I feel that the debate on the nuclear bomb and limits in wartime was overall a weak one. Both sides struggled to get their points across and explain them in a way that someone could understand them. The facts and evidence were present for most of the debate, but the connections to make great points were not. Out of all the points I feel the con side’s claim that there was alternatives to the nuclear bomb was lacking the most. This was due to the fact that whenever they were asked for any supporting evidence or examples of alternatives to the bomb they would shrug the asker off and move on. This resulted in a claim with absolutely no facts or evidence backing it up. On the other side of things the pro side had a great claim that dropping the
