-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Talented Content
-
The Difference Between Science and Religion
The difference is primarily that Science and Religion do not share an epistemological status, and that is what the "faith in science" statements tend to suggest, in that sense these statements are wrong...It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.
And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.
Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
So why do so many people believe otherwise? It turns out that while science and religion are as different as can be, folk science and folk religion share deep properties. Most of us carry in our heads a hodgepodge of scientific views and religious views, and they often feel the same—because they are learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways.
Many religious beliefs arise from universal modes of thought that have evolved for reasoning about the social world. We are sensitive to signs of agency, which explains the animism that grounds the original religions of the world. but this perspective is incomplete...There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.
To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.
Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”
People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious beliefs, but their meaning as well. In this article, the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states “credences,” and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe that we should accept them, and that others—at least those who belong to our family and community—should accept them as well.
None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more than three or four of them.
Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally improve over time.
There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can justify their views with powerful arguments.
But much of what’s in our heads are credences, not beliefs we can justify—and there’s nothing wrong with this. Life is too brief; there is too much to know and not enough time. We need epistemological shortcuts.
Given my day job, I know something about psychology and associated sciences, but if you press me on the details of climate change, or the evidence about vaccines and autism, I’m at a loss. I believe that global warming is a serious problem and that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is not because I have studied these issues myself.
It is because I trust the scientists.
Most of those who insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a liberal fraud and that vaccines destroy children’s brains would also be at a loss to defend these views. Like me, they defer, just to different authorities.
This equivalence might lead to a relativist conclusion—you have your faith; I have mine. You believe weird things on faith (virgin birth, winged horse); I believe weird things on faith (invisible particles, Big Bang), and neither of us fully understands what we’re really talking about. But there is a critical difference. Some sorts of deference are better than others.
It’s better to get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than from a Ouija Board. It’s better to learn about the age of the universe from an astrophysicist than from a Rabbi. The New England Journal of Medicine is a more reliable source about vaccines than the actress Jenny McCarthy. These preferences are not ideological. We’re not talking about Fox News versus The Nation. They are rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.
I don’t want to fetishize science. Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by groupthink, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations. The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.
But science as an institution behaves differently than particular scientists. Science establishes conditions where rational argument is able to flourish, where ideas can be tested against the world, and where individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations. Science is not just one “faith community” among many. It has earned its epistemological stripes. And when the stakes are high, as they are with climate change and vaccines, we should appreciate its special status.
-
human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerning
I've already posted evidence that consensus as high as 100% is accurate (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) and if you look at your own link critically and think it through, you'll see that although it tries to reject the consensus it actually doubly supports the 97% consensus of Cook et al.CYDdharta said:Ampersand said:Oh, and just picking up a thread earlier in the topic about climate change consensus, the agreement among experts is actually as high as 100%.
Despite the baseless claims to the contrary by deniers earlier in the thread, there are in fact a host of studies showing that there is a ~97% consensus amongst experts on climate change being manmade. The exact percentage will vary a bit depending on how strictly you define an expert. The more expertise you need to qualify as an expert, the higher the percentage that will agree which can be up to 100%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
I'd not normally go out of my way to point out the lies behind every baseless climate change denier claim, but that's a common one and an important one because acknowledgement of a scientific consensus is a key determiner in people accepting any scientific reality.Actually, the 97% consensus is based on a lie, so it certainly isn't 100%. Not that it matters. As one of the climatologists who's work was misrepresented in that 97% statistic puts it,Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
Although it's a biased hit piece, even if you mindlessly accept every single change it only moves the consensus figure in the first half of the study from 97.1% to 96.9% - still rounding to 97%.
Moreover by accepting the reasoning of self-reporting in your link, you then have to accept the reasoning of self-reporting in the second step of Cook's study which showed a similar but even higher level of consensus at 97.2%!
You've shot yourself in the foot - twice - but even if you link didn't have these errors and was actually anti-consensus it would be irrelevant. There is no methodology, no way of checking the data or claims, etc. You don't have to be a scientist to make claims, but you do have to be scientific. There is no reason beyond ideological bias to trust you link and if you're interested in the facts you should look at actual evidence like the kind I've posted.
-
If you could go back in time, what would you change in world history?
I had this idea for a sci-fi story...
In the distant future (say, year 2250), a man uploads exobytes of scientific data into his brain chip, containing almost all the collective knowledge humanity has accumulated, including an array of proven psychological techniques. The man is also immortal, and takes a special pill with him able to make one more human immortal.
The man uses a machine to time-travel to 1806 BC, the beginning of the rule of Sobekneferu, the first Egyptian female pharaoh. Through the psychological techniques his chip contains, he seduces Sobekneferu, marries her and gives her the pill to make her immortal as well. Together they are using the stored information to quickly build a "benevolent dictatorship" system encompassing the entire planet, recreating all the technology from 2250. This way they achieve a very high quality of life very quickly, avoiding all the historical bloodshed.
Centuries of marriage and mutual rule, however, wear down on them. The man and Sobekneferu start constantly arguing, eventually becoming completely disgusted with each other. Finally, Sobekneferu starts thinking that he is actually a usurper, having the only goal to challenge her divine mandate that is righteously granted to her by the Sun. She makes a move to assassinate him, and he escapes back to 2250 through his time machine.
Arriving there, however, he realizes that this is the year 2250 in the timeline in which he was married to Sobekneferu. At this time, Sobekneferu has merged with an AI and has established a dystopian totalitarian dictatorship in the Solar system through exterminating all living beings and integrating their minds into the AI network. Barely avoiding getting integrated as well, the man makes the last desperate attempt to travel back to 1806 BC and start from scratch...
Relieved that things are back to normal, he starts walking towards Sobekneferu's palace. He approaches her. She smiles at him and says, "Do you think your time travel technology has eluded me?" Last thing he sees is her eyes turning unnaturally blue and a flash of light emanating from her, accompanied by the robotic voice, "Integration successful".
Someone at Hollywood needs to make a movie.
-
IS humanity getting stupider?
You say .....Actually I haven't mentioned any verses from the Bible.
My reply .. No you post links to bible thumping sites to do it for you"
So your claim that:
"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"
Is a lie, along with ad hominem.
"You say ....My intentions are to show via the scientific method, .....
My reply .... If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "
I have posted several sources, the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make. Your sources? 0. You've displayed nothing but fallaciousness in this argument. Congrats.
You say ....that the earth, or water thereon, has no curve or convexity. ....
My reply ..... The blood moon was the final nail in that coffin
What, since you've yet to explain, does the blood moon have to do with the earth? I think the final nail in the coffin was the countless tests being performed that find no curvature. No curvature, no ball. You say "blood moon, ball" is a non-sequitor.
"Evidence is a man who saw the truth from actual verifiable evidence, that the flat earth is truth, and we have become friends. ....
My reply ..... verifiable evidence you refuse to share with the scientific community, why’s that "
It's been shared, like you, they are ignorantly dismissive, and i know why. This is an investigation into their /your paradigm.
"You say ., ...I was atheist but after this discovery (intelligent design) I kind of eliminated the other theories of creation. ...
My reply ..... I don’t believe you nor do I care "
That is very clear now. As they say, you can lead a bafoon to water, or wait, that's a horse. Nevermind.
"You say ......The magical explosion from nothing thing wouldn't make a flat, stationary plane, .....
My reply ..... Whos calling it that ? The magical god from nowhere I suppose as usual is the exception ? "
That's more plausible than saying that nothing created everything.
"You say.......which is what we see and can empirically observe.
My reply .....Look at a few NASA shots buddy "
Those cartoon balls only fool the gullible.
"You say .....This is only if you assume that the light is hitting the earth at parallel angles. The same conclusion can be mathematically drawn from a closer, and smaller sun over a flat surface.
My reply ......
I never mentioned Eratosthenes and he ever set out to prove curvature you foolish creature it was old news at the time
Eratosthenes’ most famous accomplishment is his measurement of the circumference of Earth. He recorded the details of this measurement in a manuscript that is now lost, but his technique has been described by other Greek historians and writers."
