The Instigator
wolf902
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Your_Conscience
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Drones Should be Permitted in War

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 2 votes the winner is...
wolf902
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 55966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

wolf902

Pro

Drone warfare should be permitted because it gets the job done well. Drones such as the
MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper have performed very well in wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. Drones have helped the military immensely and will continue to aid the war effort. Thank you.
Your_Conscience

Con

Drones seem to make killing impersonal. Although they do make war more efficient, they also make the moral pains of war less apparent. The pilots who control the military drones have an easier time pulling their triggers than the people who have to fight with guns. The point I'm trying to make is that it gives war a more, "video game" feeling, which doesn't seem right.
Debate Round No. 1
wolf902

Pro

My opponent discussed the issues of morality. Drones are used so that less lives will have to be lost in war: instead of sending men over to die in some godforsaken Iranian desert, we could just send in a drone in that soldier's place. Therefore, morality is used to support my argument because using drones is more moral than using soldiers to fight a war. Thank you.
Your_Conscience

Con

Apologies for not being clear, but I was talking about the moral choice of the drone operators.
The desire to pull the trigger is stronger when you don't have to be there to kill a person or a group of people.
The people being fired upon do still die, and it seems to be dehumanizing when they are reduced to a screen.
The soldiers from our country may not die, and I'm not saying that the enemy wouldn't die either if we sent soldiers, but it's that dehumanizing factor that seems to be immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
wolf902

Pro

Thank you for clarifying. But, would it truly be dehumanizing someone if they fight for their own country? The alternative is not to fire at the enemies and let them get away, but who would do that? Drone operators know what they signed up for, and should be ready to carry out the orders given.
Your_Conscience

Con

That is true, but I'll just end the debate with this: I would be all for wars that don't cost any human lives, or wars that are fought with drones on both sides, but when the lives of humans are ending, it doesn't seem right to end their lives eating a bagel, with your legs plopped up on the desk, and pressing a button. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Drones are impersonal but they are no more so than a Tank, an aircraft, or other such machinery.

Drones provide the ability to end a life without the possibility of losing one.

Which in all fairness is what tanks, bombs, and so many "counters" in military do already. To argue that there is no "repercussions" is silly.

It would be similar to arguing that long-range artilerry, missles, and pretty much any range-type combat "takes a button" to use and is inhuman.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
wolf902Your_ConscienceTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that drones save the lives of the fighters using them. Con argued that drones impersonalize killing. But, as Pro noted, war is killing. While I think Con's arguments are a valid point, I don't think they negate Pro's point regarding the saving of combat lives. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
wolf902Your_ConscienceTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I lost a similar debate essentially taking Con's position. While I think both sides were equally well-argued in this debate, I still agree that dehumanizing war is bad news, and pro did little to dissuade me. I vote for Con.