The Instigator
aunahmed
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Schuman8rr
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Drone attacks on Pakistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Schuman8rr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 74239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

aunahmed

Con

It is actually absurd bombing a country, while violating millions of laws domestically and internationally. How would you feel living under the threat from the sky 24/7/365? U.S government claims the civilian casualties like this "if any males that are of the same height in the vicinity of the attack are not counted as casualties". So if I'm the same height and in that particular area where the drone is going to attack and I die, I'm a terrorist? The government also claims that the drones are secret orders, from secret officials and bombed at secret places and the number of people killed are a secret too. This is just painful to hear. No doubt there are terrorists, no doubt there is killing, but these policies are just giving U.S a bad name in developing countries. There is a rise in hate due to no planned foreign policies. Drones can not even identify clearly what a person looks like, just think of something flying over you almost at the height of the sky, hidden by the clouds. How can you be sure of your targets? You can not, its a theory and percentages at which massive manslaughter is being performed. I urge to stop the drones in Pakistan, or at least answer the people to the number of killings that have taken place sine the first drone attack in 2002, which was accepted as a mistaken target.
Schuman8rr

Pro

C1: The drone strikes are killing high priority terrorist leaders and are discouraging other groups

My source will prove that high priority terrorists are killed by these drone strikes. Yes my source is about a terrorist in Yemen but it still supports the point of the drone strikes working. Con is acting like the drones are just mindless acts of cruelty by the U.S. which is not the case. The strikes are also scaring possible terrorists into hiding. In the war in Afghanistan many of the leaders ran into caves deep in the mountain ranges. The fact that they did hide proves that we are scaring them out of attacking more innocent people. Other terrorist groups can see what we are doing to them and realize if they step out of line they could suffer the same thing.

C2: The drone strikes are in action to prevent innocent lives from being taken

The reason we are using these drone strikes is to stop terrorists from carrying out their work. Have you forgotten 9/11? Do you not see what these people are capable of? Without the U.S. retaliating, these terrorists will continue to bomb us and kill thousands of people whenever they want. The strikes are in place to stop the death of innocent people and occupy the terrorists time by chasing them and forcing them into hiding.

" violating millions of laws domestically and internationally" There are no laws against drone strikes and con lacks a source on such a bold claim.

"There is a rise in hate due to no planned foreign policies." Our foreign policies and actions are carefully planned by hundreds of people. The hate towards the U.S. for these actions is only be ignorant people that live here. The civilians in the Middle East are affected by terror groups as well, when we chase them off and stop them we are helping those civilians.

Civilians are never meant to die in these attacks. The terrorist groups are causing these deaths.

http://post.jagran.com...
Debate Round No. 1
aunahmed

Con

Such a bold claim? To be clear, I am from Pakistan and attacks in a sovereign country without its authorization are supposed to be violating laws of a country. I agree that the strikes are meant to chase off the terrorists, but these policies are not working that way, instead terrorists are reborn in the shape of normal civilians. Just think of it this way, if all of your family is killed in a drone attack being innocent civilians, what will your mindset be? The extreme one, just like a terrorist thinks, resentment and anger. This is how terrorism multiplies. You are replying to swords with swords. If you are giving me the example of 9/11, in iraq US has killed hundred times more civilians ever killed in US. I am not undermining the terrorism, and terrorist activities, but claiming that drones are not an answer to the terrorism in the world. See for yourself, terrorism hasn't gotten less, its just gotten bigger. First it was just the taliban, now you have all sorts of groups like ISIS which are bigger and stronger. The US needs to be accountable of all the lives they have taken, not hide them. This is no way to answer the whole world for their actions.
Schuman8rr

Pro

"attacks in a sovereign country without its authorization are supposed to be violating laws of a country." Yes this is true but if Pakistan had not allowed us to go through with these drone strikes, there would be a huge problem internationally. Not only would the U.N. get involved but Pakistan and their allies would likely war with us. You are pro, the BOP for this lies on you, lacking on a source for this is not helping your case.

"Just think of it this way, if all of your family is killed in a drone attack being innocent civilians, what will your mindset be? The extreme one, just like a terrorist thinks, resentment and anger. This is how terrorism multiplies. You are replying to swords with swords." You could not be more wrong on this. The reason most of these groups exist is because they have an extreme misinterpretation of the Koran. The only reason they are fighting is because they think that Islam calls them to. They believe they are in the right because Allah told them to kill. Nobody is fighting because their families were killed, these types of people would be thrown out of the group for not sharing the same beliefs.

" US has killed hundred times more civilians ever killed in US." This fact is true, more have died fighting the U.S. than were killed in 9/11. However the people fighting us in Afghanistan could have killed thousands more had they not been preoccupied. There were other terror plots that they were planning on carrying out. Yes it is sad we had to kill them but it saved civilian lives in the United States.

Arguments con has dropped:

The drone strikes are killing high priority terrorists.
The strikes are driving many of the terrorists into hiding where they cannot carry out acts of terror.
How there is no other way to deal with these terorr groups.

http://www.bbc.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.worldmag.com...
Debate Round No. 2
aunahmed

Con

aunahmed forfeited this round.
Schuman8rr

Pro

As con forfeited I urge you to vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 2 years ago
Azul145
aunahmedSchuman8rrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As con forfeited there is not much to RFD here. Con also dropped important arguments made by pro and did not follow a strong debate format. Con also failed to use sources.
Vote Placed by Espera 2 years ago
Espera
aunahmedSchuman8rrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe drones have their place, however hearing from someone with actual experience with them is sobering in nature. So Con gets that point as well as the point for convincing arguments. Pro however wrote better and provided sources so he or she gets that point. Con forfeited a round and Pro's tone was too combative so neither gets the conduct point.