Wow, you are very ignorant aren't you. The experiment that YOU offered as evidence for curvature (two sticks in the ground) is called the eratosthanes experiment, despite what reason he did it, you attempted to use it as evidence for curvature. If you're going to recant what you said, and backpedal, that is noted.
Ok, without using Google, how did he measure the earth? How did this prove the earth was a ball? If you can't relate the two and acknowledge my rebuttal, you clearly aren't interested in honest discourse, perhaps we formally debate the matter, take a vote, and set the matter to rest. You present evidence for the spinning cartoon pearoid, I prove to you that there is far more substantial (look that one up, you'll want to know what that means) evidence for a stationary flat earth. You'll run away because you now know that, and Google has run out of answers.
"You say .....The experiment was named after it's creater, Eratosthenes from ancient Greek. Eratosthenes also claimed that because elephants existed in the east, in Asia, and again in Africa, that he had circumnavigated the globe! Look up another verse in the peer reviewed scientific journals! This one is a bust!
My reply .... Again you’re the one babbling on about him not me , that’s a bust buddy"
I rebutted an argument, and am patiently waiting on any sort of logical response. This will likely be totally dropped, ignored, and or receive a 3-4 word response (aka silent concession)
We'll see."You say .....What's funny, is that you imply that ancient texts are nonsensical, if they are from a Bible,
My reply ....Yes that’s a given"
Is it? How is it a given? This is just an opinion! Your mind is in complete control. Do you know what MKUltra is? You seem like you watch a lot of television, am I right?
"You say ....but you have now brought up ancient text to try and prove your point!
My reply .... No , I still have not though lying is your favourite tactic I note "
Your responses are just becoming laughable now. Did you or did you not bring up two sticks in the dirt as... Let me find the quote...
"I told your buddy this morning children with a couple of sticks and sunlight can prove curvature of the earth ,"
? Maybe I can find it in your incoherent "my replies"
"You say ....Unless you can prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, your evidence rests on a false assumption. How did Eratosthenes come to the conclusion that the sun is far, far away?"
"My reply ..... You’re still on about someone I never mentioned you clot"
No, as I mentioned, and you cherry picked around, you put the eratosthenes experiment up as evidence, as was quoted above, whether or not you were competent enough to understand that fact is irrelevant.
"You say ......This is not a valid reason to dismiss the evidence contained
My reply ..... It sure is unless you think scientists around the world want to hear a lunatic state the world is flat because a book of nonsense says so"
About 1/3 of the human population now knows at the very least that the earth isn't a ball. You're telling me that there are no scientists that know the earth is flat? What is your definition of scientists, because I match the dictionary definition of scientist.
. You say .....If the earth were found flat, as active scientists are now discovering when we test it, .....
My reply ..... More lies ..... Name the credible scientists that agree with your claims , bet you cannot name even one"
I don't think credible is a suitable term, I prefer qualified.
How about the engineer/physicist Brian Mullen? He had a series called balls out physiscs.
Meteorologist Mr. Thrive and survive
I could go on, but I'd like to see your definition of scientist first.
"You say .....would be a conspiracy, wouldn't it?
My reply .... So her we have it a big conspiracy by nasty Atheist scientists , for what reason exactly"
To hide God from the gullible. Simply put. I can ellaborate and give a few more reasons, but your responses are lacking, and there is little to no effort or logic anymore, so I'll just leave it at that for now.
"You say ....Giving it a misunderstood label does not discredit the information. Your reply is a guilt by association fallacy.
"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything."
My reply ..... So now you don’t want to be associated with the sources you quote are you on drugs ?"
That is not what I said. Read it again if you must to understand what I said, and what the fallacy states.
"You say.....More of the above, can be completely ignored....
My reply .... You’ve no defense"
Another three word response. (Silent concession)
"You say .....ergo, there is not argument here.
My reply ....You cannot defend your position, nothing new is it ?"
Im not the one dropping multiple points. What happened to eclipse? You have officially conceded, you have no argument. If you had one, i would show some defense. You have dropped all arguments. Now you're just wasting time.
"You say ....It was not done with a Bible,
My reply .... You need to get on site more"
This isn't a coherent sentence. On which site?
"You say .....and yes, it is science, by definition.
My reply .... Nonsense"
Down to one word responses again.
"You say .... Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
My reply ..... The intellectual part rules you out of participating"
No argument here another obviously false ad hominem fallacy.
"You say .....Sorry, I didn't see "peer review" in the definition of science, let's look again.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
My reply .... That’s because you didn’t google Peer reviewed , let me help.....
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book
It’s what real scientists do , so still no peer reviewed papers buddy ?"
So, in essence, you're rejecting one book written by men, then blindly and whole-heartedly accepting another book, written by men. Why should I believe your Bible over anyone elses? You've confused this peer reviewed bible with science, even substituting the very word and definition. You are the epitomy of pseudoscientists.
"You say .....Nope, you have no reason to assume that I agree with any of whatever website you're pulling that from.
My reply ..... Ah so you agree the Blood moon finally convinced you then aren’t eyes a marvelous thing"
Another completely incoherent statement. Reread my reply if you can't understand it.
"You say.....So in response to my mountain of empirical and validatable evidence, your reply is "check out a random YouTube video that I forgot about"? Can I change my vote to yes on this poll?
My reply ..... You posted zero Validatable “ evidence “
Lie. Anyone can go to Lake michigan, or measure any body of water and get the same results. This is what validatable means.
" also the larger scientific community awaits your “ revelations “
I give it two years, and you're the minority. Your grandchildren may find this and laugh at you.
"You say ......And just like that, you were annihilated.
My reply ......Interesting” assessment” from a guy who uses a you tube conspiracy channel as his go too source ,
Unless I missed it, you've not given a single source, and mine weren't limited to Youtube, but this is still no reason to dismiss the evidence. If you were to show where the error in the experiment was, it would be a valid rebuttal, my guess is that you haven't even watched them... Smh.
" thinks we live under a giant glass dome"
Correct. And there is more evidence for the firmament than for an infinite vacuum. Don't believe me? Where is your evidence. Space movies?!?!
" and the world is hollow"
Not my position.
" , flat as a pancake"
Also not my position. Obviously, there are hills and such.
" and so is Mars all because it says so ( except Mars ) in a book written by flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds ."
Globetards believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Globetards were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Globetards believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course globetards choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny globetards that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
Just after the nearest globetard claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing globetards can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some globetards will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other globetards proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the globetards will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of globetards. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it. -FEA"Maybe the Nobel prize committee will finally pay homage to you and your Bible thumping buddies that is if you can find even one peer reviewed paper or scientist who can back up your ridiculous narrative up ........"
I don't read your bible, sorry.
"As you poke through the ashes of your total destruction take heart and se it as your “ crucifixion “ ..... You’re a modern day martyr for the Flatheads hip , hip hurrah , hip, hip hurrah "
I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense.
-
Gravity, space, time and other lies
Uninterested?Polaris95 said:@Erfisflat
Here's some evidence for the big bang: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html
While the big bang may not have happened, it's the best theory we have, and has substantial evidence to support it. The idea the god created the entire universe relies on too much faith and no evidence. -
Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
If I were to name some of Evolution's dirty little secrets I'd start with
1. Darwin's own admission which is commonly and conveniently neglected: In order to further the theory of evolution, the fossil record would need to include innumerable transitional fossils.
2. To date, there is no evidence of any "Change of kinds" in evolution. There is no evidence to suggest in any way that anything has ever changed into anything else. There are simply fossils of creatures that died out and fossils of creatures that existed then and have withstood the test of time. Attempts to provide proof of a change of kinds by introducing single cell organisms into the evidence bag is preposterous on its face and an insult to even those arguing for evolution.
3. The acceptance of Darwinian Evolution. For years after Darwin concluded his theory of evolution... the Scientific community as a whole rejected it as there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he was accurate...by his own admission there would need to be "Innumerable" transitional fossils...for our laymen...this means so many that you couldn't realistically count them. So if Darwin admitted the necessity of these transitional fossils in order for his theory to be correct...how is it that, without the innumerable transitional fossils, we have accepted and even teach Evolution today? Enter the Piltdown Man.
