The Instigator
ThinkBig
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SolonKR
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Drones in warefare

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 1 vote the winner is...
SolonKR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 382 times Debate No: 96482
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

ThinkBig

Pro

I would like to thank Solon for this debate. This debate was filmed via google hangouts. I'd also like to thank bsh1 for moderating.



SolonKR

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the fun debate, and thanks to Bsh for keeping time ^_^

https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 month ago
ThinkBig
Thanks @Whiteflame
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Con appears to have the better understanding of what the debate is about. Key to discussion of this topic are: what harms and benefits do drones, as a tool, cause, and what are the alternatives should we decide not to use them? I don't buy that showcasing how the U.S. has used them poorly suffices. Pro could have argued that we are somehow locked into current methods of usage, but lacking that, his view of the topic doesn't fit particularly well. The topic mentions the tool, not the agent that uses it. Moreover, as there's no clear definitional analysis, and as Con takes the time to articulate a reasonable framework that fits the topic well whereas Pro does not provide any, I'm really buying his analysis.

This really cuts the legs out from under Pro's argument. Admittedly, Con does little to explain how we could engage in different practices with drones that won't engender the harms Pro cites, but Pro doesn't articulate that, nor does he provide any substantive reasons why the problems he cites are inherent to the U.S. and its usage of drones. I'm buying that off-target casualities are a problem, but Con has the more specific and reliable information on that, providing good sources that support the notion that most of these deaths are not civilians. I'm not sure why any other deaths matter, and Con implies that these deaths are actually beneficial.

That leaves Pro with 2 points. One of these, which is a subtext to a lot of his argument that's never clearly articulated or explained, is that drones increase conflict. It's not a clear point, so it's not a clear benefit. He does directly argue that we engender terrorism through these actions, but as Con points out, it's unclear to what degree this happens, and why other military efforts wouldn't cause these same problems.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
And that's where Pro's argument mostly fails. Con admittedly doesn't compare his methods much with others, but at least he does some comparison. Pro seems to ignore other methods, just looking at drones in a vacuum and determining that it's a net negative. I don't think Con spends a lot of time explaining the benefits, but it does appear to have the same benefits as other methods and fewer civilian death harms. As Con points out, there's no reason to believe that losing drones from the equation necessarily decreases any of the harms of warfare, and there is reason to believe that it reduces the harms caused by other forms of warfare.

With the better analysis, context and evidence, Con takes this debate.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 month ago
GrimlyF
Of course Ignatieff never addresses the real problem.How do you stop a war when one side refuses to stop killing?.How do you negotiate with people who refuse to negotiate.How do you stop the barbarous slaughter of your innocent civilians,killed simply for being what they are?
Posted by SolonKR 1 month ago
SolonKR
I realized I forgot to source it, so in the interest of full intellectual honesty, my framework was adapted from Ignatieff in The Lesser Evil.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 month ago
GrimlyF
P.S. You needn't worry about a tied vote.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 month ago
GrimlyF
SolonKR.Have you,since you turned 14,ever uttered a sentence not so littered with "errrs and ummms"that it adds 25%to the time it takes to finish it?.I suggest a speech therapist. "RIGHT.To business.As no one has seen fit to actually write down an opinion I will use "Comments" to air my own.Drones are GOOD.Drones save U.S./British soldiers lives.Drones can observe, in real time, what other branches of the military cannot.They get minute by minute information to troops involved in a firefight.They can, if armed, give protection to those soldiers.If acting on intel a drone can follow a terrorist convoy into the desert and with absolute accuracy destroy a certain vehicle containing a terrorist leader.Drones do not make mistakes.They are prone to human error.I will leave it here in the hope that others will join in.I have lots of data,facts and reports ( all verifiable).
Posted by SolonKR 1 month ago
SolonKR
I will absolutely not consent to a coin flip, lol. I'm sure we'll get someone to vote within the next week.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 month ago
ThinkBig
Since there is 1 month left in voting, you can vote after it is decided who will go on and after your debate is finished.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 month ago
ThinkBig
I would prefer you to not vote since you are debating one of us next. I'd recommend possibly picking a non-bias third party person to judge, or flip a coin.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
ThinkBigSolonKRTied
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: Given in comments.