The Instigator
Theibmwizkid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PurpleDrink
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Drone policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
PurpleDrink
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,776 times Debate No: 31159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Theibmwizkid

Pro

I believe that drone policy would make America safe, because our country is in imminent danger of terrorism here in our home soil , there had been several plots of terrorist attacks in our country. Drone policy would help capture a host of terrorist thus keeping America safe and apprehensive free about the future.
PurpleDrink

Con

While there may be a threat of terrorism against the USA, I don't believe a Drone Program would keep America "safe and apprehension free". Since you didn't define drone policy or "safe and apprehension free", I'll do so below:

"safe and apprehension free": Elimination or reduction of a threat in reality and in the minds of citizens of one threat, without in and of itself introducing a new threat in reality and in the minds of citizens. (EXTREME example: people may be threatened by criminals, announcing that you'll nuke the country to eliminate criminals will not make America "safe and apprehension free").

Drone Policy: I'm assuming you're referring to the controversial memos about using drones to kill American citizens without due process, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. This is the policy that was implemented in Pakistan to kill a US Citizen suspected of being an important terrorist figure, the attack that killed many innocent civilians and children. This is similar to say, China saying they are chasing Chinese terrorists who are anti-China, drone bombing an American suburb, to get a bad-guy, while within collateral damage, killing Bob and his wife across the street, and little Annie and Dave and a several other innocent American families and children. It's inexcusable.

Many innocents including children have died in Pakistan, whom we are NOT at war with, due to our drone policy there. You could not say his resulted in a "safe and apprehension free" Pakistan.

Now, the question is whether implementing the Drone Policy within America will make America "safe and apprehension free"? If you are suggesting that the drones be used within American borders to target and kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without due process or a trial. I think the threat to our guaranteed freedom under the 4th Amendment is enough to make that untrue. Are Americans afraid of being falsely accused of committing a crime now? No. Why? Because if you know you didn't do it, there's no evidence that you did it, and prosecutors would fail to convict you in court. Imagine, if people were being picked off by drones for being suspected of crimes. How safe would people feel? Not very. And this is not even accounting for "collateral damage".

Whether it's now or sometime in what is hopefully our long long future, a leader using the precedent for Drone Policy to kill American citizens, may decide to label anyone with opposing political views as "terrorists" and order a Drone Strike. This is not only a threat to the safety, but a threat to the very fabric of our country, our freedom. Remember, every step that even slightly errodes our freedom makes the next step easier for the next leader. Add up enough steps, and you have a situation that I don't think either of us want.
Debate Round No. 1
Theibmwizkid

Pro

The drone policy does not in any way indicate that it would use missile strikes to stop an American terrorist, but to capture them, and that statement alone covers the majority of your entire argument. secondly you have to understand the technological aspects of drones.
A drone contains a sensors that can find, fix, and track targets on the ground meaning that a drone strike isn't the only way to stop a terrorist .The implementations used to cease the American terrorist in Afghanistan will not be used
here in the us lives would be at risk and I think our government has never, in any way put the lives of the American people at risk. that being said drone policy is safe, drastic measure will not be used against the capturing of a a terrorist but a more sophisticated technological method such as sensor targeting will be used
in apprehending the threat.
PurpleDrink

Con

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...

In the very first paragraph, the mention of the Government's use of "lethal force" on US Citizens.
My argument stands that this is a violation of the 4th Amendment, which like the entire Bill of Rights is intended to cover what the Federal Government can NOT do. If we accept this violation for perceived "safety", we are at danger of government's misuse of that acceptance down the line. This does not create safety, and it does not make the citizens "apprehension free". In fact, many citizens are very concerned and "apprehensive" about the drone policies coming out. It's almost like they are testing the waters to see how far they can go. Like I said, with each step, the next step becomes all the much more easier. This is dangerous.
Debate Round No. 2
Theibmwizkid

Pro

it will not violate the 4th amendment. drones aren"t bad per se. There are many lawful uses of drones, including wildfire control, tracking suspected criminals for whom a qualifying warrant has been issued, tracking of stolen vehicles, etc.It is a new technology that can be used for good. Anything new is scary. You sound like your trying to scare people. Please understand and do more research on the future positive impact of this technology before deciding it is only used for bad.
PurpleDrink

Con

The drone itself is not the problem. It's the "Policies" or the uses of that drone which I've described, cited and explained as being unethical and dangerous. You've not refuted those points.

Vote Con for freedom!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by PurpleDrink 3 years ago
PurpleDrink
"i for one do not entierly agree with the drone policy, under the current administration, but i understand and respect its potential."

Would you agree with it under a Republican administration? You can understand and respect it's positive potentials, but you can't ignore it's negative and dangerous potential.

It's documented and widely known and not even denied that many civilians and children were killed in collateral damage in Pakistan. You calling it a lie doesn't change that.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
why you always think about your self and only for your own peace. see which Muslim country is not suffering.
do whatever you wanted to and unjust at the day of judgement you will get extreme punishment.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
yes innocent children were also dying.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
im not going to vote here because i believe the debate had no winners and was poorly done. however i will say that purplepinks arguments were some what belony. while i understand where shes coming from and agree with her desires to preserve freedom she cant just try and prove her point using scare tactics. first off she said that the drone strike used in pakistan to kill and american terrorist killed several innocent civilians including children. this is a flat out LIE. 6 known terrorist were killed in this attack and no one else. if your going to make an argument DO NOT LIE IN IT. next. "drone bombing an American suburb, to get a bad-guy, while within collateral damage, killing Bob and his wife across the street, and little Annie and Dave and a several other innocent American families and children." once agian this is a classic scare tactic and there is no refutable evidence that this would happen. can it? yes. but no more so then say a group of officers were in a shoot out with some thugs and one of thier bullets missed and went through a wall and hit little susan in the face. so should officers have their guns taken? she talks about collateral damage a lot and thats certainly in regards to the war in the mid east. the difference is that the US is not a warzone unlike the entier mid east so the chances of collateral damage are extreamly reduced. i for one do not entierly agree with the drone policy, under the current administration, but i understand and respect its potential. which is unending. oh and by the way i am a US Marine drone pilot. not the big ones just the small survellince ones.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
that's great you think about it. this is the best thing of you peoples you speak truth.
i think its every where in the world. the citizen speaks truth.
but the gov is always corrupt.
how could 400 peoples be good. when they have power to make law and how could they make it against themselves.
Posted by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
A nice debate. Good job purpleDrink!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lizard 3 years ago
Lizard
TheibmwizkidPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: only con used sources, also pro made his topic too ambiguous, so the focus of this debate was open for con to interpret, which allowed her to make stronger argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
TheibmwizkidPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the obligation to write a clear resolution and did not do so, because "drone policy" was left undefined. Because the "drone policy" in the news was the present policy of taking out U.S. citizens solely by executive decision, Con reasonably took that to be the subject of the debate. I think Pro wanted to debate "use of drones in warfare" but it still isn't clear what he wanted. Con made good arguments based on a reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
Vote Placed by ConservativeAmerican 3 years ago
ConservativeAmerican
TheibmwizkidPurpleDrinkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied, spelling and grammar good on both sides. Con made more lengthy and meaningful arguments, pro said that you can use an explosive device to 'capture' someone' (....?). Only one source was used, this was on con's side.