Which of the following arguments decided the debate over the atomic bomb against Japan in 1945

Using the bomb would shorten the war, avoiding huge human losses on the allied side.

Explanation:

During the War of the Pacific, the United States was in 1945 in frank advance towards Japan, taking each of the islands that this nation had in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Now, in each of the combats that took place on these islands, the Japanese fought to the end of their possibilities, practically being annihilated but never giving up, which took a large number of allied lives. Thus, each battle, no matter how irrelevant the territory to be taken, involved a huge number of American and allied deaths.

Examples of this situation can be seen in the liberation of the Philippines or the battles of Okinawa or Iwo Jima, where the Japanese practically left no survivors among their ranks, and the Americans lost enormous numbers of troops.

In view of this situation, the American high command with President Truman at the helm decided that it would be better to strike a high impact blow at the Japanese forces, rather than invading Japan and suffering a huge number of casualties.

yes

explanation:

the fighting words doctrine, in united states constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the first amendment to the united states constitution. in 1942, the u.s. supreme court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in chaplinsky v. new hampshire.

i believe it was the shinto