Is the U.S. doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS? (Pro=Yes, Con=No)

The opponent conceeds all definitions of the round. In this debate I will tell you why PROs evidence is insubstantial and will attack her primary claims. Judges please remember that I must simply negate her arguments and nothing more. Let's begin: Airstrikes increase ISIL This is PROs argument 1.) Drones miss their targets killing civilians 2.) The civilians get mad and seek revenge 3.) ISIL is the only method of attaining that revenge 4.) They join ISIL and fight the US meaning we increase the problem which is more harm than good Here are my arguments in response a.) Many people think that drones cause excessive casualties however this simply isn’t true. Drone strikes are actually very effective and reduce causalities….. “Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon.” [1] The fact is that drone strikes do Not inflict more casualties and are one of our best weapons against terrorists. While other means of attack have to be more risky drones are better because “You can fly them low without fear of losing your life. You can study your target carefully instead of reacting in the heat of the moment. You can watch and guide the missiles all the way down.” Because of this evidence please note that Pro’s first premis is insignificant and doesn’t have as big an impact as she would have you think. b.) While civilians do get mad, seeking revenge is impossible because they don’t have the means to attack the US, even if they did attack, ISIL has no way to fight in the air so they cant kill americans, furthermore this premise can only be true for other Sunni muslims, meaning every other type of Islam wouldn’t join ISIS. c.) Also the civilians wouldn’t get mad at the US because this is not a war waged solely by the US or its drones, this is a war by over 30 different nations meaning the drone strikes cant be blamed on the US specifically, its like a firing squad, you don’t know who is shooting. d.) The people of the middle east will be more gratefull that their heads are not on an ISIL plate than a few casualties by drones. To back this point up, take a look at the evidence from USA Today which states that ISIL has lost 25% of its territory [2] thus showing that US airstrikes are working and helping push ISIL back. Why would the people be mad at that? This is PROs only good argument, the others aren’t apparent being that they are simply videos. You have to state your own arguments you cant just post 17 hours of video and expect your argument to be accepted. Her next argument for instance, doesn’t even relate to the topic, or if it does she never explains how, thus the previous argument is the only standing one, and it has been refuted. Ultimately my point in this round will be that current methods are working and we are getting rid of ISIL, this prevents the expansion of ISIL in the middle east which would hurt US interests, threaten our oil markets and kill hundreds of innocent civilians. We know that attacking ISIL is the only choice the US can make, but what choice it decides is important and being that ISIL has lost over 25% of its ground, we are obviously doing something right. The only other option would be ground troops and unless that option want to be supported by PRO then I contend the Status quo is not the perfect solution but is the best solution and certainly is not doing more harm than good in terms of US interests. Cites [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...