Synthesis Paper (cyber security)

Synthesis Paper on the Case for Banning Killer Robot

Authors Ronald Arkin and Stephen Goose in their articles The Case for Banning Killer Robots: Point and The Case for Banning Killer Robots: Counterpoint have conflicting opinions about the use of technology, in specific robots in warfare. The Case for Banning Killer Robots: Point, by Stephen Goose, use of technology, specifically the robots in warfare is a ‘step too far.’ According to Goose, the use of robots would drive the world crazy with appetite for war, and this would only help the terrorism groups and other criminals to excel in their actions. The use of robotized machines would also promote warfare since the robots would not have a human sense to make them feel the pain of losing human soldiers. Comment by Tutor: Did these authors each contribute to each article or did one write the other? It would be helpful to clarify this sentence a bit. Comment by Tutor: Word choice/phrasing: it seems this sentence is missing a verb Comment by Tutor: This portion of the introduction is very focused on only one point. Should this really belong in the opening paragraph? Comment by Tutor: Check formatting Comment by Tutor: What is your thesis statement? How are you planning to present the various sides of this argument? These things are not currently very clear in this draft.

However, in the article The Case for Banning Killer Robots: Counterpoint, Ronald Arkin argues that the use of robots is not harmful, and it is indeed a noble venture since it helps to ensure that unarmed citizens are protected from people who are malicious and want to engage in warfare. The use of technology such as robots, according to Ronald Arkin, is good since it helps to fight of oppressing groups and fight for the rights of the oppressed. Ronald Arkin makes the point that the major role of scientists is to continually come up with ways of ensuring that there are relatively low levels of in humanity always. This argument, therefore, leads the author to a conclusion that the ban on the use of killer robots is premature, and should not be affected since it would deny the noncombatant people from enjoying their peace and security. The only precaution he offers is that robots should be used with great care. Comment by Tutor: Phrasing/missing words

In both cases, the authors make very solid arguments. In the point made by Stephen Goose, the author takes great care in ensuring that his arguments are based on sound findings. Most of the arguments that Goose makes are based on data gathered from experts in the diplomatic word as well as military experts. The article made by this author is wholesome and discusses the issue in its totality. The author takes time to offer a well-thought analysis of the different reasons why he believes that the world should not accept to incorporate robots into its warfare systems. Comment by Tutor: This is a generic statement; what about the arguments makes them solid in your opinion? Are they backed up by sound logic? Research? Try to make this transition more meaningful by adding specific information about the arguments.

Similarly, in his counterpoint, Ronald Arkin, also struggles to bring out his undisputed idea that explains why he believes that the use of robots would enhance warfare in a positive way. He labors to explain that robots will make it easier for human forces to protect the harmless citizens. He also tries to show that the use of robots will make warfare and security a bit more manageable since it will reinforce the work of the physical police. The precision and lack of emotional attachment are some of the reasons why Ronald Arkin believes going the robot way will be a major advantage to the world.

Looking at the arguments made by the two authors, there is none that looks weaker in its ground. Each of the arguments carries its own weight, and labors to clearly bring out its point. As a result, a reader cannot be able to say without a shadow of doubt, which of the two arguments is stronger, and thus better deserving than the other. Comment by Tutor: This final analysis works well for a concluding paragraph, however, you should be sure to restate the key points of your essay prior to ending on this note.

References

Arkin, R. (2015). The case for banning killer robots: counterpoint. Communications of the ACM, 58(12), 46-47.

Goose, S. (2015). The case for banning killer robots: Point. Communications of the ACM, 58(12), 43-45.