Snipers are cowards

Now for my rebuttals. I'll be dividing my opponent's case into major ideas in order to try to organize my responses.1. Comparison to use of IEDs. My opponent, throughout his case, references this concept many times. I'll have three major responses. - IEDs are a guerrilla tactic. This response isn't really specific, but a response to the comparison in general. IEDs are a hit-and-run tactic, meant to cause chaos and inflict a large amount of damage in a fraction of a second. If you refer back to my constructive, you will see how I said "snipers don't have long after making a shot before an enemy hones in on their position. " with an IED, detonation is wireless [1], and the user can be anywhere within a certain radius of the IED. In fact, they can even be an automatic detonation, via trip wire, pressure plate, etc. [1] Sniper fire, meanwhile, is more precise, and it is easy to locate the approximate area from which the shot was fired. Snipers usually also have more of a precise, selected target endangering the unit the sniper is tasked with protecting, or an enemy preventing infiltration. The two are completely different in nature. -Snipers are put into greater danger. As I just stated, IED detonations can be triggered remotely or automatically, meaning the user isn't easily located. Sniper fire, meanwhile is easier to trace back to a source, and once the source is found, the sniper is in extreme danger (in essence my second point. )- Snipers view their target up close and personal. Again refer to my constructive. I proved that snipers are described as having personal, even intimate contact with their targets due to the nature of the weapon. They see the horror they cause once they take the shot. Now the Pro could argue an IED user could experience the same thing through their binoculars, but I'd say an IED user is more likely to hit the button and run, whereas a sniper must defend their position. On top of that, again, IEDs can be triggered automatically, so in some cases, the IEDs aren't even being watched by a user. Snipers are more likely to watch their targets die up-close, which is an extremely "unpleasant thing. "2. Long-range weaponry. To this concept I will have two major responses. -This debate is not comparing snipers to infantry. My opponent argues that removing oneself from close-quarters combat would make an individual more cowardly than other soldiers, however I'd first like to point out that we aren't debating whether snipers are more or less cowardly than their infantry comrades, but rather whether they are or are not cowards. My opponent essentially already conceded the debate by saying "Any individual that voluntary goes to war can be described as brave. " As snipers voluntarily go to war, they can then be described as brave. Brave is an antonym of cowardly[2], so snipers are therefore not cowards, and the resolution has already been negated. -Sniper rifles do not make snipers cowards. This claim made by my opponent is essentially contrary to my entire constructive, in which I proved that just because a sniper isn't in close quarter with his target doesn't mean he is a coward. Cross-apply all three of my points. Thank you! And sorry for using "lacing" in my constructive's first point. I meant "lacking. "[1] . http://www.britannica.com...[2] . http://www.thesaurus.com...