The Instigator
Spartan136
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
jimloyd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the United States ban the use of armed drones.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Spartan136
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,236 times Debate No: 22828
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Spartan136

Con

Ban- Officially or legally prohibitDrone- A pilotless aircraft operated by remote controlGood Evening to my opponent! Round One is for acceptance and clarification of said debate.Round 2 is specifically for construction of cases.Round 3 is for clash.Round 4 is for rebuttal and closing comments.Rules:No debater shall be disrespected in any way.No religion shall take part of this debate. Philosophies have almost nothing to do with this debate, and should remain outside of this debate.
jimloyd

Pro

hello i will be taking up this debate. i new so i am not the best but i'll try. and good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Spartan136

Con

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.

1) http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil...
2) http://www.dailytech.com...
3) http://www.rawa.org...
4) http://topics.nytimes.com...

jimloyd

Pro

jimloyd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Spartan136

Con

My opponent has forfeited. I give him the option to build his case during THIS round and rebuttal and conclusions will go together in the next round. Either that or he loses the debate.
jimloyd

Pro

hi i will be doing this some time soon bye
Debate Round No. 3
Spartan136

Con

Very well, we have agreed to do another debate. Messege me when you are ready.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
Zaradi, i am not mad at the fact that you used a good case tied to philosophy, i just dont see how phylosphy coexists with armed drones being effective. Your case about ontology was good.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Deleuze. It's, like, 3 cards of Deleuze and some other sh!t that makes literally no sense. It links into almost any argument, yet is specific enough to be hard to respond to. The captain of our debate team wrote it (not surprising he made it to the TOC, but still) and it's just fvcking insane.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Actually my coach came up with one that was pretty good. It was so insane it was brilliant. What's the Lucy K?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Those cases aren't even that bad xD you haven't seen a crazy case until you hit the Lucy K.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Oh Zaradi, you and your crazy cases.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
He doesn't want philosophy because he's still mad I mindfvcked him on the Jan/Feb running ontology.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Ahh okay.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
How effective they are.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I should have been more specific. What I mean is, how is each debater going to argue their side? What are you using to evaluate whether or not drones should be banned? How effective they are? Whether or not it's morally permissible? Something like that.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
Just logic. Plain logic. Statistics and facts. There is no philosophy concerning the use of armed drones. But if one DOES feel compelled to use philosophies, i can be leaniant.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Spartan136jimloydTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF