avatar
49 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @logicalreason @iantreyparish Great debate guys!

    Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 i.e. community+ 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @essie

    • 2 years ago

      Hey it is your resident judge here!

      Sorry for not being able to post a video, my technology is being quite uncooperative lately and I know you guys have been patiently waiting for a response so here it is :)

      Pro:
      Loved the set up for your argument. You gave your overall statement concerning the immoral act of nuking Japan in WWII followed by the three main points you were going to use to demonstrate your stance. I think your strongest points were concerning the civilians and history books. I appreciated that when you quoted US military leaders you quoted multiple leaders, you did not just base your claim off of one. When con brought up the argument of civilians "civilians have no uniqueness to the war" your rebuttal on that shot his claim down handing you the win over that topic. I think it was important that you brought up the aftermath of the nukings especially since your argument was based on that of morality, however, I do not think it was specific enough to be effective. You stated the casualties and then only mentioned that it was effecting the generations after and that Japan is still suffering. I think in order for that evidence to have really solidified your argument you needed to provide specific examples of the effects on other generations and how Japan is still suffering. By doing so, it emphasizes the impact that these actions made and would have made your argument concerning immorality stand out more. Also, I noticed several times you didn't quite get to finish your statements because of time, one thing that I think can help you in future debates to avoid this is working on making your statements more concise. There was a few times where it took you a little bit longer to get to your point. By finding ways to make your statements clear and concise you can avoid getting cut off and have more time to include more evidence and claims to solidify your argument.

      Con:
      I also loved the way you set yours up. Just as pro did, you brought in your main argument of Utilitarianism or the greater good followed by the three points that you were going to be making in the debate. You came loaded with evidence to support your claims, you didn't just rely on one piece of evidence, for each claim, you had at least two or three additional pieces of evidence and that really helped solidify your argument and rebuttals. I see so many debaters coming in basing claims off of one main evidence and to be honest i drives me crazy. By including additional evidence backing up the same claim, it really solidifies your argument and makes your claim that much more believable, so thank you for that. I will say however, that at the end it seemed as though you were struggling to make new points. Your comment "civilians have no uniqueness to the war" was slightly confusing and kind of caught me off guard, as it seemed a little out of place for what you had been discussing and then there was no evidence tied to it. Pro saw that flaw and absolutely shut it down in his rebuttal especially since this statement was at the end of the debate and you weren't able to defend that statement. Just be sure that when you make a claim that it is clear and paired with evidence so you don't set yourself up for a shut out.

      Overall:
      I think both of you took very powerful stances for your argument, but in the end, I think Con had a better utilization of evidence to back up his claims and stronger rebuttals overall, so I will be voting Con for this debate

      Thank you @logicalreason and @iantreyparish for an awesome debate and good luck to both of you in your future endeavors! :)

      • 2 years ago

        @essie thank you for your decision! My "civilian UQ" claim was basically me saying that civilian deaths had no real bearing on the discussion, because if nukes were wrong, then the firebombing campaigns would be wrong, et al. Essentially I tried to nullify any possible scenarios by making civilian life the "be all, end all" for my opponent's argument. I just said it really poorly. :P

        What could I have done better? Also, any tips for handling organization within the 3 minute speech times?

      • 2 years ago

        @iantreyparish Ok that makes a bit more sense now haha.

        I think organizationally, your closing statement needs a bit more structure by highlighting some of the important points in your argument throughout the entire debate and maybe even bringing up some of your prior rebuttals because there is a lot of information that is presented during a debate so it is important to remind those watching some of your main arguments so they don't get overlooked. In this debate it seemed like your last allotted time was another part of the debate and didn't provide much closure if that makes sense. You can address some of the arguments brought up in the last argument but since it is the last time you are speaking you want to make sure you have good closure.

        As for 3 minute speech times, I think the key is making clear and concise statements i.e. claim-->evidence-->why it matters. (This is my claim here is the evidence to back it up and this is why it matters) By doing this you not only look more professional and confident, but it also gives you more time to bring in new evidence and claims. Which this tactic really just takes time and practice to really get down because these time limits can be really stressful and cause a little bit of fumbling so the more you are able to get you your point more directly, the better your argument will come across and the more it can boost your confidence.

        Hope this helps! :)

    • 2 years ago

      @iantreyparish Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate on Sun/ Mon.

      @logicalreason Hard luck on this one! We will open registrations for Dec' $5,000 Championship next week; in the meantime you can have some fun with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:
      https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges

      • 2 years ago

        Harada Kaname was one. Elite pilot who stated that he would fight on as long as he was given the order.

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides Then why didn't he?

