WWII debate

This is a writing a did for a debate on the bombings on Hiroshima in WWII




The bombing on Hiroshima was a tragedy, no doubt. Having your skin being burned off by nuclear radiation is not a good way to die. But let me tell you about another way to die. A small japenese boy strapping him to a bomb and throwing himself into a group of American ( or Chinese, or European) soldiers. This is what Japanese civilians were being told to do, and would do, as was their tradition. The Japanese code of bushido — "the way of the warrior" — was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. This code applied to Japanese civilians as well. So when people say that by bombing Japan we killed many innocent civilians you must realize the reality of the situation. Civilians were going to most likely get killed anyway. Just a few weeks after the bombs were dropped Japan surrendered, which ended Japan’s threat to the world and avoided a deadly invasion on the country’s mainland. High casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers. study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
People who say that Japan would of surrendered and it wasn’t necessary to bomb because they were preparing to surrender, well that really doesn’t explain while they were fully engaged in attacking the allied forces, why they had bombed Pearl Harbor and other places along the Pacific, or why they had taken over half of Asia. Japan was in no way ready to surrender. In fact even after two atomic bombs had been dropped upon them they still refused to surrender until about a week later. Therefore the bombings were necessary.

Hmm... a debate should persuade you don't give any proof to back up, you instead just throw facts at us and expect us to believe. A little fact, The Emperor of Japan was held hostage by his own people he wanted to surrender. Did you know that?

Anyway, a debate should address both sides, you go for the side for the bombing of millions but don't even address the people who opposed it. You just tell us everything giving us no evidence to back up. You should make good use of quotes when writing a speech for a debate and concentrate on keeping people intrest.

If you just say this and that, you lose the intended goal. You instead bore.

Hope this helps.
VSN

gabe!!!
i agree with Vernon (the person above me)
you did not address both sides. though you addressed your own okay, you failed to address your opposition...me.

had you researched deeper into my side of the argument (and read that book i gave you), your argument would have been much stronger, and possibly a winning one.

this was short and, as i feel it, did not give you enough time to emphisize your main points.
i cannot remember if this was all you had, but i doubt that it was.

if you really feel stongly about the subject, i suggest, you look deeper into research, or go back to other notes that you possibly could've taken and take strikes at your well-armed oppenents strongest facts.

overall, just an alright piece. i had trouble paying attention to it the first time you read it, and it was much better to read it.

sorry.

-GC10

it is true, vernon, that the emperor did want to surrender, but only after we had bombed them. and plus, they only wanted to surrender to the US. They would still go on terrorizing surrounding Asian countries if we had not gotten them out of the war.

anyway, I did appreciate the tips, especially the one about keep somebody's interest. I'll keep that in mind next time i debate.

But must say that all my facts are backed up. I'm pretty sure that they are all true.
(since you obviously don't agree with my side of the argument i hope that doesn't affect the way you critique)


As for you Jocelyn, There was no way I'm gonna read that big book you gave me. We only had like two weeks to prepare. so i didn't have a lot of time to research. Plus when people debate a subject like this there is so much background information one must know for their debate to be liable. And I believe in the time we were given, achieving that is nearly imposible

This was quite good. I don't know much about this side of the war (although I'm very interested in finding out more) so I can't really correct much of your historical facts. But I am pretty sure Japan was going to surrender.

The bombing on Hiroshima was a tragedy, no doubt. Having your skin being burned off by nuclear radiation is not a [s]good[/s] nice way to die. But let me tell you about another way to die. A small [s]j[/s]Japenese boy strapping him to a bomb and throwing himself into a group of American ([s] [/s]or Chinese, or European) soldiers. This is what Japanese civilians were being told to do, and would do, as it was their tradition. The Japanese code of bushido — "the way of the warrior" — was deeply ingrained What? Expand a bit more on this.. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code[s]:[/s]; never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. This code applied to Japanese civilians as well. So when people say that by bombing Japan we killed many innocent civilians, you must realize the reality of the situation. Civilians were going to most likely get killed anyway This sentence is a bit awkward. I'd re-phrase it. Just a few weeks after the bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered, which ended [s]Japan’s[/s] their threat to the world and avoided a deadly invasion on the country’s mainland. High casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers. A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.

People who say that Japan would of surrendered and it wasn’t necessary to bomb because they were preparing to surrender Because what? You need to follow on with a because here, otherwise it doesn't make sense., well It's weird having the well there that really doesn’t explain [s]while[/s] why they were fully engaged in attacking the allied forces, why they had bombed Pearl Harbor and other places along the Pacific, or why they had taken over half of Asia. Japan was in no way ready to surrender. In fact, even after two atomic bombs had been dropped upon them, [s]they[/s] Japan still refused to surrender until about a week later. Therefore the bombings were necessary.


I can't say whether I agree with you or not due to my lack of knowledge about this side of the war, I think your essay/speech needs some work. You don't seem to have any evidence to back it up and in your last paragraph you seemed to rush it and therefore it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Good luck!

just so you know i did have to hand this in. I read it aloud. So i ignored gramatical errors and didn't read it word for word

just so you know i did have to hand this in. I read it aloud. So i ignored gramatical errors and didn't read it word for word

Personally, I agree mostly with Vernon. She states very good qualities that have been left out.

Vernon says: If you just say this and that, you lose the intended goal. You instead bore

In challenge you & Jocelyn did read it out loud instead of just passing around the paper and letting us read it silently to ourselves. Therefore, you guys had a chance to emphasize and insert emotion with your debating. (the 1st debate was fun to watch with the "yelling")
Even if you didn't read it out loud it's an important concept to keep your readers wanting to read more of it. Everything is mainly already picked out; don't just throw facts, address the other side and what not.

I think it was better listening to the debate rather than reading.

-------------
Life is like a diaper; good to have but sometimes stinks. ~AZ&MB

_horsez919 (LeaS.)

I think this peice was fairly good. not the best, but good. It provided interesting facts but they didnot really back up your writing.

Also, I got kinda off board in the middle of the first paragraph cause it kinda just blurred into one big glob of writing. I understand that this was read aloud, but never the less.

I would also like to see the other side of this debate, it is a very interesting topic.

lastly, when you said " the civilians were most likely going to get killed anyways" seems kinda, harsh. It's like saying,"oh look, that criminal on deathrow is burning to death, but he was going to die anyways". See? sounds kinda mean.


-a talking muffin-