1. Is cannibalism at Kokoda justified? 2. Is the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan justified? by Loong Juan

Hi guys and gals,

loongjuan — 2018-09-07 01:22:40 UTC

Here are the following instructions for today's task.

1. Read the sources together as a group
2. Discuss your viewpoint in the group on whether your topic is justified or not.
3. Assign roles to your group members
4. Write the TEEEL paragraph
4. Once finished, double check it and post it on the padlet! :)

Example of a TEEEEL paragraph with a REBUTTAL

loongjuan — 2018-09-07 01:25:36 UTC

Topic sentence: The dropping of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an atrocious act and is not justified.

Evidence: Rufus Miles Jr (1985) stipulates that there were 'three non-nuclear strategies' which had high probabilities of success besides the atomic bomb option on Japan.

Explanation: This shows that President Truman of America utilised the atomic bomb strategy as a show of dominance and power over the Empire of Japan.

Rebuttal:
Evidence: According to Francis Pike (2016), the atom bomb was used to 'end the war speedily' and 'saved thousands of American lives'.

Explanation: However, by dropping the atom bomb, the Americans would not waste time, resources and their people's lives to attack and invade Japan.

Link: Thus, it is clear that.....

Is cannibalism at Kokoda justified? Elnaz, Chloe, Eva, Lev

2018-09-07 02:42:23 UTC

Cannibalism at Kokoda was unethical and morally incorrect and is not justified. Pacific war, murder and cannibalism on the Kokoda track expresses that the Japanese soldiers had "found dumps with rice and a lot of tinned food. So they weren't starving and having to eat flesh because they were hungry".This indicates that to illuminate, the acts of cannibalism are not justifiable as food was accessible in Kokoda, therefore the soldiers could have found or stolen food from the Native people of Papa New Guinea as the Japanese/ Australian soldiers were already doing it. However, Francis Pike (2016) states that "Because of food shortages, some companies have been eating the flesh of Australian Soldiers." Hence, under certain circumstances there were no other options for survival of the soldiers.Therefore, it has been made clear that the acts of cannibalism during Kokoda was not justified.

is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Michael, duy, max ,peter and Joe.

2018-09-07 02:44:09 UTC

dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. According to Francis Pike (2016), the presidents justification for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to "end the war speedily and in the process save hundreds of thousands of American lives." Although there were 3 nonnuclear strategies including negotiated peace which could have had small number of casualties, but it was not guaranteed that it would of worked, the atomic bomb was quick and guaranteed to show that the Americans have more power/dominance and that the Japanese should back off, but they could of at least given them a warning or a chance to surrender before bombing. In source 2 it talks about how president Truman and civilians advisers had three other non-nuclear strategies that could of had less casualties then the atomic bomb but this was not guaranteed.

is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

2018-09-07 02:57:39 UTC

DELLANY< TAYLA< ANA< OTILA

TOPIC SENTENCE- The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justified.

EVIDENCE- According to Francis Pike atomic bomb was used “to end war speedily”

EXPLANATION- In bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and Japanese lives.

EVIDENCE- According to Rufus Miles Jr. bomb was used for a “high probability of success and with a relatively small number of deaths.”

EXPLANATION- General Curtis also said that they don’t give a damn about Japanese lives at the time. That’s why they think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki is more easier than fighting against them.

LINK- Therefore, I conclude that the USA was more interested in a quick and easy end to the war than causing untold suffering. They had in their hands a weapon that was capable of bringing the war to a swift end, and so they used it.

is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Michael, duy, max ,peter and Joe. rebuttal

2018-09-07 02:58:16 UTC

In contrast, it is stated in the Australian news media by Prue Torney-Parlicki that the consequences of having nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant that radiation “would affect the area for seventy years” Meaning that people who lived in those areas were forced to move to another place if they don’t want to suffer from severe radiation illnesses.

Is cannibalism at Kokoda justified? Middle Group

2018-09-08 05:46:51 UTC

There are so many bad things in the world but according to many, cannibalism is the worst. Cannibalism also known as anthropophagi, is defined as the act or practice of eating members of same species. As Craig Collie and Hajime Marutani (Japanese on the Kokoda Track) suggested that “who eat human flesh (except that of the enemy) knowing it to be so, shall be sentenced to death as the worst kind of criminal against mankind.” It explored that cannibalism was against the law during the Kokoda campaign and for those who does that, shall be sentenced to death because this action shows against the mankind and humanity. On the other hand, it is not right for soldiers to have flesh or cannibalism during Kokoda campaign because they would find tinned food, or they could just tell the enemy to give them food if they were out of food, they could just put their gun down and ask the enemy for foods. Therefore, cannibalism was not the right option for the soldiers in Kokoda campaign.