1912, Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered "The missing link". The Piltdown Man was officially and irrefutably accepted as the missing link between Humans and Primates, subsequently...250 scientific publications alone were made of the Piltdown man and it's standing of irrefutable proof of Human evolution. An entire generation of education was altered because of this hoax as it entered Scientific textbooks across the Nation in the realm of public and higher education. When exposed as a fraud, a hoax, a lie in 1953...41 years after it had been accepted as truth...the Scientific community simply discarded the evidence but kept the notion that Evolution was legitimate, particularly Human Evolution.
4. Archaeoraptor: Hailed by evolutionists as the "Missing link" between Dinosaurs and birds This was another pillar of evolution, the foundation support column that held the theory high up on legitimate ground. Then it was discovered to be a fraud, another hoax, a lie, completely made up. It embarrassed National Geographic as respected Scientists in the field of study cast them in the light of Tabloid Journalism, creating the news rather than reporting it. So this would undermine yet again the theory of evolution right? Wrong, Evolution theory was just as strong after the discovery of the hoax as it was before, NOTHING changed despite the discovery of fraudulent supporting evidence.
All in all, I don't particularly subscribe to either model, Atheism or Creationism...but there is absolutely no denying the empirical fact that when stood next to each other (Tree of Science and Tree of Creationism) the Tree of Science is riddled with deliberate fraud, lies, deceit and vile intentions designed to undermine creationism...the Tree of Creationism has no such issues despite it's persistent lack of evidence.
-
Is the earth a ball?
Well, the words thing was obviously a joke. I'm not serious about everything. Also, the 666 thing is entirely relevant. Who do you think is responsible for the "Great Deception"? Look at the numbers in the model. The earth is said to be on a 23.4 ° axis.TheShaun said:@Erfisflat
Well now I see you're just trolling. Saying three words come to mind, yet you say four. Then specifically using the number 666, which doesn't apply to any point of the topic. It doesn't even take someone familiar with psychology to spot that. You are too obvious when it comes to trolling. Pick a better course of action.
90°-23.4°=66.6°
It's traveling around the sun at 66,600 miles per hour.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/32294-how-fast-does-earth-move.html
In one square mile, there is 666ft of curvature.
Distance to the nearest Galaxy: 11.7 million light years. 11+7=16 (6+6+6=18)
The solar system is travelling at 828,000 mph 8+2+8=18 (6+6+6=18)
The sun was formed from the solar nebulae about 4.59 billion years ago. 4+5+9=18 (6+6+6=18)
There is a simple formula for calculating exactly how much water should be curved over any given distance. M^2 X 8" where M=miles
So in 10 miles
(10X10)8"=800"/12=66.6... feet drop in ten miles.
You think im trolling because you have done no research. You've accepted the ball earth as gospel religion truth without an ounce of evidence outside cartoons and camera trickery.
Way to drop literally every one of your points and arguments though.
@TheShaun
-
I actually think I understand Flat Earth Theory. Understanding isn't concluding.
Analysts say that at least 1 out of ten now question the shape of the earth with predictions saying that by 2019, 1 out of 3 people will be flat earthers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/flateartheducation.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/how-many-flat-earthers-are-there-part-ii-also-predictions-for-2018/amp/
So why is everyone suddenly questioning a truism that has existed for decades, or debatably "thousands of years"?
1. As @Evidence points out, what if the images we were shown of our home were NOT images of our home? When looked at with skepticism, every image of a spherical earth are proven to be faked, or composite, whatever you want to call it.
I'm not joking, investigate for yourself! Don't just take my word for it.
2. If you want to prove that flat earthers are crazy and Nasa went to the moon, GOOD LUCK! They lost the data!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
3. NASA says space is a vacuum, but experimental tests show that combustion and thrust are impossible in a vacuum, yes, even with an added oxidizer, as the naysayers will contest.
4." But, but, we saw the rocket go into space with our own eyes! "
What we see are rockets that go up, turn, and go back down to our beautiful flat Earth!
They say it's easier to get into space than going straight up. These amateurs show us what happens when we try to go straight up. Remember that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside "force".
5. "But, but, people have circumnavigated the earth for many years, proving it is a ball! "
Not so fast, east and west circumnavigation is entirely possible on our flat Earth. North and South circumnavigation, which should be possible on a spherical earth, never happened. "But it's too cold!" Mars is no problem though...
https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html
6. "But, but, muh boats go over the horizon! Aristotle saw it with the unaided eye, thousands of years ago!"
A combination of perspective and refraction causes this phenomenon, NOT impossibly curved water.
And Chicago is seen some 57 miles across lake Michigan, which should be hidden by 2,000 feet of alleged curvature.
-
Resolved: It was net beneficial for the US to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Thank you @whiteflame for your well-rounded arguments and thank you for the viewer’s time to read the debate. In this round, I will focus myself with rebuttals and some additional information, though not in the form of any source related material, only ideas that can be supported with previous reasoning. I will then crystallize my side of the debate and prove how @whiteflame’s justifications and alternatives do not meet the benchmark required for the debate, through crucial dropped points and disregarded material. For all purposes, I will not make a section concerning burdens as @whiteflame has agreed to all arisen points concerning the burden and any contentions can be left to the voters. However, I would like to take a minute concerning the nature of a third round rebuttal, as I believe that there are some misconceptions on Con’s part concerning the nature of a full-on rebuttal that I believe needs to be addressed before moving forward in this argument. (Post Creation > All of the arguments should be down the line in order, so if you need to reference something, it should be equal to your point of discussion on the same matter.)
The Nature of a Rebuttal:
Con brings up several mentions of where I am ‘unable’ to respond to the points as it is a third round argument, and one will be listed as such, “ Much as Pro can add onto points he’s already made (so long as they don't fundamentally change), almost all these points would require new responses in the final round, which he is not allowed to provide,” to name one of these instances. However, this misses the point of a clear cut rebuttal. In the eyes of IRL debates, a good rebuttal will not bring up any additional sources, but will take appropriating lengths to bring up previous quotes and sources from this debate, and while I can not bring up completely new points, I can bring up new ideas as long as they are connected to previously mentioned points. For instance, I can not simply bring up a new point involving the nature say of Europe during the time of World War Two, yet I can bring up a string of values held by the Japanese that are connected to points involving materialism and idealism, just to give an example. If any person has contention with this, Con fails to disregard what I have stated when I mentioned in Round Two,
“On a note of finality, I reserve the right to add on to my arguments in the third round without repercussion in voting as constructive add-ons can be presented in the third round rebuttal. “ Thus, if any point is considered new, look for instances where I will specifically connect it back with a previously mentioned statement, and if not, then you can mention it, but for current standings, I may bring up such points.
The Alternatives Provision > This Is Overstated
Con uses this section to persuade viewers that the provisions stated in the alternatives are crucial to the sake of this debate, but in truth, this is relatively overstated. I mentioned in Round Two that “ Overall, the alternatives represent what Japan’s best interests could have been that would have lessened the ‘impact’ of the actions taken, and as such, hypotheticals are only to propose solutions and not to prove net harm or benefit, so while important, it is not required, though I will do my part to address the alternatives and propose my own to improve my case of the atomic bomb’s net beneficiary.” This point has very clear rationale behind it, namely that the case for alternatives is NOT to prove net harm or benefit, so in this particular instance, Con can use alternatives to show an instance where the action would be beneficial and not ‘harmful’ in his instance, though his reasons for the bomb’s net harm can not be stated through the alternatives, though they can be mitigated by such. As a hypothetical, this is not crucial for proving or disproving the ‘net benefit’ as it is a hypothetical situation. Therefore, while crucial when presenting an alternate system that encapsulates the nature of points presented, it should not be regarded as supreme in this matter. Con tries to support his claims by stating, “ We must know what a world without the bombs dropping looks like to provide a comparison of net benefits.” However, the purpose of the debate is not to compare hypotheticals to discuss benefits, so even if they are rooted in historical accuracy and can be brought up, they encapsulate points already brought up concerning the ‘harms’ of the atomic bombs, so the reason I disprove the alternatives is meant to be a restatement of the issues I find in Con’s arguments. For instance, the reason I disproved Con’s alternatives was because I previously argued that unconditional surrender would have been the only means to solve the issue with Japan, and that the atomic bombs forced unconditional surrender. In conclusion, Con is overstating the purpose of the alternatives, so while necessary for the purposes of the debate, this should not be the focal point for voting purposes in this debate. The focal vote points cast in this debate should be centered around the strength of our arguments, not the possibility of a hypothetical alternate history, as that would have been already mentioned by Con in his discussions concerning the USSR’s proximity and military threat to Japan.
