Refutation and concession example

1. What is my thesis?
Although military robots are constantly evolving, they will never be as effective as the human soldiers.

2. What is the opposite position?
Military robots will be more effective than human soldiers3. What arguments can I anticipate?
 I can anticipate that they would argue the advantages of military robots I researched. Those are life saving and environmental, functional capability.
4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) Life saving -> it saves soldiers not citizens

b) environmental, functional capability -> flexibility is more important

Although many nations have made lots of military robots, it would just waste of money and time because they will never be as effective as the human soldiers. Some would argue that military robot would save many human soldiers. To be exact, it will save many human soldiers. However, the purpose of existence of soldiers is to defend its enemies. If two each nations fought only by military robots, it would unmeaningful war. And eventually innocent people would die. Isn't it paradoxical? In a result, it just saves human soldiers not citizens. Then where is the meaning of soldiers? On the other hand, some would argue that military robots are preceding human soldiers in terms of environmental, functional capability. I also absolutely agree with it. Sometimes, robots can do things human can not. However, it is different in war. Some silly people think that victory and defeat from war would be concluded by superior weapons. Of course, we must not ignore it. However, decisive factors of outcome of war are other things such as the times, general(human), flexibility( the most important thing). And there are many various examples from history. In addition, robots will have no flexibility however they develop. Therefore, these arguments are just short-sighted way of thinking.