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason He was ordered to stand down. He followed his orders.

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides So he didn't fight to the death because someone told him to do so? Kind of like... the emperor? Because he was trying to negotiate the surrender, as I said 4 times in the debate; before the bomb. So does he suddenly not surrender unless the US is the country he's surrendering too?

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason Also read up on the massive stockpiles of suicide aircraft, boats, and manned torpedoes that the Japanese were stockpiling for the invasion of the home islands. This was in July, after the battle of Okinawa. They weren't planning on surrendering any time soon. You are correct that the emperor of Japan was trying to end the war sooner, but he had been opposed to the war since its beginning. The real power in Japan was in the hands of the military leaders, who pushed through the aggressive expansionist policies through the Japanese government as early as the 1930s. This is of course what led to the war in China and inevitable clash with the Americans in the Pacific (we had a lot of pacific colonies). These same military leaders, who held the power, were the ones determined to continue fighting in 1945. If you doubt the determination of the Japanese people you only need to read about Japanese divisions hidden in the jungles who were still fighting decades after the war was officially over.

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason That "someone" was his squadron commander. Again the emperor had very little actual power against the influence of the warhawk generals, even though the general public literally worshipped him as a god.

        • 2 years ago

          It seems you doubt the determination of the Japanee people; because you just ignored the fact you told me they would stop fighting if 'ordered' too.

          The point is that the DID surrender, the question is why.

          According to Japanese historians:

          On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs ... alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so.[Hasegawa,

          So to your point; the Japanese would never surrender due to the atomic bombs, but rather they surrendered due the Soviet Entrance into the pacific war which the emperor, the person that all soldiers are serving for, actually did.

      • 2 years ago

        Legally, if you are aiding to produce munitions and weapons of war, you are counted as a combatant and liable to have military actions performed against you. Hiroshima was a genuine military target as it was producing weapons of war

        • 2 years ago

          @ericleatherwood Legally, according to whom? That makes all citizens in US equally culpable to be nuked

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason during conventional war, yes US citizens that contributed to the war effort via munitions manufacturing or similar methods would be viable to be bombed.

        • 2 years ago

          @ericleatherwood So terrorists are justified attacking civillian targets as well then? They are at war, so would we consider their actions moves justifiable if the scale is large enough?

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason When you say justifiable are you talking about morally justifiable or strategically justifiable? It's hard to argue that any war is morally justifiable, but looking at it purely through the lens of victory as the goal it is very beneficial for terrorists to attack civilians and destroy morale.

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides I'm saying they shouldn't do that for multiple reasons: One: it serves no purpose other than to motivate people against you, second, it serves no purpose because the people you killed were not even familiar with you were or why you were attacking them.

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides Terrorists did not issue a formal declaration of war. To answer your question, under their ideology it would be strategically justifiable as their goal is to cause terror and confusion for a political cause

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides Then why did the US call it a "war"; didn't they also do so illegally (AKA; did not get an official declaration of war). Seems to me that WWII was the last declared war legally.... so if they are attacking your homeland and killiing your neighbors for political causes (All Middleast US conflicts), are they not allowed to respond on the same manner.

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason You're incorrect on both points. Even if the impact on enemy morale is minor, any successful attack will boost the morale of your own troops. This is common sense and I would love to see you argue that it doesn't. Second, given that the goal of terrorist attacks is to undermine morale it would be counterproductive for terrorists to mount anonymous attacks. They will make certain that their victims are very familiar with who they are and why they are attacking them.

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason same reason why we call the Korean and Vietnam wars when they are legally not wars.

        • 2 years ago

          @ericleatherwood How did the Vietmese win the war; by nuking the US homeland? Or by the motivation to protect their families from being killed/tortured? If they were to just bomb civillian targets in the US that probably would have done nothing but increase support for the war. And to your point, both those wars were declared illegally, have no clear goal; and do not seem to have a clear moral outcome. I contend that any military that doesn't see a clear goal in their endeavor will not retain their morale. I think we argree... do we not?

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason it's true. legally both of those wars are not wars. Legally they are police actions. About the morale point, that I do agree, the US military did not know what they where doing there and morale quickly waned

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason If you're going to bring up the Vietnamese then you should read about how they would burn and massacre entire villages of civilians who were not actively supporting the Viet Cong. By your argument this would just decrease the support for their war but we have multiple accounts of how their tactics paid off and many South Vietnamese were pressured to support them out of fear.

