THBT On Balance, Drone Warfare Should Not be Condemned
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
"Drone Warfare" is the coordination of use of drones within war. From Wikipedia, "A drone strike is an air strike delivered by one or more unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) or weaponized commercial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)". Drone warfare may consist of remote assassinations or multiple drone strikes in strategic areas, with little to no involvement of actual persons on the soil battling.
Drone Warfare and background info: "To the already complicated mix of counterterrorism as aggressive self-defense and morality in armed conflict, we must add the high technology arena of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Many argue that the combination of modern technology and sophisticated intelligence analysis all but ensure that the UAV, or drone, policy is the most effective contemporary means to conduct operational counterterrorism. The theory sounds compelling and convincing: what is more attractive than killing terrorists from the air with the use of sleek technology while minimizing risk to ground forces? We are in an age where shiny technology and seemingly sophisticated intelligence gathering and analysis converge, potentially removing the human element—and humanity—from decision-making..." -- https://law.utah.edu/projects/drone-warfare/
Burden of proof is shared.
Pro will argue we should encourage further and/or keep drone warfare.
Con will argue we should condemn, and perhaps eventually abolish use of drones in war if possible.
Condemn: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn)
On balance: taking both bad and good together
I can easily take the opposite side, just comment and I will switch.
Con claims there is no real example that the drones prevented friendly fire, but completely ignores the Brookings' ideas about drones' precision and the ability to avoid needless casualties.
Next, Con claims that Drone warfare has not significantly changed the war, but the war does not necessarily have to be resolved for drones to be justified.
perhaps a nuke could instantly end the war, but would cause massive suffering among civilians. So ending the war is not necessarily the most important goal we have in mind.
And we are still doing the greatest good by stopping the terrorists from harming people the best we can.
Unless Con can produce another miracle solution that significantly stops the war, it still seems that drone is the best solution possible.
But the terrorists and the dangerous people have threatened the safety of US and allies. By striking first and preventing them from doing further harm, how is this not self defense?
the terrorists and the dangerous people
He doesn't show us what happens as a result of the corruption -- what negative effects precisely do we receive? He doesn't say.
prevent PTSD among soldiers
leaders may justify terrible decisions made due to emotional distress
It doesn't seem to make sense that the more logical being, the robot, would somehow enhance selfishness and greed, two human emotions.
the vast majority of warfare is from US, and we still value innocents and not harming bystanders
I see no issue with mere "terrorization" and "Fear" as long as the citizens actually suffer no harm.
Wouldn't any kind of war declaration cause terrorists to strike back?
it seems nearly impossible to me that the US would stop any wars outright, especially with their commitment already to stop terrorism
I reiterate my self-defense argument to prove that US was justified in starting the war in the first place.
As con has used zero sources to support any of his arguments, I ask voters to take them with a grain of salt
Back in Vietnam and even into the battle of Ramadi, double agent indigenous recruits would be placing markers for mortar strikes inside the american bases.
Feel free to toss a vote. Probably could’ve stressed self defense better, but I’m not sure if I should’ve repeated my point from round 1 word for word.
Difficult to say. If we're talking about whether it gets the job done most effectively, then I have stronger opinions, but whether it should be condemned is a different story. I'm not going to feed arguments to your potential opponent, but being effective doesn't necessarily preclude any condemnation.
I'll keep this one brief.
Pro's arguments that this reduces the effects of PTSD on the soldiers sent from the US (and other countries using drones), as well as puts them at less physical risk, are generally not addressed meaningfully by Con. Apart from that, there's the point that drones are used for more targeted strikes, and are better than available alternatives. Saying that they don't end wars doesn't really do anything to this point, and the absence of an argument for why a different form of combat is better from Con makes it difficult to see why his world is necessarily better, since he doesn't give much reason to believe that the absence of drones ends wars faster or more efficiently.
Con's arguments are largely based on allowing for a rise in corruption, which is a very vague impact. I'd like to know what that means, and while Con hints at it several times, he never directly tells me why this matters. Part of the problem here is just the general lack of sources and support for his arguments, but the other part is that he spends a lot of time on warrants, but rarely examines why any of his points matter. He's right that detachment may lead people to view combat in a different light, but does that mean that soldiers piloting drones would be more likely to hit targets, not thinking of the humanity of their foes? Con himself says that, at least on the battlefield, a soldier's job is to just kill and set aside those concerns, so I don't see what he gains by pointing this out. Con does also argue that soldiers will come home and protest wars because of what they saw, and that "natural backlash and revulsion" are good checks against corruption, but he doesn't ever connect this to outcomes. It's a lot harder to sustain a war if the public is seeing soldiers coming home in body bags. It's a lot harder to start a war when it means committing friends and loved ones to the fray. Pro may have more efficient warfare, but Con, you should be arguing that you'll have less warfare by ending wars sooner and preventing them wholesale. I need to see those arguments spelled out, but I don't see them in the debate, and even if I did, I don't see the evidence to support them. You have to give me data that shows how effective protests are. Without that, this is just a claim of what you think happens in the absence of drone warfare, which is valid, but it doesn't stand up against evidence-based points like those made by your opponent. Challenging his sources is good, but it's not enough when you don't have sources of your own.
I vote Pro because his arguments have clear impacts and go largely conceded. I also afford him source points for the reasons mentioned above.