Debate Reaction

I think the debate today went as many discussions go in our class. I feel like we were all appropriately prepared, but the discussion was dominated by the people who felt that they had the best handle on the material in their group. 

I agreed with the viewpoint that I was representing (#3). I think that during the debate, while the other teams were trying to defend (valiantly so) a stance that perhaps they didn't agree with or support, they mentioned that the motives behind dropping the bombs were maybe less altruistic than they should have been. Then it was brought up that the Japanese were planning to fight every man to the death despite how outnumbered they were. So I had to think, is it possible then that dropping an atomic bomb, or two, can be considered a more humane method of ending a war (if that's not an oxymoron)? I think that I support the dropping of the bombs only with hindsight, though, knowing that lives were probably spared. Knowing that if we hadn't taken this action that the Japanese soldiers would have fought until no body was left. And although it was because they were chock full of pride and honor, the fewer dead the better, I reckon. But I can't imagine that I would have supported the bombing had I been around back in the day, being of sort of the live and let live mindset. But then again, we were in a war. 

And realistically I recognize our inability to warn the Japanese or test the bomb, be it for lack of resources or the need to militaristically save face. Spell check?