The Instigator
Spartan136
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JoshuaC-F
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US should not 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,062 times Debate No: 27581
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Spartan136

Pro

Ban- Officially or legally prohibit
Drone- A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control
Good 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.
JoshuaC-F

Con

This is my first debate, so don't expect much. But I will argue against.
Debate Round No. 1
Spartan136

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate.
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 for this 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.
Contention 4: Drones are very 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.........
JoshuaC-F

Con

Thank you for your response.

While effective, US armed drones are not humane and should not be used by the government.

Contention 1: Drones kill innocent civilians

Drones save USA lives, but can the same be said for civilians living in the said country? In fact, a study done by Stanford Law school says that the amount of high level targets killed as a percentage of total deaths is a minuscule 2%.(1) So, the success rate of drones is just not high enough to use them in the way we do. While drones save lives here, they kill the very people we are trying to help! The amount of deaths by drone attack in the last year was over 2,500.(1) So, we killed 2,500 innocent people, while only killing 50 targets? That is an awful ratio that cannot be allowed to continue happening.

Contention 2: Drones are less accurate than Humans

A drone fires where it is instructed to, however, things change between the time the order is given and the time it is carried out. What if the target escaped, killing only innocent people? The drone would still fire, while the human soldier would not fire after receiving word of the change. The humans are highly trained professionals, and there are more than one, making it even harder to mess up. The drone, however, is a computer with no brain that follows its programming. (2) When judging the use of drones, ask yourself, "Can we leave this delicate task up to a chip in a plane?" The answer to that is simple no.,

Contention 3: Drones are illegal under international war law

Drones, who have long been questioned by Americans and the UN alike, are illegal under war law. The law of war allows killing only when consistent with four key principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity, as stated by the current US Military Law of War Deskbook. (3) Most people knowledgeable of the law say that drones violate that rule whenever there is probable cause of civilian death, but the US claims they take "all possible precautions" when planing a strike. In a report by NYU, (2) US officials rarely mention civilian casualties by US drone strikes. When they do, they generally offer extremely low estimates in the "single digits". This is untrue, and illegal.
A recent article in the New York Times explained the White House"s low estimates by revealing that the Obama administration considers "all military-age males [killed] in a strike zone" to be "attackers". This is also against the law, and cannot be allowed to continue happening.

Good luck to my opponent in round 2.

1. http://www.cnn.com...
2. http://livingunderdrones.org...
3. http://www.counterpunch.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Spartan136

Pro

Spartan136 forfeited this round.
JoshuaC-F

Con

Sigh..... my opponent forfeited this round so i wont say anything. Hope he can post his final argument so we can finish this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Spartan136

Pro

Spartan136 forfeited this round.
JoshuaC-F

Con

JoshuaC-F forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.