Drone strikes just come out of nowhere and with no warning when you are having a nap or sitting down to a cup of tea or attending your cousins wedding because someone with a dossier on the other side of the world decided you had to be killed without any of the above recourses to argue your case.
Then you also have the process of appeals which slowly torture you with uncertainty until you are finally executed.
In the end, somebody die of course.
Pretty sure no one has fully recovered from a Hellfire missile through their kitchen or car window when someone checks the dossier later and goes "Oops, that was the target's brother, who happened to have his wife and kids with him at the time..."
This was the experience of people threatened by the Nazi V-weapons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-weapons ), and it is still the fear of people threatened with aerial bombardment.
You are implying that one way of dying is better than the other but what do you know about the stress of living in Syria or Afghanistan? Have you ever taken a life?
If you're using that kind of rhetoric itself, why are you pointing it out as if it's a flaw in someone else's reasoning?
(My opinion on the subject is that neither the death penalty nor drone strikes should continue.)
I think it is much harder for the person I was responding to to prove that somehow being on Death Row is more stressful than living in a war zone.