The Instigator
LtnDog
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
smartgirl4433
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are Drones useful? Yes(Pro) or No(Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 54954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

LtnDog

Pro

Are Drones useful and ethical to use overall?

I have made it so no one can enter the debate, just leave something in the comment section to tell me that you want to join the debate.

Round 1: Acceptance and opening statement.
Round 2: Claims for why drones are/aren't useful.
Round 3: Counter Claims and rebuttals.
Round 4: Minor Rebuttals and Conclusion/Summary of your side of argument.

I will start by saying drones are useful to use, and are ethical to use.
smartgirl4433

Con

I have accepted your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
LtnDog

Pro

Drones are useful because they have helped us as a society and as a military.

Lets start with militarily. Drones have been called effective and relatively inexpensive by the Department of Defense. They have helped us in keeping our troops out of combat and help pave the path for U.S. troops. They help cause less civilian casualties than soldiers. Soldiers do more damage than drones. MQ-9 Reapers can launch a precision strike from the sky in order to kill targets that we may never be able to find again for years. The M1-Abrams is a main battle tank that is only as accurate as its operator. Reapers can be launched to get to a target location in less time than it would take armor and infantry units to get to that same location. If you are not able to take out an HVT, that HVT may disappear while troops are trying to get through the village. Then we are stuck having to search for him/her, and he/she may not reappear for several years. Drones are not in direct combat, so drone operators are not as worried about themselves. Soldiers are directly engaged into urban environments, and all it takes is for someone to approach them. If a soldier interprets a civilian as a terrorist, then that will not look good to the media and to foreign countries if that soldier fires upon them. At ProCon.org you will find that MQ-9s have a range of over 3,600 Miles, operational altitude of 50,000 ft, and have a maximum flight time of about 27 hours. Drone development is helping to support jobs for manufacturing, and manufacturers are expected to keep making drones for many years to come. The currently known places where drone strikes are being held are Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. All of these local governments have approved of the U.S. using drones and launching drone strikes within their borders. There have been policies set in place to also help reduce the number of Civilian casualties. We have put major policies in place in 2008, 2012, and 2013. These polices have helped significantly reduce the number of Civilian deaths.

Inside the U.S. we also use drones for other purposes. In one of InformationWeek's articles, they discuss how drones are used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help predict hurricane forecasts. Around 20 Universities use drones for wildlife research so that we as humans don"t disturb their environments with our presence. A principal of workplace deaths among wildlife biologists are contributed by light aircraft crashes. Drones are also being used by police agencies to help continue police chases to places where squad cars can't properly go. Drones have helped to reduce this figure. The United States Geological Survey have used drones for research, mapping, and monitoring environments. Drones have been seen as war-machines, but they have other purposes aside from being weapons used overseas.
smartgirl4433

Con

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LtnDog

Pro

LtnDog forfeited this round.
smartgirl4433

Con

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LtnDog

Pro

LtnDog forfeited this round.
smartgirl4433

Con

smartgirl4433 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DylanLang 3 years ago
DylanLang
This will be an interesting debate, and I'm all for pro.
Posted by smartgirl4433 3 years ago
smartgirl4433
I would like to debate with you. This is a very interesting subject.
Posted by LtnDog 3 years ago
LtnDog
So do you in to the debate, or not?
Posted by Kartikey 3 years ago
Kartikey
his is creepy and sounds like a disaster in the making. The FAA should sharply limit these and they should be limited to law enforcement and only allowed to be used if a search warrant is obtained or for cases of border surveillance. Its one thing for streets to be observed by cameras, or for news or police helicopeters to fly overhead - at least you can see or hear these. Its completely different when you can't detect the surveillance.

The risks of birds getting sucked into jet engines is bad enough now as is. What will happen if we have thousands of these things flying around all over the countrty by operators succeptable to human error?

I think this is one aspect of military technology that should be kept with the military and is no more suitable for civilian or commercial use that a M-16 or a Bunker Buster.
No votes have been placed for this debate.