The Misconceptions about Materialism vs. Idealism
Con is abruptly quick to disregard my points concerning the idea of materialism vs. idealism, and doing so tries to undercut the entirety of my second round falsely. The issue of materialism vs. idealism is present throughout the entire debate and disregarding it only hurts Con’s position. Con tries to argue that the bombings were a materialistic purpose designed to end the war, similar to the geographical positions of the USSR and the US. However, this is simply not the case. The purpose behind the contention is that there are multiple explanations for identical actions. One could argue that Japan would choose to surrender because the people wanted to embrace the ideals of communism that the Russians would have possibly imposed, rather than to end the war and return to an unchanged society. This would be an idealistic way of thinking, namely that the goal of the Russians was to reshape Japan to meet their standards and quotas. However, Con chooses to argue from a materialistic point of view, namely that Japan would have surrendered because of Russia’s geographical location and amount of men amassed near the Northern Border of Japan. Personally, Con and I would agree with the materialistic point of view, but also because this is the event that occured in real time. However, the US chose a different route, opting not to invade Japan in order to reshape the Japanese government regardless to create a more democratic society under General MacArthur. Although the USSR and the US were developing tensions of their own (more later), the two countries were attacking for different purposes, as Con seems to forget. The USSR was using material force to get material gain, mainly the end of the war and the elimination of Japan as a threat to their European and Asian dominance. However, the US used a material mean to an idealistic end, so when the US dropped the bomb to force unconditional surrender, they later promoted democratic welfare programs under General MacArthur, which stabilized and rebuilt the Japanese economy to pre-war levels by 1955. Thus, the reason this argument remains valid is because the atomic bombs were quintessential to pursue idealistic outcomes, whereas Con’s land invasion would have simply led to materialistic gains based off of the USSR’s positioning. Furthermore, the USSR did not sign on to the Potsdam Declaration, as conceded by Con, so it is overly clear that the Soviets wanted little to do with the Japanese Empire and were willing to leave the matter up to the US and European backed nations. Thus, by promoting the ideals of democracy, peace, and altering Japanese social teachings to meet the idealism of America and the world, the atomic bombs functioned as a means to an end, pursuing a purpose of a beneficial outcome, and yielded net benefit in the aid provided to Japan post-war. This should be seen as a clear cut counter to Con’s “ they only got to the point of surrendering because of the atomic bombs (more on that shortly), but so long as they surrender and allow the access that ensures these changes occurred, there is no reason to believe they cannot be achieved by other means.”
However, this is further supported in the arguments concerning conditional and unconditional surrender. Con completely drops the arguments about the failure of conditional surrendering, and uses the terms in Round Two as if they were interchangeable, in that any surrender on the part of the Japanese would be beneficial. I will discuss this in greater detail in the argument’s future, yet while the issue of materialism vs. idealism is relevant, it ties into the core of the argument that I made in Round Two condemning and exposing the flaws behind conditional surrender. In Round Two, Con made this statement, “The condition that Japanese leadership all agreed upon was that the Japanese Emperor remain in office, though they did seek to pursue their own disarmament, dealing with war criminals, and have no occupation of their nation whatsoever after the war.[7]” For each one of the three additional terms, I gave a thorough rebuttal, and my lack of indication for keeping the emperor in office was because in America’s eyes, keeping the emperor in charge of a changed society would have been easier and more efficient than trying to replace a ruler altogether, thus by keeping the bare requirement, that would have been the only valid term for conditional surrender. Any other term brought up by the Japanese was thoroughly rebutted on account of idealism vs. materialism, because the act of allowing disarmament, prosecuting criminals, and military occupation would have given autonomy to Japan to perform the actions, and under a society viewed as corrupted from America and Europe, (Con completely drops my war crimes quotation), the world did not want Japan to retain their idealistic beliefs, as prosecuting criminals would call into question honor and bravery instead of people murdered, disarmament would entail security and power, as Japan would not have disarmed their firepower to the fullest extent, and a lack of military occupation would allow for Japan to make changes without the oversight of other nations. Con tries to elude that the nations of the world would oversee Japan’s changes, but think how much Japan could hide from the eyes of America without some form of military involvement.
As I have mentioned, the atomic bombs play into all of this, sending a beacon of America’s ideals (it’s a metaphor) for future changes in Japan. As I have previously stated, the bomb’s novelty, while perhaps causing less death than a firebombing raid, had unseen nuclear capabilities which raised fear in many individuals of Japan. I will discuss the issue of fear further, as Con hides my main thesis with quotations, but the purpose of materialism vs. idealism is to show how Russia and the US were entering and fighting Japan for different reasons, a land invasion from Russia would only end the war as Russia did not sign onto the Potsdam Treaty, though the atomic bombs paved the way for America’s values concerning economic growth for Japan. Con blatantly argues that if the point was to end the war, would it matter who achieved the outcome? The plain answer is in fact yes, because if the Soviets won the war, the Soviets would actually have a greater impact on the changes in Japan over the signed Potsdam Treaty. While I can not provide a source, I can use already debated material, and namely that Japan didn’t predict a US attack for several months, as conceded by Con, so when Soviet invasion came AFTER the bombings, the intentions were clear that the Soviets were poised to end the war and wanted to make changes under the guise of freedom. The atomic bomb’s novelty and impact factor were enough to scare the Japanese people into surrender, and if the Potsdam Treaty was signed one day after the Nagasaki bombing, then it should have been a clear indication that the atomic bombs were the representation of such. If anything, the Soviets did tactically hinder the Japanese, but considering that Con noted that they weren’t predicting a US attack, they had opportunity to put the bulk of their forces near Russia and not in other mass places to defend their country, save for defense of major cities and strongholds.
In conclusion, there are two ways of seeing history, as ideas or as economic goods (material). These are two frequent ways of thinking, so Con can not call them ‘ridiculous’, because they encapsulate everything that makes up the world, human thought and human goods. The question is, in what situations does reasoning behind human goods yield net benefit, and when does reasoning behind human thought yield net benefit. I have adequately shown that human thought triumphs, and the atomic bomb was what forced such, namely Japan’s unconditional surrender. It is true that my argument is not purely idealistic and involves material, but couldn’t then I also say that the Soviets fought Japan because the Soviets disagreed about matters with Japan and wanted to end World War Two to secure ideals of peace and the prevention of future World Wars. Things that are materialistically argued can have idealistic points, so long as the reasoning behind the action is materialistic. In the same way, an idealistic argument can have material means, so long as the reason behind the action is idealistic. Con seems to drop this as he moves forward in his argument, so by restating and reaffirming it now, it will now be used again interspersed in the argument as I disprove the nature of the USSR’s proximity in the war.
Conditional vs. Unconditional Surrender > Addressing the Contentions
Con tries to dismiss my arguments concerning conditional surrender with “ Grant him all the arguments on the need to occupy Japan and dealing with war criminals because no part of this counter-plan relies on these two being necessary. In fact, no part of this counter-plan relies on disarmament, either, though I have more to say on that one. My first counter-plan relies on quotes detailing the willingness of the Japanese leadership to pursue peace though far lesser means; namely, keeping the Emperor as a figurehead for the country and the Shinto religion.” However, despite that the counter-plan would have only involved the emperor of Japan to retain power, it does not adequately state the steps that would ensue to bring change in Japan. As the viewers can see, Con is only concerned with life totals to save people and not with the future benefit of Japan, (but more later). As I have briefly conceded, keeping the emperor in power would not be beyond my position to accept, but the other terms that Japan set on the table I have duly rebutted and that the rest of the world denied at the Potsdam Conference. In real time, by allowing the empower to keep power, he functioned over a changed society where there was troop involvement, disarmament processes, and American court of laws for criminal prosecution. By dismissing all of these only in favor or keeping the emperor in power, Con may save lives, but at the expense of Japan’s future, which would have only led back into a war situation, and led to net harmfulness. Con notes in Round Two that the surrender was “Ironic because the surrender was conditional” but by forcing UNconditional surrender, the very fact that the emperor was allowed to retain power was a choice made by the world and not what was requested by Japan.
