An argumentative paper includes an introduction, body, and conclusion. One need to discuss both sides of the argument then take one side in the conclusion. The writer should offer supporting evidence or why he or she beliefs in that side of the argument. Here is an example:
Are drones dangerous or harmless?
The drones have become a common feature in many arenas in the world. Drones are aircraft that can fly without direct control of human beings. They are said to be autonomous and are monitored by a remote pilot. Since the drones are seen to be self-reliance, the human influence cannot be overlooked. Most of the drones have video cameras and transmit real-time images to the operator on the ground. The operator controlling the drone on the ground receives the images on the computer. He or she gains the view as if sitting in the cockpit and flies the plane accordingly. Many people have used this capability of the drones to come up with video cameras to capture images from the sky. Some studies argue that the drones are harmless while others argue that they are dangerous (Gregory, 2011).
The government of the U.S views drone technology to be very hazardous to the general population. People who use drones to take those wonderful pictures or video in a tourist field are usually required to have permits for their use. Without permission, people are likely to be prosecuted because the drones are seen to be risky for the safety of other people or properties. People using drones are seen to have a hidden agenda on the activities. The concerns of the security agencies about the safety of the public may be legitimate. The drones require keen control and observation because they can easily crash and cause damages such as injuries or destruction of properties. A glance at it can be awesome but a minute mistake can cause loss of control causing serious damages (Brunstetter, & Braun, 2011).
Additionally, drones should be used for the military purposes by individuals who have knowledge on the aviation skills. Moreover, when drones are used for commercial use, they are used by people without the aviation skills. Some take the drones in the football match stadiums to take a good video. The crash or losing control of the drone in an arena can cause injuries to the audiences or death. Drone are harmful in congested places or public buildings (Gregory, 2011).
On the other hand, some people argue that drones are harmless. These arguments compare the drones with a vehicle or a bicycle that has a certain percentage of danger when used by untrained people. When a car is driven on a highway, it can cause severe damage when controlled by an unprofessional person. Some people may use drones for professional purposes while others for recreational goals. However, during these operations, people have to practice and make use of the safety guidelines. Thus, drones can be used while observing safety precautions. For instance, drones should not be flown too close to airplane paths or in a highly populated place. Also, the operators should be trained on its use first before taking it out to the public or in a private sphere. Therefore, the drones can be said to be harmless when licensed to people with operational skills (Brunstetter, & Braun, 2011).
The line to distinguish between the registered commercial drones and the hobbyist is thin. In this case, the security agencies are encouraging a regulated production of drones. The danger posed by the small drones cannot be overemphasized. The US government have requested for monitoring in the airspace that will limit the drones from accessing a certain area. The security agencies are requesting for installation of GPS on every drone to control them from flying above the restricted height or in areas such as airports and barracks. Additionally, the drones should be given licenses by the aviation authority. The coalition between the small drones and planes in the sky is possible which is dangerous. Some commercial use of drones’ incudes monitoring an area such as a plantation or business premises. The control of such use should be given to a trained person to minimize the danger of flying the drone to high and from crushing on a person (Brunstetter, & Braun, 2011).
Drones should not be seen as a menace while they can be beneficial to many people. Moreover, the underlying message should be that all operators should be trained on where to use the drones and how to use them. With the recent drone codes that regulate them, they can cause little or no harm at all. Some of the regulation guideline requirement is to ensure that no damages or accidents will occur. This requirement applies to other machine controlled by human beings. For example, “make sure you can see your drone at all times and do not fly higher than 400 feet.” This precaution ensures that the drone will not interfere with planes and the operator can trace its presence (Runciman, 2014).
In some cases, people can purchase small drones from the supermarket and stores. Some of them are flown in the backyards, packing lots, and open fields. The drones do not pose any lethal threats to the public. In some countries, drones are regulated by the aviation sector using aviation rules, which does not differentiate the size and the purpose of the drone. The larger and professional drones should be controlled by the aviation rules because they can cause serious damages. However, the small drones that are used for recreational purposes, especially by children, pose no threat. In this regard, the drones are harmless because the fatality rate is minimal or zero. Since the individual controlling the drone have uninterrupted control, it can be said to pose no problems (Runciman, 2014).
Some of the alleged claims of the danger of the drones have not been proven in a real situation. The claim on the crushing is hypothetical. People know that anything that flies is supposed to come on the ground eventually. The plane tends to crash, and they have never been banned from flying. This hypothesis does it mean that every drone in the world will crash on some people or properties. Human being tends to encounter accidents in their daily activities. One incident of a drone that causes injuries does mean it will happen every day. The airport crew claims that the drones will collide with manned aircraft. This claim has not been reported on its occurrence up to date. Other claims include intrusion of a person’s or a barrack’s privacy. The owner of the drone must be malicious to think of flying a drone into someone’s home or military barrack. This case applies to any other use of gadget to take pictures or video that violates one’s privacy. The laws are specific to such cases. Therefore, on all the allegations, there lack a factual report or consistent dangers posed by the unmanned aircraft (Runciman, 2014).
In conclusion, drones are harmless. The rising technology will make them more feasible even in highly populated places. The danger posed by the drone can be compared to that of a bicycle. Before the population becomes familiar with the drones, speculations and allegations will arise. These speculations will be proven null as people become familiar with its technology. Drones can be considered harmless. Thus, people should be trained on their use to ensure that safety is ensured and they do not cause fatal injuries.
Brunstetter, D., & Braun, M. (2011). The implications of drones on the just war tradition. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(03), 337-358.
Gregory, D. (2011). From a view to a kill: Drones and late modern war. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(7-8), 188-215.
Runciman, B. (2014). Judgment on Drones Robots Ethical Decision Dilemmas. ITNOW, 56(3), 6-9.