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

President did in fact make the decision to drop the bomb for both reasons you mentioned. The first was to show what a powerful nation the United States was so that other natons would think twice before challengind us and the second was indeed to end the War. It had to be done. Hiroshima had the bomb dropped in that city most likely because the General and big wigs of the Japanese were known for living in that area. The Japanese were fanatics who tortured and ate the livers of the Americans. The civilians were committing suicide rather than get captured by the Americans; these people were not going to surrender. The bombing had to occur in order to stop the War.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

I definitely agree with you in that we should not have dropped the bomb just because it was a weapon, as President Truman pointed out. The atomic bomb was and is more destructive than any other weapon in the world . . . which is why i believe it hasnt been used since wwii. The one thing I thought to point out from your argument is that you said, "since it was a fairly new technology the long term effects were not known." That's definitely true. But I think that is one of the reasons why Truman's decision can actually be justified. If he had realized the ramifications of his decision at the time, i doubt he would have just cavalierly dropped the bomb. There was no way of knowing this side effect until a bomb was dropped so that is really the one point that you make that i feel actually works in truman's favor.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Morally, the U.S., and more specifically President Truman, was not justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it is true that an all out invasion of Japan would have caused thousands of American casualties, it is not necessarily true that there should be that same number of casualties, if not more, in Japan. President Truman and his constituents could have established a meeting with the Japanese, or at least attempted to, in order to find another way to end the war. Many have argued that President Truman was rushed and that he was forced to make a decision quickly. However, dropping a bomb that would lead to complete, utter, destruction of innocent human lives and to thriving land is not a decision that should be taken lightly. The effects of those two bombs would be felt long after the war ended. Historians have cited that Japan was ready to surrender and had this been the case, President Truman was certainly not justified in dropping the bomb. The world should not operate solely on the maxim that the end justifies the means, or else each individual would be operating solely on their first inclinations with no consequences. Society does not and should not operate that way. History is meant to serve as a learning opportunity, a chance to learn from mistakes made in the past. Since the dropping of the atomic bomb, the debates over nuclear power have continued well into today precisely for the reason to avoid what happened on that day.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Japan was the last of the Axis left. They were about to surrender, contrary to the popular lie most american's are told and adhere to.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