On the note of unconditional surrender, Con states that “Pro is also quick to dismiss my second counter-plan based on a single point: that unconditional surrender would be a hard sell.” However, my opponent seems to forget that this was one of his arguments, “Unconditional surrender… the letter was a harder sell.” I was only affirming what you had already agreed to, because while Japan perhaps wanted to surrender, they had terms on the table concerning their way of life, or idealistic beliefs, that the US and the world rejected on the basis that setting up restructured governments would prevent future world wars. For the Japanese, unconditional surrender would be putting themselves at the mercy of the world, which would have seemed like a direct contradiction to Bushido beliefs concerning their honor code, but it happened anyway, so the fact that unconditional surrender would have been a hard, even impossible sell has already been agreed to by me and conceded by Con. My opponent tries to cover this up by stating, “The Supreme Council began discussing surrender before the second bomb was dropped, three days after the Hiroshima bombing. That seems awfully slow for a country that fears having another atomic bomb dropped on them at any moment.” Con forgets to look at a key portion of my argument, namely that “Therefore, the reality of an atomic bomb forced Japan from conditional to unconditional based on the fear of the possibility of destruction. Japan in 1945 did not know how many nuclear bombs America had, but did not want to engage in the face of technological disadvantage.” Technological disadvantage was a major factor in the war, and can further be applied to the land invasion. With the Soviets in the war, their technology was adequate for dealing with Germany, but Germany and Italy had already been providing to Japan, so the winners of the land invasion would have been a result of strategic planning and not advanced firepower. However, the atomic bombs were unseen and unfathomed at the time. I used the quote from Germany because some people were in development of a bomb of such capabilities, but did not have Einstein to kick things off. Thus, when the US dropped the bomb, it put Japan at a massive technological disadvantage, and as stated, this freaked out people in Japan and in the world, so in the face of technological disadvantage, Japan unconditionally surrendered. Thus, I would accept the counterplan of unconditional surrender, but it had already occured at the end of the war as a result of the bombings, whereas nothing in Con’s counterplan shows a need for unconditional surrender. Think about it, the threat of a land invasion and a lack of bombs would entail that Japan could concentrate their forces to the North and have due opportunity to combat the Soviets until more nations took action. In fact, without the US in the conflict, Japan would’ve had time to grow and economically develop to deal with Russia, so as stated, there is enough vagueness in the plan for unconditional surrender where the term unconditional is not applied thoroughly.
20-20 Hindsight > Just to get it out of the Way
At the start of this debate, I mentioned that “Both Con and I have agreed that we (minus the justifications) will be judging the issue in hindsight, and not in current day, so as to best see the harms/benefits and argue from a historical and not a modern point of view.” Con accuses me of an instance where I went out of key to state that Japan did not need a military on the basis that Japan has not been in future conflicts since, further detailing modern day wars from Korea to ISIS. I will concede, I went out of place, but only to an extent, as anything involving Vietnam, Korea and events leading to 1989 are fair game, considering that Con tries to show inherent risk with the bombs in that it kick-started the Cold War. For reference, the Cold War started in the 1950’s and ended in 1989, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to mention wars that Japan didn’t have to fight up until that point, or else we were both off key in instances. Either way, I apologize for the references past 1989 and I will further provide an argument against the issue of self-defence along similar lines.
Some Rebuttals:
The next portion of Con’s argument details several rebuttals to my stance, so because I have already discussed the peace of Japan and conditional vs. unconditional surrender, I feel that my main point is already across and I will then focus myself with rebutting key arguments from the rebuttal list.
Issue 1: “Pro concedes that Japan did seek a peace agreement, which undercuts his argument that the only way to achieve peace was to use nuclear weapons. When Pro’s solvency argument has been that these nuclear weapons were essential for peace, that concession matters quite a bit.”
Okay, so Con argues here that Japan was already seeking a peace agreement before the bombings, which in his eyes undercuts the needs for the bombs. Let me reiterate that Japan was seeking a conditional surrender, which the US wouldn’t allow for good reasons, and that the atomic bombs kick-started the signing of a peace treaty ‘more rapidly’ as a result of technological disadvantage. Thus, while I concede that Japan was seeking a peace agreement, no part of it detailed how far into the treaty was Japan willing to go or the process at which Japan was at. Rather, I stated that any peace agreement that was already in planning was hurried and agreed to faster as a result of the atomic bombs, thus nulligating this concession to a point.
Issue 2: “First, Pro doesn’t provide any evidence stating that the leadership of Japan was “do or die” when it came to any of the conditions. I listed conditions that some of the leadership were seeking, but I noted (and Pro seems to forget) that the only condition they all agreed was necessary was keeping the Emperor in his seat as a figurehead leader of the country. “
This has already been stated, but for reiteration, even if the only condition was keeping the emperor in power, it was a gift from the world to Japan. Keep in mind, unconditional surrender effectively put Japan at the mercy of the world as a result of the Potsdam Declaration, so the very basis that the emperor was allowed into power was a result of a choice made by the world and not as Con tries to put it, a necessity for the Japanese way of life. It makes logical sense, in order to prevent future conflict, either the leaders die, as with Mussolini and Hitler, or they remain in power, but over a changed economical and social society. Japan had strong Bushido codes, so allowing the leader to stay in power was a logical decision regarding the possibility of Japan attacking the world to start another World War.
Issue 3: “ Other countries, particularly the US, China and the USSR, would have strongly checked any future efforts to attack other countries. Japan wouldn’t have been able to keep up a strong military presence without the resources they were bringing in from Manchuria, so it would have been dependent on maintaining good relations with other countries to get the resources it needs, which those countries could easily deny if Japan became the slightest bit threatening.[21]
In the eyes of Pro, my issue is not that Japan would kickstart another empire, my issue is that Japan would grow to such an extent where they would be able to properly declare war and hold an appropriating conflict. Even if the US and China could oversee the actions of Japan, Japan would still retain autonomy and the issue is relates to the fact that Japan could have freedom to hide or misconstrue agendas in the face of the world without repercussion. To give an example, if I steal a cookie from the jar, my Mom might notice that the cookies are running out faster, but without an explanation why, I can continue my actions undeterred to a certain point where if I continue, I would be caught. Then, restart the process and continue. How does this work? Say I keep stealing cookies but then notice that there are ten cookies left. If I’m smart about it, I will not steal so that Mom doesn’t catch me, (you can easily count ten minus two and find out), then wait until Mom makes a new batch and continue. Even if Japan were to provide a report to the world, they could hide certain illegal actions within their work and escape without repercussion until the report is approved and restarted. Thus, the argument fails on autonomy and hidden factors, namely that Japan wouldn’t start another empire, but gain in power through illegal actions and would have the capabilities to hide it from the rest of the world.
On the Note of Hindsight and Self-Defense:
Con correctly shows my error in hindsight, which I corrected, and then goes on to make a solid point concerning the nature of self-defense, and in this matter, I wish to alter a proposal within the confines of a rebuttal which would follow my previous points and rescind any of Con’s points. Con states that, “The Japanese have a right to self-defense as a country, and particularly if they were going to be restructured and have their war criminals tried in international courts, there is no reason to deny them the capacity to build and utilize a sizable and capable military.” Here I have to agree, putting Japan at the mercy of the world in long term would not lead to a net beneficial situation, though Japan did maintain a military of minimal capacity after the war’s end. Thus, I propose that in an alternate system where net benefits could have been improved, I would state that Japan would not have the capability to pursue disarmament based on their war crimes and societal issues, rather, the US would set a maximum military capacity solely for purposes regarding self defense that couldn’t be contested by the Japanese government. Otherwise, my points about war and a Japanese military still hold until after the year 1989.