        • 2 years ago

          @ericleatherwood Same thing could be said about Tokyo .....a large percentage of homes had machine shops, foundries or other small businesses that were making materials for the Japanese war effort.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard US knew that killing the emperor would basically make peace impossible

        • 2 years ago

          @larinioides I didn't bring up the Vietmese, can you stop trolling please?

        • 2 years ago

          @ericleatherwood Korean War....the UN passed a resolution to support South Korea against an illegal invasion by the North. Congress supported the sending of troops and provided funding for the effort.

          In the end....North Korea wanted to control South Korea....and was unsuccessful. Look at a map of the Korean Peninsula at night; South Korean is easily noticed - a very prosperous nation - lit up at night. North Korea - very dark except some limited lighting at the capital.

          North Korea - the 'hermit kingdom' where people are starving to death, while the dictator and his close minions live an affluent life, and they build nuclear weapons and develop missiles. OTOH - South Korea is a thriving democracy...with lots of freedoms for millions of people....who would have otherwise been oppressed, had leftists had their way.

          Vietnam - Congress authorized action with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and yearly, they funded it. South Vietnam was a 'side' participant of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) - that provided defense agreements. Aid was rendered to South Vietnam to prevent North Vietnam from taking over the country (which they eventually did). The hope was to maintain 'status quo' - and South Vietnam would exist as a free nation. Unfortunately, the leftists Democrats sold out South Vietnam (after a Paris Treaty where North Vietnam promised to respect the sovereignty of South Vietnam). So - we had 'boat people' (millions fleeing), millions put in communist re-education camps, and hundreds of thousands murdered. Way to go leftists....it would be nice if Hanoi Jane Fonda and her ilk wanted to live in Vietnam under Communist rule - instead of the US (and wanting the US to embrace Communism).

          Both Korean War and Vietnam War were wars instigated by communist nations seeking to put more people into a communist gulag. Those on the other side were seeking to protect the country. In one instance - the 'good guys' won, and in the other - the 'good guys' lost. (NOTE - if you are a communist sympathizer - the previous sentence still applies.)

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard A formal declaration of war was still not declared as such, it is legally considered a police action, not a war. Also, there is a titanic difference between leftism and going full single party Maoist Leninist totalitarian
          state

      • 2 years ago

        Who are the 4 people that voted con 5 minutes into the debate? This voting system, I'm against it when it's for me or against me

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason I'm not sure who, but residential judges also vote to balance out the community votes. Sort of like an electoral college system.

        • 2 years ago

          @logicalreason

          We have started implementing a few initiative to try to address this:
          1) Incentivize users to vote objectively
          2) No one can vote before watching the first 6 minutes of tournament debates i.e. the opening statements
          3) We're thinking to implement "see votes details" i.e. any user can check who voted, what time etc for full transparency

      • 2 years ago

        Oof, that was the sloppiest debate I think I've ever had. It was great though!

        • 2 years ago

          Great debate y'all! Don't have time to get into all the reasoning behind my RFD, but this event is interesting and has a lot of bearing on the quotes from US Navy admirals presented by PRO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals
          http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/98-166.pdf

          • 2 years ago

            @qallout Can we change the thumbnail? I look crazy

          • 2 years ago

            PRO was opposed to spending money to develop nuclear weapons. BUT - he should know that both Japan and Germany had nuclear weapons development programs. (Guess what would have happened if they had won the race to develop nuclear weapons? Only idiots would think that Germany or Japan would have not used the weapons.) The science was out there. Development was inevitable. BUT - the cost of developing the weapons and use of them avoided a much greater cost. That point is historically inaccurate by PRO.

            PRO makes the point that Russia could have created a '2nd front'....which - given the divide in Germany (East Germany vs. West Germany) ....the Russians planned to call for a dividing of Japan - and Russia would have controlled part of Japan. 46 years of a "Russian Controlled Japan" would have done more destruction to that part of Japan than if it had been nuked. (Consider the damage to the people of East Germany - controlled by Russia.)

            The challenge to these younger generation of people who wish to forget the people living at the time.....WHAT IF YOU were going to be on the invasion force to go into the heart of Japan to end the war....and the predictions were that 10 million Japanese would die, and 1 million Americans would die in the invasion; would you want us to use 2 nuclear weapons to end the war and reduce casualties on both sides....or would you be ready to man the guns on one of the invasion boats. If you would not have been ready to be a part of the invasion force....then you are making a decision from the comfort of your easy chair...and are a hypocrite.

            PRO made wild (and erroneous) claims about deaths after the bombs...and radiation effects. (Please post a link to support these wild claims....and I will then post a link to counter those lies.)

