I was recently on pro con.org reading about drone strikes. I found both sides of the argument interesting but tended to be more ion the pro side of that argument. It seemed like for every con the was a logical pro. Although there were some clear contradictions that were literal disputes over facts. For instance there came a point where on the pro side  it was mentioned the drone strikes were perfectly legal, but on the con side it was said that those strikes were illegal. Another discrepancy in the argument was about PTSD. The pro side claimed that drone pilots were at less risk for potential mental health effects like PTSD but the con side claimed the drone pilots were at more risk for mental health issues. Luckily though apart from that the topics were more debatable. Many of the con arguments are universal for combat in general. For instance one of the arguments was drone strikes create more terrorists than they get rid of. I found that one interesting because to me at least it seemed like that argument was saying that because the attack was coming from the sky it was more likely to inspire others to join up with the terrorist cause when I have a suspicion that  a ground attack would probably bring about similar numbers to that of a drone attack because after all an attack is an attack if it comes from the sky or ground. I guess what I’m trying to say is if someone is going to try and say drone attacks are ineffective by throwing numbers around I would like to see the numbers for other attacks as well not just drone strikes.