The claim that I will make in my this rebuttal is that if the dropping of the atomic bomb was a good or bad thing to do after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. My reasons of making this claim is that a whole lot more people died in the atomic bomb, 2,335 soldiers and staff approximately died in Pearl Harbor which is a lot of lives, even one life could mean a lot, but in Japan the number of deaths of 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000-80,000 in Nagasaki which is nothing compared to Pearl Harbor, this is really a big difference. The biases of my opponent which in this case is U.S. ex-president, Truman who gave the order to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan, I understand it was for the safety of the country and to show the rest of the world that you don’t mess with the U.S. He did that to try to avoid similar things to …show more content…
Also he used ethos to show credibility to get the audience to be on his side of the decision he had to make in such a small period of time. Some links between Truman’s and mine is that the decision Truman made was for the own good, and to protect the country. I am kind of against his decision, but if I was in his shoes, I would’ve probably done the same thing because that will show everyone else the power of the U.S. and they will think twice before they try to start a war with the U.S. There might still be some people like me that still don’t agree with Truman’s decision, but if the U.S. didn’t act quickly and counter-attacked, we would look unprepared, and weak because other countries will think that we are not ready for war. Would you rather just stay neutral and not do anything about the bombing and let Japan get away for what they did? Yes, i'm assuming you aren't so now can you see were Truman’s decision went to, he did it for the