Destruction Of Two Cities

[Bulerias]

Hey guys,

I had to do a report about Hiroshima and Nagasaki for school, and here's a rough draft. I haven't even edited it, so if any of you guys can offer truly constructive criticism, that would be great... I can honestly say that I didn't even look at it after writing it, so it's bound to be sloppy... so yeah, take that into consideration. Also, and this is very important, a very important part of the assignment was to keep it as unpersuasive as possible; no debatable material, period.


World War II is the bloodiest and most important war in the world to date, with deaths exceeding 60 million people. It started with Adolf Hitler

 

[Jeremy]

Well I didn't read it yet (will later), but I read the first sentence and I disagree. :gyroidsmile:

 

[Bulerias]

Well I didn't read it yet (will later), bu I read the first sentence and I disagree. :gyroidsmile:

I didn't ask if you disagreed or agreed. I am asking for constructive criticism. I also find it hard to believe that you don't think that World War II was the most important war in humanity's existence. :\

 

[Jeremy]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a bloodier war.

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

 

[Bulerias]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

 

[Jeremy]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

 

[Bulerias]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

 

[Jeremy]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

Yah, but that wasn't war, that was genocide.

And:

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

That did not play a role in the significance of the war.

How do weapons and tactics not have to do with war?

 

[Bulerias]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

Yah, but that wasn't war, that was genocide.

And:

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

It was all part of the war. All inclusive, as they say. >_>

You mean the statement in the beginning? I do agree there. I'll just write "bloodiest war in the 20th century or something".

 

[Bulerias]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

Yah, but that wasn't war, that was genocide.

And:

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

That did not play a role in the significance of the war.

How do weapons and tactics not have to do with war?

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I.

I meant that that didn't matter if there weren't as many casualties as in WWII.

 

[Jeremy]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

Yah, but that wasn't war, that was genocide.

And:

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

It was all part of the war. All inclusive, as they say. >_>

You mean the statement in the beginning? I do agree there. I'll just write "bloodiest war in the 20th century or something".

I wouldn't say that either. It depends what your definition of "bloodiest" is... you might want to avoid saying that. I'm sure there are other opening sentences that would work even better.

 

[Bulerias]

That's not what I disagree about. World War I was a worse war.

In what way? WWII had more casualties, among other things.

Your chances of dying were greater in World War I. They used basically Civil War tactics with modern weapons.

Does that matter at all? That did not play a role in the significance of the war. In WWII, you had the Holocaust, which was the worst display of genocide in humanity's existence, and etc.

Yah, but that wasn't war, that was genocide.

And:

edit: And the statement is a bit bold... what about all of the other wars that weren't in the 20th century?

It was all part of the war. All inclusive, as they say. >_>

You mean the statement in the beginning? I do agree there. I'll just write "bloodiest war in the 20th century or something".

I wouldn't say that either. It depends what your definition of "bloodiest" is... you might want to avoid saying that. I'm sure there are other opening sentences that would work even better.

Give me a sentence that would work better and I will substitute it for that.

But let's go beyond the first paragraph. >_>

 

[Jeremy]

By the way, what exactly is this suppose to be? Are you explaining your point of view or are you just describing the event?

 

[Bulerias]

By the way, what exactly is this suppose to be? Are you explaining your point of view or are you just describing the event?

This is an essay which is NOT persuasive, so I am describing the event. I am not giving my opinion here.

 

[Jeremy]

By the way, what exactly is this suppose to be? Are you explaining your point of view or are you just describing the event?

This is an essay which is NOT persuasive, so I am describing the event. I am not giving my opinion here.

Yah, that's what I thought. I still haven't read it yet, but I did skim it. I suggest you add more about the results. So you also might want to tough on the positive things. It may be hard to believe, but many people say there were not only less American casualties because of the bombs, but also Japanese.

 

[Bulerias]

By the way, what exactly is this suppose to be? Are you explaining your point of view or are you just describing the event?

This is an essay which is NOT persuasive, so I am describing the event. I am not giving my opinion here.

Yah, that's what I thought. I still haven't read it yet, but I did skim it. I suggest you add more about the results. So you also might want to tough on the positive things. It may be hard to believe, but many people say there were not only less American casualties because of the bombs, but also Japanese.

That's a debatable topic right there so I can't include it in the report. As for the results, I did talk about them near the end quite a lot...

 

[Jeremy]

Even though it's debatable, you can still mention that it is. And also some things that arent really debatable, like a shorter War. I don't know... I just think you should talk about things from both sides.

 

[Bulerias]

Even though it's debatable, you can still mention that it is. And also some things that arent really debatable, like a shorter War. I don't know... I just think you should talk about things from both sides.

Once again, it's strictly forbidden if it's debatable, at least in this report. It's one of the guidelines and when I submitted my working outline, the end looked like this...

VI. Summarization of thesis statement
A. It might happen again
B. What we can do to prevent it
C. Restatement of thesis statement

The teacher erased A and B, and said that those subjects were debatable... So they're really strict about it. And besides, I am personally against the bombings, so I try not to talk from both sides, since I risk showing my, err, true opinion, therefore making the paper biased and debatable.

 

[Sporge27]

Well I think it is pretty good for a start, it was pretty unbiased although the quotes weren't...though it might be hard to find unbiased ones on this topic




I think it is god though. By unbiased do you mean not supporting any side at anytime or just show each side equally?

 

[Bulerias]

Well I think it is pretty good for a start, it was pretty unbiased although the quotes weren't...though it might be hard to find unbiased ones on this topic




I think it is god though. By unbiased do you mean not supporting any side at anytime or just show each side equally?

You can't find unbiased quotes. They're all from the Japanese survivors, so yeah... But how were they biased though? I didn't even notice myself... They just described what happened.

I mean not supporting any side at any time.