They (Japan) were about to surrenderHow are you privy to this information?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The military leaders wanted at least one more military victory before putting together some sort of "surrender package", but outside of that surrender was imminent. The Japanese people no longer wanted war and for a while it even looked like the emperor might sooner lose his power to a revolution than to the war. There's evidence as early as June of 1945 stating that Japan reached out to the soviets about surrendering under the condition that the emperor could keep his position. One month later, the Potsdam declaration was released demanding Japan's unconditional surrender, to which the Japanese responded by saying they would surrender, but only under the condition that they keep their emperor.So yes, Japan was going to surrender and president Truman knew they would surrender, but Truman didn't agree to their condition so he bombed them. The emperor still wouldn't step down as a condition of surrender so they were bombed again three days later. Once again, the emperor refused to step down, so America agrees to this condition so long as the emperor agrees to be a subject of the allies in Japan. Japan surrenders.Now personally, this tells me Truman didn't particularly care either way about the emperor and he was just looking for an excuse to test his bombs, but that's just my opinion.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I totally disagree with your claim that Japan was about to surrender. I think THAT is a lie that most Americans are told, contrary to your belief that most American's are told the opposite. You write as though Truman thought it would be great fun to destroy these two cities in Japan, when you say it was done mostly to test the bombs. Look up some military history and research Operation Downfall, the US army's plan to invade Japan - this is the plan truman would have used if he hadnt dropped the bomb. Not only did they predict 2-4 million US casualities, but 5-10 million Japanese casualties if the operation went through. It was considered to be very risky and result in many many American deaths at the point of invasion. These estimates were made prior to the Army's knowledge of the A bomb, so considering they didnt realize that dropping the bomb was even an option, id say these estimates arent exaggerated. Additionally, the fear was that the attack plan that the US had drawn out for invading Japan would possibly be cracked by the enemy before invasion. They did not know this at the time, but the Japanese DID break their code and on the day the first Atomic Bomb was dropped, Japanese troops were already waiting, armed and prepped with bombs, at EVERY point the US had planned to invade. It would have been an American massacre. So no, frankly, I dont think that its true that the Japanese were about to surrender. That's a subjective assumption any historian is entitled to make, but based solely on military history, I disagree. I think they were willing to put up a huge fight and Truman's choice to end the war early was based on this.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Man I am just never going to hear the end of this debate XDFirst of all, the "wall of text" is rather off-putting. If possible, please break up your points into paragraphs next time.Anyway, it's pretty universally agreed that Japan wanted peace and was looking to surrender -- "With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace..." -- just not at the cost of their emperor. Now, maybe you think that's reason enough to kill 250,000 Japanese civilians, but I don't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan Operation Downfall is completely irrelevant here. I'm saying no military action needed to be taken at all. Japan wanted to surrender, they were done fighting and they knew they didn't stand a chance anyway. There's no way to know for sure now, but I think it's pretty likely that, had Japan seen the video showcasing the A-bombs power, they would surrender. Furthermore, They ended up keeping their emperor anyway, the condition being that he be subject to the allied forces. Why was this compromise not even pitched before we bombed them? That's a tad suspicious in my books.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Ryyuukyuzo, I disagree that Truman didn't care about the emperor and just wanted to test the atomic bomb. Although there was evidence that the Japanese would surrender if the emperor kept his throne, the Japanese did not want to surrender. Keep in mind this is still a war and America could not relax and wait to see what happens, Truman needed to take action and prevent attacks on America and do what he saw fit to end the war swiftly. The Potsdam declaration demanded the surrender of Japan and the emperor would lose his position. Japan wanted to the emperor to keep his throne and Prime Minister Suzuki said Japan would " resolutely fight for the successful conclusion of the war." The Japanese wanted to win the war and did not want to stop fighting until they won the war or they were forced to surrender. Truman had to drop the bomb to show them our power and end the war as fast as possible while trying to preserve lives. Although America agreed to let the emperor keep his position if he agrees to be a subject of the Allies when Japan surrendered shortly after the bombing, it does not mean Truman just wanted to test his bombs. Truman and the Allies wanted to an unconditional surrender from Japan and were willing to fight until the end. The bombings still could not convince Japan to surrender unconditionally but to finally end to war and stop the killing of soldiers and civilians America agreed to let the emperor keep his position. I disagree with you that Truman just wanted to test the bombs.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Consider that America never warned Japan that they would be nuked for non-compliance. To me, that sounds more like the actions of someone who secretly wants the chance to use them rather than someone who seriously just wants Japan to surrender unconditionally. Japan still didn't give in after the first bomb for two reasons: 1, they didn't know about the second bomb (Truman didn't warn them about that either) and 2, giving in now would be basically saying that those Japanese civilians died for nothing. If they had done that, they'd have more trouble from their own people than from America.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

The main reason that Truman sought unconditional surrender was to weaken Japan's military. The military had wreaked havoc upon various cities in China and killed thousands of civilians, and committed horrific atrocities. Even if they had surrendered, but had kept their military and Emperor in their positions of power, no one knew if they would declare war again, or continue attacking China or other countries. It was necessary to show our power to the Japanese in order to keep peace in the future, and the atomic bomb was probably the most effective way to do this.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Huh, I didn't realize killing civilians weakened non-civilians. I guess all those Japanese civilians really did deserve to die... /sarcasmIf you recall, Japan ended up keeping their emperor. Did they declare war on us again? No. Would they have had we not kept the atomic bomb a secret from them? I would bet my bottom dollar the answer would also be no.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

They did say that, I read that as well. How did they know? Who told them, someone who was against the bombing?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

They were about to surrender? Then please explain why they refused to surrender and the people of Japan were prepared to continue fighting guerilla style if the Americans invaded the mainland.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Japan had agreed to surrender, but they wanted to keep their emperor. America would have none of that so they bombed Japan.Now, if you think Japan wanting to keep their emperor was enough to justify atomizing 250,000 civilians, fine. You are one sick bastard, but fine.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

There would have been more than 250,00 civilian deaths if Japan was not bombed, their emporer need to be removed and he was prepared to have his people (army and citizens) die for his position as leader. People like to think that emperor of japan was just a normal leader, which is untrue, he was just as bad as hitler and mussolini, if one of these men said they would not surrender unless they could control their nations what would you do? Would you have the war drag on for longer and have more people killed or bomb them and have them surrender.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