            As to - Japan was ready to surrender and was putting out peace feelers...Japan was UNWILLING to do an UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Only an unconditional surrender would guarantee an ability to disarm the military, depose and try the leaders responsible for the war and for war crimes, etc. YES- we could have 'starved the nation out' ....but far more Japanese would have died, died of starvation, than were killed by the 2 bombs. The 2 bombs gave the Japanese a huge reason to end their Code of Bushido, end the idea of 'death before dishonor.'

            • 2 years ago

              ALSO - PRO reported some 'quotes' from Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz...which were interesting. BUT- more noteworthy is those comments were AFTER the 2 bombs had been used. (Sort of '20/20 hindsight??) BEFORE the bombs were used...he had some real concerns about an invasion. Here is a relevant extract:

              Nimitz was always a discerning consumer of intelligence (unlike MacArthur) and US intelligence had picked up signs that Kyushu had been heavily reinforced. In June 1945, intelligence analysts working for Nimitz believed Kyushu was defended by 600,000 Japanese troops (the real number was over 800,000 Japanese defenders). A rough parity between attackers and defenders didn’t mean the invasion would necessarily fail, but it did mean US casualties would be very heavy. So Nimitz wrote to King laying out his concerns and recommended that OLYMPIC be cancelled in favor of the invasion of Honshu (Operation CORONET) in 1946 and a continuation of the blockade of Japan and the strategic bombing campaign.

              Nimitz learned of the Manhattan Project in February 1945. Whether the atomic bombs would work and whether they would be ready before the end of the war was an open question, but the increasing likelihood of their readiness led Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George C. Marshall to consider plans to drop up to ten atomic bombs on Kyushu in support of Operation OLYMPIC.[1] In early 1945, Nimitz enthusiastically supported the use of atomic bombs in the invasion of Kyushu.

              When a debate erupted about the use of the third atomic bomb in early August 1945, Nimitz endorsed Tokyo as the target.

              Nimitz didn’t object to use of the atomic bombs in OLYMPIC or express any reservations about their use before Japan surrendered.

              However, Nimitz did an apparent about face immediately after the end of the war. On a triumphal tour of the US in October 1945, Nimitz said:

              The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

              Nimitz said this in Washington D.C. on October 5, 1945.

              Nimitz’s quote is often trotted out as an example of a senior US military leader opposed to the atomic bombing of Japan. That’s simplistic: senior US military leaders knew that Japan was militarily defeated by early 1943 and decisively defeated by mid 1944. The only question was when Japanese leaders would acknowledge their defeat.

              Nimitz’s contention that Japan had sued for peace is strange. Japanese leaders had not, in fact, sued for peace. The closest they got to suing for peace was to approach the Soviet Union to ask them to act as intermediaries to the US and Britain (the Soviets spurned the approach). I don’t know what Nimitz had in mind when he said Japan was suing for peace. Intelligence assessments of Japan were circulated at the top levels of the US government. Those reports discussed decrypts of Japanese diplomatic cables revealing Japanese approaches to the Soviet Union that gave some insight into the thinking of Japanese leaders, particularly Foreign Minister Sato. I would be very surprised if Nimitz wasn’t privy to those assessments and the opinion of US Navy analysts that Japan wasn’t ready to surrender in July 1945.
              .......end of pasted excerpt ......

              AND - remember - plenty of Japanese would be dying of starvation the longer it took to get them to surrender AND - the mistreatment (and potential killing) of American POWs was also a concern. A long delay - and all the POWs would likely have been killed.

              • 2 years ago

                @mvineyard while both arguments you present are 100% true, I didn't make those arguments. I simply said that the Japanese had no intention of surrender, and that US officials opinions on the matter didn't really have any significance.

              • 2 years ago

                @iantreyparish Check what I wrote....I was pointing out the incorrect or mis-information by PRO. I didn't disagree with your comments. I presented some comments against what PRO made. For example - the comments by various Admirals...especially Nimitz....it is interesting to comment on post-war remarks, but comments BEFORE the end of the war are more telling. Nimitz was suggesting that Tokyo be the location for the 3rd bomb if Japan was still refusing to surrender after the first 2 were dropped - sort of negates his October 1945 comments. I don't know whether or not Japan was willing to surrender. AFAIK - they were willing to surrender - but not an unconditional surrender. End hostilities (sort of like how the Korean War ended in an armistice - with plenty of problems unresolved and the big possibility of future tensions, sort of like Kim Jong Un building nuclear bombs and trying to make ICBMs to carry them.

            • 2 years ago

              (Not judging this round).

              This was a very exciting and complex debate. I didn’t feel like flowing it, so my comments will be brief.