Part 2: The Effect of the Bombs
Issue 1: “Considering that taking the action of dropping two nuclear weapons on a country was a big step (this was the first and only usage of a nuclear weapon in combat and the bombs represented a tremendous financial and military investment), I’d say it’s entirely reasonable to argue that they both could and should have taken a different action that would have required far less in terms of investment and lasting negative response.”
This argument doesn’t hold on the basis that Con is advocating against the bomb’s use in the face of controversy and Materialistic (yes) costs from the US. Con seems to forget that technological advantage is necessary to win a war, just as much as good planning. Look at any example of early conflicts between the British and the French, where one side won because it had pikes, horses, guns, or archery whereas the other side lacked such material. Just because it took investment does not mean that it makes it invalid for usage. I could argue that we shouldn’t have constructed the ISS on the basis that it was based on long term investments and has led to some negative responses from world nations threatening to pull men out of the ISS. However, does this make the beginning clause bad? No, the ISS has led to many discoveries about Earth’s atmosphere in ways deemed unimaginable. Thus, the investment by the US wasn’t in and of itself bad if the atomic bombs yielded some benefit, which I have proven that it has.
Issue 2: “Pro doesn’t challenge my argument that dropping these bombs jump-started the nuclear arms race, so he accepts that dropping the bombs was a massive risk, and one that led to much of the direst moments in the Cold War. If the US was willing to accept that risk, then we can assume that the US could have made other, far less risky decisions, like accepting a conditional surrender.”
To begin, this argument has to be listed as invalid due to the nature of the hindsight mode that we are using for this debate, meaning that Con will have to prove other than the Cold War’s risk that the US could have made less risky decisions. However, on this note, while some people could have predicted the Cold War, many presidents including Dwight D. Eisenhower could not, considering that we were far ahead of the rest of the world in this matter. In reality, the presence of nuclear weaponry in Britain and France is because during the Cold War and the presence of an Iron Curtain, we may have leaked information to our Allies about the nature of construction, so that in the event of a nuclear strike, then the two nations could be adequately prepared to retaliate. The US accepted the risk of the atomic bombs, but considering that the risk led to future economic prosperity for Japan and the world as a result, it is safe to assume that the risk produced net benefits exceeding the harm caused. In fact, in the cities that were bombed, the population rose to pre-bombing levels by 1955, a clear indication of the help the US provided to Japan as a result of the bombs.
Issue 3: “On that front, I've shown that much of the military leadership under Truman was advocating for him to accept a conditional surrender. He chose not to, but it was hardly out of the realm of probability. Simply accepting a separate set of terms where the Emperor kept his seat could have been enough.”
Okay, so in the second contention, Con states that conditional surrender could’ve been accepted by world leaders just by letting the emperor retain power, though I have duly shown that the other conditions would have been rendered invalid. Retaining the emperor to power ensured that the US and the world would not have to babysit Japan for the next 20 years, rather to make changes and establish a military presence so that proposed changes would turn to fruition, and then leave under the guidance of the current emperor. In this way, the hidden argument would not work, because any changes Japan’s emperor could’ve made would have been obvious to any officials in the US, USSR, and Europe. In fact, if Japan were to attempt something of that nature, it would be stealing the jar of cookies instead of an individual one, and would be immediately detectable. None of Con’s counter-plans provide for this clause, and Con fails to state Truman’s rationale for denying conditional surrender, so the decision of a president in this case must precede any ranked military official.
On the Basis of a Land Invasion:
Con accuses me of a misunderstanding concerning the nature of a land invasion, but his counter-plans would deny the presence of a land invasion. Con states that “I have argued, at great length, that the threat of an invasion by the USSR, which was extremely likely if Japan did not surrender to the US, was sufficient to ensure that Japan did surrender.” To clear up the misunderstanding, I am arguing that the threat of a land invasion would not be sufficient to force unconditional surrender, and a counter-plan involving unconditional surrender would require support for and of a land invasion, not the threat of one. Remember that Con quoted that Japanese officials weren’t expecting a US attack for months, so Japan could have easily dealt with Russia if it was only Russia. The presence of the US atomic bombs signaled the entry of the US into the mainland conflict, which forced unconditional surrender. In this way, the threat of an invasion is underplayed by the reality of the bomb. Additionally, the attacks from the Soviets came two to three days AFTER the atomic bombs, so if the Japanese were meeting for surrender, it was on account of the bombs. In short, Con’s counter-plan would have to advocate for a land invasion to carry out the clause for unconditional surrender, and since Con does not condone a land surrender, the unconditional surrender clause has to be rendered invalid to the debate.
Why Did the Nuclear Bombs cause the End of the War
Con uses the next section in an attempt to show that there were conventional methods of warfare that would have had similar capabilities to the nuclear bomb. However, Con fails to mention the purposes behind conventional warfare and the just war theory that he completely drops as an argument. To begin, I used Round Two to address this point via the method of novelty, to a point where I feel I have overstated its purpose. Therefore, I turn to the purpose of a bombing raid. Con mentions and brings up several statistic detailing the firepower held in bombing raids, yet fails to mention that most of these raids would occur by night, in that the US did not want any defense systems to shoot down the bombs. However, in doing so, visibility was significantly decreased and the purpose of the bombings was to hit a military center, not to utterly destroy a city. According to the just war theory, one nation can not harm innocent civilians, so to follow the code, the US attacked Japanese military bases in order to weaken the military. Any harm caused to the civilians was either a result of the bomb’s inaccuracy or the fact that there were so many over an even space. Nonetheless, the difference between the firebombing and Hiroshima was that the bomb was targeted at a civilian center and any military officials in the city could not have shot down the bomb. Additionally, the attack occurred in broad daylight, and the reaction was instantaneous. The bomb was dropped at a certain location, for the matter of Hiroshima, it was dropped in a bridge near the city’s port. Yet this is circumventing the point. If the goal of the just war theory is to prevent civilian death, which Con completely drops, then why is it justified and beneficial to drop the bombs? As I have presented throughout Rounds 1 and 2, civilians actively participated in the war, kids aged 15 through 18 would embark on kamikaze missions against the Allies near Iwo Jima and other islands. In truth, every civilian could be considered a member of war because they were told and armed in the event of an invasion, the Japanese government commanded it. This is also where the clause of honorable suicide comes into play for women and children who didn’t want to see their children killed or abused, as noted in Round 2. Thus, by dropping the bomb, we were killing innocent people, but they were members of war in many instances, even the children. However, Con absolutely disregards my just war clause, so I can only assume that he is okay with the bombings, though there could have been ‘more beneficial’ ways to end the war without losing life. To restate my thesis for the just war clause, “Here is a concession early on and that is seen throughout history, winners never have to be accused of war crimes because they (Allies) are the victors of the conflit. Nevertheless, it stands to be reasoned that the Japanese killed citizens of other nations and of their own throughout the Second World War, so it must be assumed that (a) the just war theory only applies to the losers or (b) the just war theory applies to everyone but is frequently broken without repercussion. I think Con will more likely agree with definition B in this instance, so the major question I have for Con is, “If the atomic bomb violated the just war theory by killing citizens, how is this distinguishable from war crimes that the Japanese and Axis powers undertook?” Keep in mind that Con will have to reject this point, but as he completely dropped this point, it would be bad form to state that it didn’t exist, though he may try to disprove it later in his arguments. In Round Two, I examined the war crimes of the Japanese as a blanket for justifying America’s actions, but I have now extended it further to classify the civilians as war personnel, so Con has a significant amount of work to disprove this thesis.
In conclusion to this section, my opponent states, “Pro can argue all he wants that this is more conventional, but it's still clearly more destructive, and much as Pro argues that the remaining 4 cities were still meaningful targets, he ignores the fact that this severely limits the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Other weapons could hit a larger variety of targets and inflict more damage.” Here, Con seems to advocate more damage and destruction using conventional warfare, but this was not the purpose of the bombs or any conventional warfare! The atomic bombs were dropped to force the unconditional surrender necessary to rebuild the Japanese economy and were not designed to outright kill citizens. In fact, Hiroshima was more of a show of force, since half of the population had evacuated due to the frequent bombings on the city. In other words, the four cities were meaningful targets if the Japanese still refused surrender, but the bombs weren’t designed to outright kill, they were designed to outright end the war with Japan, any death that occured would’ve been one step to achieving a greater good. Con then states that Japan did not warrant the bombs significant to unconditional surrender, but considering that they immediately convened a meeting within three days to discuss surrender and quotes from the Japanese were appalled at the bomb’s capabilities, unconditional surrender was the first clause on the table.
