Should the United States ban the use of armed drones.
Debate Rounds (4)
hello i will be taking up this debate. i new so i am not the best but i'll try. and good luck
I thank my opponent for taking this debate. Since he is a newcomer, i shall not act like an idiot towards him.
The use of armed drones has been around for many years. I see no apparent reason to abolish the use of weapons that keep soldiers out of harm and fight battles that humans sometimes cannot fight. Thus i stand against the resolution.
Contention 1: Drones save troops lives.
When a drone is shot down by an enemy, no one mourns for the said drone. Drones are weapons with no emotions, due to the fact that they are machines. But, when a soldier dies in the line of battle, his family mourns deeply for his loss. That soldier could have been saved by putting a drone in his place. This being said, that one soldier would now be alive,sitting next to his family, enjoying dinner. So I ask this: why is it that this resolution seeks to ban the use of armed drones when drones do nothing but keep OUR soldiers out of harms way? Why is it that we must continue to put the lives of 1,456,862(1) soldiers at great risk when a drone could take their places? Not only that but "Drones are important because they don't put pilots in harm's way, and they can loiter over areas for an extended period. Drones are also typically much cheaper to develop and deploy than manned aircraft" (2).
Contention 2: Drones intend no harm towards innocent civilians.
When a drone is instructed to aim at a specific target, it typically follows the orders given. The drone aims at the target it was instructed to aim upon, nothing less and nothing more. The drone does not aim to cause harm to innocent targets. Furthermore, ask yourself this: does a human soldier not harm innocent people sometimes? The answer to this question will always be yes. A persons mind is a soup composed of mystery. Furthermore, many of those soldiers minds that I am pointing out suffer from mental problems. From October 2009 to September last year, 3,970 Armed Forces staff were diagnosed with a mental disorder(3). This proves that if a soldiers mind is corrupted , he might bring harm to innocent civilians. In fact, the Annual report 2010 for protection of civilians in armed conflicts states that 1,462 Afghan civilians were killed by U.S. soldiers as compared to the 500 civilian deaths caused by Armed drones. Now, one can begin to see why drones should be kept by the U.S. military.
Contention 3: Drones are more effective than soldiers.
As i stated in the above contention, when a drone is instructed to aim upon a target , it aims at that target. When a soldier is told to aim at a target, he aims and shoots but not without hesitation. A drone does not have a last second hesitation before wiping out an enemy camp, whereas a soldier stops and thinks about what he is about to do. Guilt may influence the soldier. A soldiers mind works differently than that of a drone (if you can even call it a mind). This means that a soldier may have psychological conflict before eradicating a target while a drone has NO afterthoughts or emotions. This in turn leads one to believe that since a drone does not hesitate before eradicating target, it is more effective than a soldier.
Point 4: Drones are highly effective.
From blimps to bugs, aerial drones are transforming the way America fights and thinks about its wars. United States intelligence officials call unmanned aerial vehicles, often referred to as drones, their most effective weapon against Al Qaeda. The remotely piloted planes are used to transmit live video from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to American forces, and to carry out air strikes. More C.I.A. drone attacks have been conducted under President Barack Obama than under President George W. Bush...Drones have become more crucial than ever in fighting wars and terrorism. The Central Intelligence Agency spied on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan by video transmitted from a drone. One of Pakistan’s most wanted militants, Ilyas Kashmiri, was reported dead in a June 2011 C.I.A. drone strike, part of an aggressive drone campaign that administration officials say has helped paralyze Al Qaeda in the region. More than 1,900 insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal areas have been killed by American drones since 2006, according to the Web site longwarjournal.com, which closely tracks the strikes as part of its focus on the war on terror(4)
Thus, one can conclude that drones are very effective and should not be banned by the government. Thank you for taking the time to read my case. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.
jimloyd forfeited this round.
Very well, we have agreed to do another debate. Messege me when you are ready.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.