The Instigator
godsend221
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Rightwing15
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Is it ethical to use bombs in warfare?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Rightwing15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 583 times Debate No: 52708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

godsend221

Con

I do not believe it is ethical to use bombs in warfare. I think they increase the risk of killing innocent civilians and damage the honor of the country using them.
Rightwing15

Pro

From mortars to tomahawk missiles these are tactical advantages that we use to help save soldiers. The reason we have such a successful army is because we have the best Air Force in the world. We have the F-35 and F-22 fighter planes that can carry a payload that yields almost 270000 lbs per square foot. No they do not have the tactical advantage that a sniper rifle gives but nevertheless they give a extremely beneficial advantage to our military. Also the Cruise Missile that was designed in 1983 is a missile that can strike a target from over 2500 kilometers. There is no gun or soldier that could send a bullet that far, this gives a big advantage in long-range warfare. Another advantage is the intimidation factor. No sensible person would go up to a T-90 Main Battle Tank or a M1A1 Abraham's Main Battle Tank. That is why the use of bombs in not only ethical but necessary in warfare. Sources: http://www.fas.org..., http://www.history.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
godsend221

Con

So we're more concerned with saving the lives of soldiers than we are innocent civilians? Isn't the soldier supposed to protect innocent civilians?
Rightwing15

Pro

The lives of the citizens are in more danger from the hostile militants, would you rather have hundreds of innocents killed IED's and EOD's or would you rather have a BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile take out a hostile instillation and maybe cause the death of one maybe two innocents. Its a philosophy of the greater good that makes people do that. In 1944 do you think that the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima without huge consideration. What would you want more, one death of an innocent that happened to be in a insurgent camp or 100 deaths of an insurgent bombing in a market that left a little boy without limbs or unable to walk and think for himself
Debate Round No. 2
godsend221

Con

It is a fallacy to argue this is an either/or scenario. The rationalization that more lives are saved by bombing innocent civilians instead of letting al queda kill them is also unfounded. To a person who loses a child because of our "life saving" cruise missile it doesn't really matter. That fuels the antiamerican hatred already alive and well in the middle east. Civilians don't sign up to die for their country but soldiers do. It is true that all wars are won on the ground.
Rightwing15

Pro

That is a very valid point i must say, but the thing that is the problem how many people are we willing to sacrifice by sending soldiers out to be killed. Missiles are precise and a effective source for the military to use. My father is a marine and he was saved by a airstrike. He was surrounded in the hills of Afghanistan by hostiles and had no exit route, had little ammo and had wounded. A RQ1 drone strike took care of the hostiles and saved him. I wouldn't have a father without a bombing. Please tell me how saving a little 10 year old boys father is unethical.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kingcloud999 3 years ago
kingcloud999
Ethical isn't the right word. Right is the right word. When it comes to warfare use whatever is chosen by whomever it is who is attacking to do what it is that they are trying to achieve.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 3 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Ha, Pro delivers a ***** slap on the first round, going to be hard to recover from that one!
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
All is fair in love and war.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
godsend221Rightwing15Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty good debate, however, I have to tell you pro that personal stories do not make for points in your favor. That is where conduct comes in. Con did not use a personal story, and con made fewer mistakes in spelling as well.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 3 years ago
Pokemonzr
godsend221Rightwing15Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't award conduct points to anybody, since they were both the same. S&G goes to Con due to one "i" in the last round that wasn't capitalized. I know, I know, I'm a grammar Nazi. Pro had better and more convincing arguments by far. Source points go to Pro, who was the only person who had any kind of sources at all, though there were only two in the first round. I feel like this was more of an active conversation rather than a debate. Try to use better debate technical skills, such as separating refutations and main arguments, using better debate jargon, and providing solid intros and conclusions. I feel like there is room for improvement on both sides, but nice debate. I'm glad that it was kept short so that I didn't have to read another five hour debate.
Vote Placed by travis18352 3 years ago
travis18352
godsend221Rightwing15Tied
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: .