              Although I personally agree with Pro’s position, I think Con squeaked this one out with more effective refutations, and definitely a larger arsenal of sourced evidence to rely on. Additionally, he kept a consistent framework and criterion in the audience’s mind.

              Pro made extremely compelling points, and was super close at times to turning the debate, but Con simply had a slight edge on mastering this particular topic.

              Good work both of you!

            • 2 years ago

              @logicalreason asked me to come and take a look and share my thoughts. Happy to do so :)

              Overall: This was a pretty good debate, substantive, but a little hard to judge due to the speculative nature of the subject. Much of the debate centered around the counterfactual scenario of what would happen if we had not dropped the bombs.

              First, some issues of style...

              Organization: both debaters started out strong in organization, but both stopped citing the signposts and argument numbers as the debate wore on. It wasn't especially hard to follow, but good organization helps you finish up strongly.

              Finishing: Both debaters could have done with a stronger summation of their overall case. It's hard to do when you feel the need to respond to a specific point (i know well). But try to carve out a short time to give a closing summary of your case, highlighting where you feel you are winning.

              Both debaters were very civil and respectful.

              -On Values and Morals
              Pro makes an implicit moral standard of not killing civilians as his core moral weighing mechanism. It would have been a little better to highlight this up front, then offer the three points.

              Con gives us a very explicit Utilitarian standard, but he explains it in a very convoluted way. He could have just said, whatever action leads to fewer violent deaths is the better action. It's easier to say and that's what you ended up citing. It takes less time to say and is more impactful from a rhetorical standpoint.

              Neither side really pits their weighing mechanism against the others. That always makes things hard to judge. Con set his up better and referred to it more often. I also favor it slightly over the loss of civilians in war, which I see as somewhat inevitable. I'll keep both in mind, but give the con mechanism a bit more weight.

              -Civilians in war
              No one disputes that civilians were targeted and killed here. So Pro scores a judging point on his criteria. Con's refutations about the counterfactual were all on military casualties so far as I could tell.

              Con does not contend the wrongness of these acts, only argues that his utilitarian standard makes no distinction.

              -Which is more loss of life?
              There is plenty of argument here. Most of it centers around how the war would end if the bombs were not used. Pro contends that conventional military would work, mostly based on the assessment of generals, Con contends that while it would work, it would lead to a protracted battle that would result in more casualties.

              Pro's expert witnesses are pretty compelling, though they don't necessarily mean no further casualties, only victory without the nukes. Con gives us plausible reason to expect some stiff resistance sans a sudden surrender.

              I feel like there were deeper arguments to be made on both sides. Just how long would the war continue conventionally. Were the bombs the triggering agent of surrender or not. Exactly who was making the command decisions for Japan. Both debaters fell into repeating their claims rather than digging deeper towards the end. (understandable mind you, but a place for more development on this topic)

              Based on the arguments here, I'm not really convinced one way or the other. I've got the opinions of generals, but also the cold facts of the war and Japan's defenses and the fact they did surrender shortly after the bombs. (I've got my own opinions, but the reasoning behind them really wasn't part of this debate so I'm setting that aside for judgment.)

              Judgement
              I can't make an objective call on the question of the utilitarian value. Both sides have standing arguments with merit and no clear weighing mechanisms for each. I just can't say which action would result in fewer deaths.

              But, I do have a clear view that civilians were killed and killed knowingly and deliberately and there isn't much dispute about that in the debate. So this gives Pro an easy point in his favor.

              Con either needed a direct refutation of this line of argument or a better argument why we should only weigh utilitarianism in the debate (beyond just suggesting it).

              I think those who found Con's case or greater casualties more compelling reasonably vote Con. I found it was too much sheer speculation on both sides to make a clear decision on that.

              • 2 years ago

                @sigfried thanks for the RFD man, I've been wondering what you'd say about it. :) The 3 minute time limit definitely had me panicked a ton of the time, because I'm used to the longer 9 minute speeches. :joy:

            • 2 years ago

              In a nutshell, Pro gave better moral reasons, IE starting an arms race, and better Historical reasoning. Con came hard also...

              • 2 years ago

                @julian hard as in too forceful?

              • 2 years ago

                @iantreyparish you're a great Debater. I liked Pro pointing out the possibility of surrender also. I didn’t llike your moral argument that it couldn’t happen today because the Geneva Conventions account for that. The Korea thing and comparing atrocities wasn’t great for me either. But no I wouldn’t tone it down at all. Just enjoyed the other sides arguments more.

              • 2 years ago

                @julian haha I feel ya man. Personally, I'm of a more deontological approach that would reject using nukes on Japan and I'm more used to 9 minute long speeches, so this debate was really challenging! Thanks for your input!