japan would invade the United States and half a million Americans would die. Since an atomic bomb had never been used, we could actually see the effects of it after one was finally dropped and another has never ever been used since. Additionally, the US and Hiroshima actually came together after the war to help rebuild the city and aid the hurt victims of the bomb.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

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. It seems as though regaurdless civilians would have died whether it was by atomic bomb or invading of Japan. With the attacks on Pearl Harbor Japan neeed to be invaded or we would be at risk.