More Issues > More Rebuttals:
Issue 1 > To Answer Some Questions: I use the metaphor that the bomb was a representation of ideals, and Con proposes some solid questions that need answering listed as such, “ This seems like an extension on the idealism argument, which doesn’t provide any meaningful support to this point. What does it mean that the bomb is a representation of ideals? Why is this bomb a representation of ideals, while all other bombs are not? This argument is absolutely non-functional without answers to these questions.”
Answer to the First Question: When I stated that the bomb was a representation of ideals, I meant it as a metaphor, namely that by dropping the atomic bombs, Japan was forced into unconditional surrender, which allowed America and the world to impose their idealisms to change Japanese culture, most notably in the nature of Bushido, honorable suicide, and dignity until death clauses. Without the bomb, America would have been hindered by Russia’s wants out of Japan at the end of the war, and despite Russia not signing the Potsdam Declaration, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Russia would want compensation from Japan for the loss of life it would’ve taken to defeat Japan.
Answer to the Second Question: The bomb is a representation of ideals for the events that came after the dropping. Namely, the surrender of Japan authorized its use for the term of “a bomb of ideals’ because the novelty of the bomb and its capabilities were enough to change Japan after its surrender because of them.
“In that regard, it represents the same things all bombs represent: destruction. If that’s an ideal, then all bombs embody it.” Nice one, appreciate the humor! (Just for a joke, irrelevant to the debate, we shouldn’t curse ever, if you saw what happened to Japan after the a-bomb, think about the destruction that would ensue with an f-bomb.)
The Basis of Novelty and the Unprecedented:
In my Round Two arguments, I made statements concerning the novelty of the bomb, which Con has taken lengths to disprove, and the first major plank is, “He argues that the world had never seen an atomic bomb before. His only support for this is a quote by Heisenberg about German physicists being unable to manufacture atomic bombs, which has nothing to do with Japan and its perception of nuclear technology. Remember, I’ve already shown (and Pro has conceded) that nuclear weapons were far from the most damaging experiences that Japan suffered from the US, particularly as compared with the firebombing of Tokyo. Their novelty alone is in no way linked to Japan’s decision to unconditionally surrender.” To reiterate, the rationale behind the German physicists is because as I will concede, nations weren’t terribly far off of constructing or harnessing the nuclear capabilities of such a bomb. Heck, the Russians had already developed a plausible shall for containing a bomb of nuclear proportions. However, only the US had Albert Einstein, so our bombs were past the prototype state and fully functional and capable, whereas the rest of the world was not so. In truth, the world had not seen an atomic bomb, so while they knew perhaps of its capabilities, they could not have predicted what would come of a location when a bomb of its magnitude was dropped. I will continue my assent on that the nuclear weapons were the most damaging experiences that Japan suffered from the US, so shouldn’t that be a basis for the unconditional surrender? If not the novelty, the technological disadvantage the Japanese had in relation to the bomb only heightened after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Con further mentions, “t it took the Japanese leadership three days to meet and discuss surrender, despite the staggering novelty of the bombing of Hiroshima. And that’s not particularly hard to believe because “Japan had a nuclear weapons program.” To begin, time has to be taken out of context, because Con does not provide the location of the ranked officials or their position at the time of bombing. Heck, some of them could’ve been close to fighting the Soviets in Northern Japan. Second, although it interests me that Japan had a nuclear weapons program, they had never been subjected or been the subject of a nuclear bomb, so the appallment at the nuclear bomb was well-founded on the basis of novelty and destructive capabilities alone. If I recall, one senior Japanese commander quoted from Round 2, “The city of Hiroshima has been leveled by one bomb.” indicating surprise or shock. Finally, Con makes a datacal error, but I did not fully explain it. Con states, “ Even Pro’s argument that the Japanese sent out pamphlets means that they were at least somewhat prepared for a nuclear attack, even if that preparation fell short, and showing concern for the effect of those bombs on their people doesn’t equate to a willingness to surrender.” I will clarify for my opponent, the pamphlets were sent out the day after the Hiroshima Strike to major Japanese cities on August the 7th, so they were not sent out pre-bombing as whiteflame suggests, but post bombing, so this is simply a matter of clarifications. In conclusion, the failure of response to the novelty of the bombing prompted a similar strike which then forced the unconditional surrender of the Japanese, and the novelty of the bomb lowered morale in Japanese citizens. This awoke the Japanese government to try to take steps to protect its citizens with pamphlets with instructions for similar nuclear cases, and kick-started the meeting that would be later used to negotiate the surrender of the Japanese Empire.
The Timing of the Meeting and the Potsdam Declaration:
Con uses this section to attempt to define Russia as the primary reason for the calling of the meeting, however, proximity has nothing to do with pressure or the act of war on a nation, as Con fails to detail what was exactly brought up in the meeting, though what history can amass is that Japan surrendered just one day later. Perhaps this was because of Russia, but Pro begs to differ on account of a wartime situation. Yes, the Soviets invaded Japan, but keep in mind, they did this after the bombing, so the bombing should, as I state in Round Two, be held in higher esteem. The Soviets took action on Japan knowing that they would emerge victorious as a result of the bombs. While I can not provide sources, it should be abundantly clear that the bombs were the cause, and the Soviet invasion was the effect. Con can argue that they were amassing on the border, but they just as easily could have been defending themselves against a future attack from the Japanese front. As Con mentions, Japan wanted Russia on their side, but distrust led to conflict, and fueled by the technological advance of the atomic bomb, the meeting would have most likely have dealt with the effect of the bomb on the current wartime situation, namely the arrival of the USSR. However, Con completely drops that Russia joined AFTER the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was dropped, so we have to hold the bombs in higher esteem and not confuse any events with nuance.
The Keys to Con’s Solvency:
The Targeting of Civilians
In this section, Con perhaps makes a vague reference to my just war theory claim in Round Two, but this argument is still lacking. Con states that, “Pro grants that “[i]t would be wrong to compare civilian deaths to military deaths”, yet he continues to do just that, comparing soldiers lost in D-Day to civilians lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” As previously mentioned, we have to consider the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima equivalent to military personnel on the basis that they had authorization from the Japanese government to perform acts of illegal warfare such as the killing of war prisoners and kamikaze. Con also drops my D-Day justifications, which means that my claim justifying D-Day as a valid comparison to a land invasion still holds in the context of the debate. While Con is adamant about Russia’s disinvolvement in his counterplans, this does not change the matter that the counterplan to achieve surrender has to have some action that causes such, and the threat of action is not the follow through of action, thus, “He would have to show that the men that would die is less than the atomic bomb or provides greater net benefit, and in failing to do so, whiteflame fails the burden of the debate, namely that Con would have to “propose a wartime situation without atomic bombs with similar capabilities to the atomic bombs.” The act of surrender has to be caused by something, and when there is no cause for surrender, namely when Con denies the possibility of a Russian invasion, then Japan is no longer under attack and can systematically build up their army during a period of restraint.
In conclusion to the section, Con tries to address part of the just war theory without identifying it, when he states that, “Remember, Pro wants this debate to be chiefly focused on outcomes for the US and Japan. That means that the US owning a pair of major war crimes outweighs any war crimes the Soviets could have committed during an invasion. And, unlike an invasion, the two atomic bombs directly targeted civilians. Doing so is far more dehumanizing than any invasion.” However, I have already addressed it and proved that the civilians were on par with war generals and shared their same corrupted idealistic beliefs. Thus, the atomic bomb committed minimal moral harm, and the destruction sustained was not as dehumanizing as the inaccuracy of a bombing raid in the nighttime. Thus, I have not dropped the point, it had already been addressed, and Con is still left to prove why civilians are not on par with wartime soldiers and why their inhumane actions are somehow justified and net beneficial.
