The University of Oregon’s forensics team faced off in a debate against the British National Team to discuss the government use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, commonly known as drones, in Allen Hall on Tuesday night.
This was the first time Oregon has hosted The British National Team of the English Speaking Union, which is regarded as the oldest and largest debating organization in the world. UO seniors Liz Fetherston and Megan Gaffney argued against their international opponents, Charlie Morris from the University of Sheffield and Neshay Aqueel from the University of Kent. Eugene is the first stop of a multi-city tour across the U.S. for the British team.
The topic of the night’s debate was whether or not the United States should ban drones, a controversial topic that has recently been in the political spotlight because of the technology’s prevalence in President Obama’s foreign policy, which has caused some friction in America’s foreign relations.
Drones are aircrafts without a pilot inside. They function either autonomously or through the control of a person in a remote location. The UAV can capture images of activity of the targeted location and are able to strike suspected militants.
Aqueel, a debater for the British team, is originally from Pakistan, a country that has been heavily afflicted by U.S. drone use since 2004. The U.K. educated debater hears traveling accounts of people impacted by the drone hits back home which has placed her in a unique position for this debate.
“If you’ve been debating for quite some time you find yourself defending certain things you wouldn’t want to defend, that doesn’t really reflect what you believe in,” Aqueel said.
Fetherston, a biology and spanish major, and her partner Gaffney, a philosophy major, argued against the use of drones by the United States government. The team asserted that the remote-controlled devices are an unnecessarily violent violation of international law that has only created anti-American sentiment across the world.
“Often it’s easy for us to ignore the impact of drones,” Morris said. “It’s purely a conflict that is done with machines, so I think that we forget the impact of it.”
The opposition team, however, emphasized the fallibility of human beings. They argued that soldiers, conflicted over killing, are unable to make fast and accurate decisions in highly stressful environments.
“What do Facebook, alcohol and Anthony Weiner have in common?” asked Morris in his opening argument. “They show that people make bad decisions.”
Though there was no clear winner from this “friendly” debate, the new director of Forensics, Trond Jacobsen, graciously awarded the visiting team with the victory.
“Hopefully it incited some form of political curiosity that causes them to research what they are passionate about and form their own opinions,” Fetherston said.
Fetherston and Gaffney intensively prepared for the debate by reading articles from major news outlets to gain insight on multiple perspectives of the topic. The debate partners read three to four hours of news each day to keep up with all current events that may be presented as a topic in future tournaments.
“Even though we are experienced debaters, public speaking is always a little bit nerve-wracking,” Gaffney said.