1.)Drones are used in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult. This make it easier, for when something like this occurs they would still be able to be on the look out ad this is because there is no individual in it. It is computerized so no one will get hurt.
2.) They provide troops with a 24-hour "eye in the sky", seven days a week. Each aircraft can stay aloft for up to 17 hours at a time, loitering over an area and sending back real-time imagery of activities on the ground. This is great because no matter what time it is, there will always be surveillance.
1.) You said drones are used in risky or difficult flight situations. Lets say the risky situation is that the government is spying on the average person and they don't want to get caught. 2.) Drones also have negative effects on troops. Many drone operators suffer from emotional and physiological stress. Drone operators may feel remorse or guilt after they attack and kill innocent people. UAV's are loaded with bombs and missiles. They can drop a bomb and kill a lot of innocent civilians. 3.) Drones make the horrors of war appear as innocuous as a video game. C.) Therefore, drones should be banned.
1.they are used in risky situations, when it would be to dangerous for us ourselves to look over what's going on. has nothing to do with spying on others if they aren't doing nothing wrong, only when something is occurring. Just look at all what our country has gone through. Wasn't that enough for you ? Do you want more terrorist attacks? Do you want more people dying! ? Or would you prefer the drones to watch at all times for we can be safe.
2.It might kill many civilians but what happened when the twin towers were hit? They were innocent people.. Drone operators may feel guilt but so do the actual military at war in which have to kill them face to face.
1.) In round two, premise one you are commit the ad hominem fallacy. You begin to attack me when you ask me if I want more terrorist attacks. You also ask me if I want more people to die. I never implied any of that. Those questions you asked me do not add to your argument. Drones can be used for spying. FBI director Robert Mueller said, "the nations top law enforcement bureau uses drones to conduct surveillance on U.S soil." The FBI says it themselves.
2.) In round two, premise two you commit the red herring fallacy. You talk about the twin towers which are irrelevant to the argument. We are talking about drones not the twin towers.
3.) Drones kill innocent lives and cause people to get angry . That is why there is hatred toward America
1. Yes FBI says it, like I said... Look at All The terrorist attacks in the US. Your stating that they are hurting people ... But if they are over U.S soil then are you stating they are hurting us as the civilians, you too are getting away from your argument while I'm trying to prove my point
2. I'm giving you examples why we would use the drones, that's why I brought up the twin towers if it wasn't clear for you. Drones can be used for many other things, not just to be aware of Attacks in which would be to dangerous for is humans to be in them, that's why they are computerized .
3. Drones in republic of Congo patrol the border looking for illegal arms shipments or troop movements. Over the forests they seek out militia encampments etc.
1. You are committing the red herring fallacy again. Terrorist attacks shouldn't be your focus. We are talking about drones. My concern with drones also extends to police enforcement. Drones can have non lethal weapons such as rubber bullets and tear gas as well as lethal weapons. I wouldn't want to live in a world where I couldn't accuse someone of shooting me because a drone did it and I'd have no idea who was controlling the drone. What if people were peacefully protesting and a drone starts to spray them with tear gas? Nobody would be able to see who actually was attacking them.
2.Drones can be hacked as well. People with bad intentions could create havoc or worse attack people.