One one side, they felt that unmanned aircraft (drones) are most useful and the other side prefered real medical workers and staff.
In the begining, they introducted aviation in general as extremely useful for relief. One of the members pointed out that there is a very clear trend that the worse the roads in an area, the greater the number of cases os malaria. It was estimated that at least a billion people could benefit from aviation missions.
The drone side pointed out that satelites could take photos of disasters and get information quickly to different roundations of what to send.
Yet the woman representing the "people" side questioned that robots can completely repleace humanitarian aid. She also pointed out that people want someone to talk to for their dismal situations.
It was then brought into question whether areas with political instability are welcoming to drones and whether a super expensive drone are replaced easier than pilots and doctors. The foundations paying for aircraft dont have limitless funds but putting people at risk is also a controversial idea.
I found these questions super interesting and if you are interested in aviation at all, I would definitely recommend.