2. What the Soviet Threat Meant to the Japanese
In this section, Con offers a step by step process, so for each one, I will provide a step by step rebuttal and prove how his case leads to an invalid conclusion.
“Pro concedes that the Japanese were actively seeking diplomacy with the USSR, which means Japan had a strong, vested interest in seeking peace with the USSR.”
This is incorrect, seeking diplomacy is not similar to seeking peace. If anything, Japan did not want Russia to enter the war against them, so they were not seeking peace, they were seeking stability and consensual agreement. Peace would entail that they would no longer fight each other, and while Japan would’ve wanted that, they knew Russia would leave open doors for war on the side of the Allies, so Japan was seeking a peace-fire agreement, and not peace itself.
“The USSR was the only major power who wasn’t involved in drafting the Potsdam Declaration. It did not sign onto the document that stated that Japan must surrender unconditionally, which meant that Japan held out some hope that the USSR would allow for a conditional surrender that was more favorable to them.”
Earlier in Round Three, Con concedes that France did not sign on to the Potsdam Declaration, so this is either false or misconstrued. Additionally, achieving conditional surrender with Russia would not have automatically granted surrender to the entirety of the US and European backed nations, as if Japan were to conditionally surrender, the US would be quick to decline and still declare an act of war on the Japanese people.
“Considering just how much military hardware and personnel they used, that kind of time was necessary. So, clearly, the USSR had been planning to attack for quite some time, and were stringing the Japanese diplomats along while they amassed their forces.”
In this case, however, the Japanese had some form of predicting a Soviet attack. Remember, the Japanese did not expect a US invasion for months, so while they could forsee the Soviet’s strategy, they could not have predicted the shock-and-awe of the atomic bombs.
“Contrary to Pro’s argument, attacking from two sides of the same country tends to cause quite a few losses, particularly if that country is a chain of islands, which makes transporting troops a little more difficult. The Soviets were prepared to launch an invasion of Japan from the north (sorry, I said “east” last round), while the US was assaulting Japan from the south.”
In this instance, Con is still left to prove how a greater loss of life was more beneficial. Undoubtedly, attacking two sides of one country is strategically wise and does lead to many losses, but Con fails to detail how this would lead to the war’s end without displacing say 50% of Japan’s residents and further killing the population in major cities along the path to Tokyo.
““Most of Japan’s best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan’s military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself.”
At best, Con can show here that a Soviet invasion was tactically to their advantage, but this in now way shows how this causes less life losses or is more net beneficial to the Japanese economy than the atomic bombs. Rather than displacing citizens, we displayed a show of force to Japan, which eliminated the need to waste Russian and American lives any further than what we had already suffered in the Pacific Theatre. By dropping the bombs, America was ending the war sooner and according to American idealism.
““At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive — it foreclosed both of Japan’s options [diplomacy with the USSR or fighting an entrenched battle with the Americans on Kyushu] — while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.”
To sum up this section, Con painstakingly tries to argue that the Soviet invasion would have been more humane, yet this seems to show that the bombings were unjustified, but this is not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate is to expose the net harms and benefits of the bombings, and as I stated at the top of Round One, even if events were somehow unjustified, “They can still be net beneficial.” In short, Con is attacking the wrong aspect of the bombs, even I could agree that the first bombing was not as justified as the second one, but that does not exclude from the basis that the atomic bombs provided net benefit in ending the war, forcing unconditional surrender, which in turn led to the complete restructuring of Japanese idealism and their economy, which already succeeded in its efforts by the year 1955. While the Soviets tactically hindered Japanese operations, it in no way forced surrender, only starved the Japanese of resources and men, whereas the atomic bombs took care of the situation in less than a total span of four days. By a matter of efficiency, the bombs were beneficial in this regard, and if Con wants to expose the net harms of the bombs, he is going to have to do more than indirectly label it as unjustified.
Counter-plan Counters:
In this debate, I have examined the pitfalls with Con’s alternatives, which he claims to be essential to his portion of the debate, but is vague at its heart. Thus, I shall examine the two counterpoints one final time and conclude this debate for the Affirmative.
I have extensively argued against the notion of a conditional surrender, but to fully address the failures of the alternate system, viewers need to see the actual effects in real time. According to many sources brought up by @whiteflame and I during the course of this debate, the US was extremely adamant about only having unconditional surrender on the table, and although this is a hypothetical, it has to be rooted according to Con “in historical accuracy.” Historically, the US would have never agreed to a conditional surrender regardless (save the rule of the current emperor) of any offers the Japanese put on the table. In order to maintain American idealism, Con tries to show that America could have taken charge in demilitarizing, prosecuting war criminals, and obtaining a military presence, but under a conditional surrender, Japan would have had the autonomy to renegotiate terms with the United States concerning the world’s actions, and at the end of a bloody World War, no nation wanted strings attached with the net benefit of reshaping the world to its modern day form. Undoubtedly, a conditional surrender would have saved more lives, but it was not in the interests of the world to accept such terms, especially since the US and the USSR clearly had an upper hand and were dominating in the appeal of surrender terms, so if the US dropped out the conditional surrender clause, than the entire possibility drops as a result. Con fails to address this regard, and Pro maintains that conditional surrender would have never solved the issue in the slightest.
Instead of addressing the nature of unconditional surrender, as Con seems to assert and I have already agreed to under direct and forseeable terms, I will instead focus on the key to Con’s argument for the justifications behind the unconditional surrender, “It’s been Pro’s assertion throughout this debate that the atomic bombs acted as some direct means to force them to surrender. However, Japan was already out of options.” The option still holds, and the Affirmative case will finally state that the atomic bombs were the nail in the coffin, demolishing the hope that Japan would hold out, even the one nation of Germany destroyed the three nations of Belgium, Britain, and France during the early portions of the World War, so it is not unreasonable to apply the same mindset to Japan. In the actions of dropping the atomic bombs, not only was Japan short on numbers, they had been shown in a show of force that they were at a technological disadvantage. Con states that Japan could have signed on earlier and avoided the actions entirely, but hope is what kept Japan moving, and as noted in Round One, “I am pleased to have the honour of having been chosen as a member of a Special Attack Force that is on its way into battle, but I cannot help crying when I think of you, Mum. When I reflect on the hopes you had for my future ... I feel so sad that I am going to die without doing anything to bring you joy.”
In conclusion, Con’s counter-plans have not solved for anything and do not mitigate the ‘harms’ caused by the atomic bombs, presenting cases that are not rooted in historical accuracy or which would have had the capacity to function without some form of action. Con’s arguments are centered in vagueness, and rely on supposed threats and fake diplomacy on the part of Russia to uphold his points, without actually attacking the harms of the bombs besides the civilians clause, which I have thoroughly rebutted. Meanwhile, I have set up a case showing how Japan could not have prepared for the bombs, leaving the nation at a technological disadvantage, which forced the notion of unconditional surrender, which further pursued the ideas of American idealism, which restructured the Japanese economy in such a way where it was stabilized by 1955. In this way, the atomic bombs are net beneficial due to this brief recap and the basis that neither of Con’s counterplans propose situations that could have yielded the same effects as the atomic bombs, not in deaths, but in the actions that followed, neither which has been adequately discussed by Con.
With this, the Affirmative side rests the case. I would like to thank @whiteflame for this debate and the time he took in formulating his amazing arguments. I hope that the viewers and anyone who is viewing enjoyed and found something meaningful in this debate, and with that, I turn the debate over to Con to wrap up his portion of the debate.
-
Is the earth a ball?
If i told you i could fly, would you believe me? Of course not! What if I told you I had a picture of me flying? What if I told you that you can't see me do it with your own eyes, but I had a video of me flying around over the trees? Of course this goes against any common senses and everyday observations we've ever made, so it would be impossible to prove to any competent thinking adult that I could fly.
We've never seen this with our own eyes.
What if I told you that this image is admittedly no more real than this image?
So, if you were to show me, using only our objective reality, how exactly you can conclude, as so many of us have, that the earth is a spinning ball, what would you do? We all know that water has always measured flat. We are told that the earth is mostly water. We see the flat horizon at the beach, and any surface moving at around 1,000 mph exhibits observable, equal and opposite reactions...
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