After the second bombing, the emperor still refuse to step down and America agreed to this term.What does that tell you about how much Truman really cared about Japan keeping its emperor?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

If he wasn't going to surrender after having 2 cities destroyed he likely wasn't going to until total defeat, I don't care how much Truman cared, if your just looking at in the "lots of people died" way then your over simplifiying it.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

What? Japan admitted that they were looking to surrender. Nobody had to die at all. Japan agreed to surrender so long as they keep their emperor, which America agreed to, just not until after they bombed the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

We didn't agree to it until after the bombing was done, america wanted uncontional surrender and their emporer removed, if he wasn't going to back down after having two cities nuked america thought they would have to invade the mainland which was what they were trying to avoid in the first place, that is why we let them keep their emporer.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

No, we let them keep their emperor under the condition the the emperor be subject to allied forces. Something we didn't even ask for until after atomizing 250,000 Japanese.But this is largely irrelevant. The point is that Japan wanted to surrender. Hell, they were looking to surrender a month before the Potsdam declaration was made! Not one more person had to die. Japan was already out of the race, we just couldn't resist bullying them one more time.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Bullying THEM one more time? Sorry if I'm mistaken but they started the war with america.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

This is true, of course it looks like we may have let them do it for an excuse to join the war, but that's a separate issue. They took out Pearl harbour and 2500 soldiers along with it, so we nuke the fuck out of them, killing 100x as many people? And civilians, nonetheless (the very people pushing for surrender)? American justice, ladies and gentlemen.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

We lost over a million soldiers in WWII and lets just say half died in Europe and the other half died in the Pacific, they didn't just kill 2,500 soldiers. Alright, I don't know why you can't understand this, but I'll say ti again, the soldiers of japan had devoted themselves to the Bushido and were ready to die for him. The civilians of Japan were not pushing to surrender, they were preparing for a mainland invasion, and don't give me some "but that would be a massacre" story cause it wouldn't, its called guerilla warfare and it works pretty damn well. Yes Japan wanted to make peace, however they did not want to surrender because 1. their emporer wanted to keep his place and 2. in their culture surrender is almost never acceptable. We nuked them hoping their emporer would step down but he didn't, since he didn't surrender after having two cities nuked it was assumed (with good evidence) that the only way to make him step down would be a mainland invasion, which would have likely resulted in around a million american deaths and end in an occupation. Why did we need him to step down? For some reason you think that he was just Emperor Happy skipping through the cherry blossoms of Japan, but he was just the same as Hitler and Mussolini.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

Soldiers that died on the battlefield are irrelevant here. We're talking about if America was justified in killing a quarter million civilians in a country that already wanted to surrender. "In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat"This was half a year before the bombings. At this point, Japan and its military leaders were already 50/50 on surrendering, with the "pro-war" half only wanting to continue so they could have 'one more military victory'. Obviously mainland invasion wasn't the only way, because we found another way, let them keep their emperor, but have him subject to us. That wasn't a new or radical idea at the time, we would just rather murder hundreds of thousand of civilians than not get our way according to every detail. Keep in mind, you're talking about 250,000 civilians. People like you and me. America lost the war of 1812 (it was arguably a stalemate, but for the sake of argument let's just continue). What if Canada had demanded that the U.S. president step down? Would you support this? What if Canadian soldiers started slaughtering American civilians en masse to get their way? Would you argue that they were justified? Hmm?
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Soldiers that died on the battle field are relevant, every death counts, just cause someone signed up or was drafted does not mean that when they die you can just go "well, they were a soldier so it doesn't matter." What about the mass rapes and murders carried about by Japan's soldiers? Was that justified? Mainland invasion wasn't the only option yes, but america wanted the emporer gone, that was the whole point. As for "not get our way according to every detail" thats over simplifying it and acting as if this was just an average war. The second world war had caused millions of deaths, destruction and a devestating aftermath in most parts of the industrial world, unconditional surrender was not some over the top idea, the axis had to surrender unconditionally.As for the of 1812 it wasn't arguably a stalemate, it WAS a stalemate. Secondly we wern't fighting Canada, we were fighting the British who were allied with the native forces. Now to act like that war is some how similar to the war with Japan your very wrong, Japan's soldiers raped and murder many people, Japan many concentration camps (which were known for being more brutal the ones in Germany) and Japan 's main reason for war was its imperialistic goals, I don't have time to list of all of the terrible things Japan did during the war but you should get the point. As for the British slaughtering civilians to get their way, again, Japan's soldiers raped and murder masses of people in the pacific, so don't act like they didn't do anything wrong.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

