The United State's Use of Drone Warfare does more Harm than Good

Thank you for posting so punctually. Counter Refutations I will give the point about gathering information to my opponent. It is not very weighty and there is no way of refuting this. My opponent says that I never clarified that future drones are not included in this debate, but it really goes without saying. If the resolution is "The United States Use of Drone Warfare does more Harm than Good", why would you think that possible drones in the future would be relevant if the United States hasn't used them yet. My opponent says that thousands is out of proportion, but this is false. He says between 2004 and 2007 there were 300 civilian deaths, but that is just in those three years. Most of the deaths occurred from 2008-2010 because of Obama's pro-drone policies. Also, he says that 1500 terrorists were killed, but not all of these were terrorists. 60 were terrorists, the other 1400 were militants and soldiers, and the remaining thousands were innocent civilians. My opponent dismisses my point on how drone warfare is like a video game because it does not discuss effectiveness, but that is a weightless refutation. The point is on ethics, so a refutation about how I don't address effectiveness is irrelevant. I discuss effectiveness in other points. Have you ever seen a drone controller? It has a joystick on it. Is that what war is now? A point and shoot game where you kill dozens of people with a click? My opponent then mentions how bombers and missiles also dehumanize war. This is true. I think that bombers and missiles completely dehumanize war. That doesn't change the fact that we are debating drones. My opponent says that drones are no different than previous military inventions in terms of military camaraderie and moral, however this is false. There is a difference between playing a video game and being out in the real battlefield with your buddies. My opponent then defends his quote on Pakistan's use, but again, it is irrelevant because we are debating America. Disregard this point. Conclusion Let's weigh this debate, going point by point. Pro's Points 1. Drones provide information. I give this point to my opponent. It is not of substantial weight. 2. Drones reduce civilian casualties. How can drones reduce civilian casualties when it is adding on to normal warfare. We are just pouring on more civilian casualties to the already enormous amount of deaths. My opponent says that numbers are going down, but still, the numbers are substantial. There is still too low of a success rate. My opponent also brings a point about other countries, which, as I have pointed out, are irrelevant to this limited debate. 3. Reduces soldier casualties As I pointed out, removing soldiers from danger dehumanizes war and war ethics. Also, thousands of innocent civilians are being killed by soldiers. Are we saying that our men are worth more than any other innocent people in the world? Con's Points 1. Drone warfare terrorizes innocent civilians My opponent refuted this by saying that the numbers are going down, but these are still big numbers. My opponent points out that there were only a few hundred deaths between 2004 and 2007, but this is being selective. Many thousands of deaths were suffered in the years preceding and afterwards. He also says that 1,500 terrorists were killed, but this number includes militants and soldiers. Only 60 were terrorists. 2. Drone warfare is unethical. a. Drones are like a video game. My opponent refuted this by saying that that this doesn't talk about efficiency. This is a silly refutation. He obviously couldn't think of something real to say to that.b. It poses no risk to the aggressor. My opponent said that the same could be said for bombs and missiles. I whole heartedly agree and think that all three methods are in violation of war methods. Try googling "The Hague Convention of 1907". It technically bans nuclear weapons and intrinsically evil weapons. We are debating drones though.c. It lowers morale and detracts from war spirit. My opponent said that this is due to technology changing, however, even now in the battlefields soldiers get a chance to interact, bond, and form friendships.3. Drones are inefficient.My opponent did not refute this point.4. Drones are easily hacked.My opponent did not refute this point. A few concluding sentences, and then a proper weigh and flow for this debate. Remember the two important points my opponent has failed to refute. Also, his refutations seem to be reiterations of his own points if anything. Drones do not eliminate ware or reduce civilian deaths. Regular warfare hasn't stopped because of drone warfare. All drone warfare does is add on to the unnecessary amount of carnage. More carnage. That is what my opponent is debating for. My opponent might try to say that any percentage of efficiency is worth it, but not at the costs of thousands of innocent non-combatants. They have just as much right to life as we do. Vote con.Now, a proper flow.Drones provide informationDrones reduce civilian casualties-> They actually add on to normal deaths.Improves soldier safety->Innocent non-combatants have just as much a right to life as us, especially since they are not. Also this dehumanizes war ethics.Drones terrorize and murder innocent citizens->The numbers are going down->These are still big numbers. More unnecessary carnage.Drones are too similar too video games->This point doesn't discuss efficiency, so it is irrelevant-> That's because the point isn't about efficiency. I never limited this debate to efficiency.It poses no risk to the aggressor->The same could be said for bombers and missiles.->Exactly. Bombers and missiles go against war ethics completely.Lowers military companionship->This changes as technology changes->Our wars still fought on grounds are fought together in teams. There is still military companionship, and it shouldn't go away. It increases morale and sense of belonging.Drones are inefficientDrones are easily hackableNow, looking at the points we have standing...Drones are flying cameras, drones dehumanize war so much that the aggressor is in no risk and can just point and shoot and dozens of people like a video game, civilian deaths have been going down in the last two yearsvs.Drones terrorize innocent citizens (think about who is the terrorist here), drones are too similar to video games, drones pose no risk to the aggressor, drones lower military companionship, drones are inefficient, drones are easily hackable.Thanks for reading, and 1historygenius thanks for debating me. I strongly encourage you to vote, regardless of which side you choose.