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

My RefutationsMy ArgumentsI. Information"I will give the point about gathering information to my opponent. It is not very weighty and there is no way of refuting this."I win here. "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." Because this is part of the information gathering catergory of my arguments, this is irrelevant since my opponent already conceded in my information argument. Nevertheless, the reason I put in future drones is because the US is currently using drones. Obviously the US is building future drones for wars. My opponent had to argue against this, but failed and conceded.II. Civilian DeathsI mentioned the deaths in 2008 to 2010. These deaths have been massively declining due to better technology. Drones deaths as of now are as low as between 4% to 20%. Perhaps I should repeat this again:"The bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureau’s count, just three of the 152 people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians." [1]This article was published in 2012.III. Reduces Casualties of SoldiersMy opponent terribly refuted this argument by answering it with a question. It does not matter how worthy certain people are, what matters is that drones have been proven to save lives. This means that less soldiers are in danger. In fact, the rise of the use of drones reduces the amount of soldiers needed to fight, putting less people in harms way. Dehumanizing war is a good thing, not a bad thing. Less human lives are lost. It seems my opponent is for human death in war.My Opponent's ArgumentsI. Drone Warfare Hurts CiviliansThree civilians were killed by drones in 2012. If my opponent thinks that is a lot then 10 civilians deaths must be somewhere near infinity. [1]II. UnethicalVideo games are completely irrelevant to this debate because its on if drone warfare has been positive or negative. My opponent's argument here was that it turns war into a first-person shooter, but has not explained how that is bad. It is in fact good. Its better to have troops safer away form battlefields rather than being in the thick of it and at risk of getting killed. Next is that ir poses no risk to the agressor. Because drones can be a weapon through the air, it is relevant to compare them to bombers and missiles. These have never truly been banned the Hauge Convention was unable to be effective. Because of this, drones are as fair as any other air weapon. The idea of using no air weapons would take us back to a pre-World War 1 era. Many other countries are using drones and the United States must keep up.Finally, the use of drones builds its own moral. When the news talks about a terrorist getting killed by drones, its a victory for the US. This naturally raises moral not just in the military, but among the entire population. Because of this, drones raise moral. Soldiers have plenty of time to interact at bases. III. Inefficiency The idea that I never refuted my opponent's point on if drones are inefficient is incorrect. Only three civilians were killed in 2012. The rest were succesful targets. Drones are efficient.IV. Easily HackableThe US government has been improving the security of using drones. Security to block hacking has been increasing dramatically. The ability to hack into drones has been decreasing incredibly. [2]Sources1. Shane, Scott. "NEWS ANALYSIS; The Moral Case For Drones." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 July 2012. Web.2. Quintana, Elizabeth. "The Ethics and Legal Implications of Military Unmanned Vehicles." Royal United Services Institute, n.d. Web