My point is that soldiers who died on the battlefield are irrelevant to this discussion. You say it was a stalemate, I say Canada burned down the white house, so there's room for debate about who did better. Also, it was a war against the British, but it was against the British via Canada. At the time Canada wasn't really a country, so they're basically synonymous in this case. None of that matters though, the point is that you wouldn't be so quick to justify civilian slaughter if it was against YOUR country. That makes you a hypocrite and shows your extremely jingoist bias.Oh? The Japanese soldiers committed rape, therefore hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians deserve to die? You know, there's an ongoing issue of rape within the U.S. army right now. Does that mean you deserve to die too? Hmm?Essentially, all you have to justify the bombings are non-sequiturs. The fact remains that Japan was looking to surrender. I'll repeat, JAPAN WAS LOOKING TO SURRENDER. They were NOT planning any more attacks. They did NOT want to continue the war. They also did NOT know that America was going to atomize hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS to get their way.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

I'm not being biased I simply stating that those are two wars the were very different. As for rape in our military, yes there is rape (half of it is rape of other soldiers) but it was not on the same scale as what Japan's soldiers did. If you want to say that soldiers deaths, civilian deaths in the pacific islands, them having a terrible emporor and the mass rapes and murders don't matter, than no, the bombing wasn't justified, however your looking at the bombing as if it wasn't part of the war when very clearly it was. You need to understand that war is never pretty, and WWII (especially in the Pacific) it was very brutal. Japan was looking to make peace, however we needed unconditional surrender, the only reason we settled for them getting to keep their emporor was because after being bombed twice anyone with common sense would think they wern't going to surrender unconditionally without a mainland invasion and after having the price of doubling the american deathtoll in the Pacific, we decided to take their terms.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

You are biased. They are different wars, but not in any way that defeats the purpose of me comparing them. Since you went that route anyway, it shows that you're trying to bypass my point instead of countering it or yielding to it.War is never pretty? That's what you're argument is down to? Give me a break. We're talking about people who no longer wanted to be at war. There was no need to nuke them over such an inconsequential thing. The war was already over, all they had to do was have a meeting and work out the technicalities, like what happens for virtually every other war. By the way, Japan didn't realize that America had more than one bomb. They thought they were in the clear after each one, so they saw no reason to not keep pushing for their condition. Also, Nuking them guaranteed that they could not back down from their position because doing so would send the message to the Japanese people that their deaths were for nothing, which would result in rebellion, rioting, etc. and then a mainland invasion WOULD actually be needed because the Japanese government would no longer have control over its people. By nuking Japan, America forced the war to be prolonged. Remember, America never warned Japan about the bombings.And that brings me to my question for you. If America really did just want to end the war, why not just threaten to use the bombs? Japan didn't know about them or how many the U.S. had. If they did, they may have just surrendered, but bombing them made unconditional surrender for them impossible. Does keeping something like this (the bombs) a secret sound like the acts of a man who wants to end the war as peacefully as possible, or does it sound like the actions of a man who is looking for an excuse to test his new bombs? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: justified

Alright, I'll reply to the rest of this later, but two things1. Whens the last time opponents told each other what they were doing in war? Did England call up France and be like "hey man, meet me at waterloo we can fight there" no.2. We couldn't threaten to use the bomb because many people of the time couldn't grasp the idea of having an entire city destroyed by one bomb, they had never been used before and a threat would have seemed like a bluff.
Debate: Atomic Bomb
Side: not justified

1. We aren't talking about fighting a battle, we're talking about surrender negotiations. 2. Yes we damn well could have. The destructive power of the atomic bomb was extensively tested and filmed. Besides, the chance that they might not believe us is NOT an excuse not to warn them. If we gave them fair warning and they said "bring it", then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened, so you don't.