Instigator / Pro
7
1668
rating
61
debates
67.21%
won
Topic

THBT On Balance, Drone Warfare Should Not be Condemned

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Undefeatable
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Description
~ 1,759 / 5,000

"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.

Added:

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.

Added:
Contender
--> @zedvictor4

I would be honored if you could vote on this debate.

Added:
Instigator
--> @whiteflame @MisterChris

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.

Added:
--> @Undefeatable

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.

Added:
Instigator
--> @whiteflame

what's your take on this? I glanced over both sides in my research, but the morality seems undecidable. Of course, Con cannot argue that given the set up.