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

My RefutationsDrones and Information"My opponent provides no examples or sources of drone warfare actually help in gathering information. I want examples of times drones have actually helped in combat and battle preparation, and how specifically drones were built for doing this job."What my opponent said here is just plain wrong. My first source clearly gives such information by discussing the Desert Hawk. It gives specific information of how the Desert Hawk works and how far they can see. It clearly says that they have been used by us and our allies many times to detect IEDs. [1] My second source backs it up with this: "Since drone operators can view a target for hours or days in advance of a strike, they can identify terrorists more accurately than ground troops or conventional pilots. They are able to time a strike when innocents are not nearby and can even divert a missile after firing if, say, a child wanders into range." [2]In fact, drone pilots can ask for advice from a commander on the situtation. The commander can view the evidence and decide. [2]By contrast, my opponent cites a couple news stories for his first argument, but these are just isolated cases because like I said, civilian casualties have been reported to be going down."My opponent also cites a quote about what drones can do in the future, however please discard this becuase it is completely irrelevant. The debate pertains to the United State's Current use of drone warfare, not some hypothetical in the future drone."My opponent never clarified in the first round if discussing the work on future drones is not allowed. I included it because its part of the drones programs the United States has set up. In fact these drones, underwater gliders, have already been tested to work and are being produced, so it is current. [1]Civilian Deaths"My opponent said that civilian deaths are going down, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still too many civilian deaths. The rate at which terrorists are caught is so low that the non combatant lives lost are so much more than the terrorists that die. According to Bill Moyers, 60 terrorists have died since 2002 in drone fights. Those are 60 terrorists that might not have even been threats. Compare this to the thousands of innocent non combatants terrorized by drones everyday."Thousands is blowing it out of proportion. Between 2004 and 2007, between 148 and 309 civilians died. This is very small compared to 1,500 terrorists getting killed by drone strikes. [3] In fact, by now: "By the count of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, which has done perhaps the most detailed and skeptical study of the strikes, the C.I.A. operators are improving their performance. 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." [4]My opponent then discussed the ethics of drone warfare. The first is that is resembles too much like a video game, but that is irrelevant as that does not discuss how effective they are. Collateral damage is nothing major. Then my opponent says that the drone poses no risk to the agressor, but its supposed to attack the enemy, not the person using it. The same could be said for bombers and missiles. The third is that it destroys the military identity and lowers morale, but people said that about previous military inventions. Is the drone no different? We don't dress in bright colored uniforms and march towards each other in long lines anymore. This is not the 1700s, war progresses. We must move forward like other countries or move backward."My opponent cites a quote about the Pakistani Army on foot and Israel's missile strikes, however, this is irrelevant because the debate is limited to America."I used Pakistan for the purpose of comparision when putting a traditional army vs. a drone army, so all I was doing was comparing drones to conventinal forces. The drones have been proven to be better.ConclusionMy arguments are still standing and I have properly refuted Pro's arguments. Drones are able to obtain real-time information and save lives.Sources 1. Quintana, Elizabeth. "The Ethics and Legal Implications of Military Unmanned Vehicles." Royal United Services Institute, n.d. Web2. Shane, Scott. "NEWS ANALYSIS; The Moral Case For Drones." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 July 2012. Web.3. Bergen, Peter. "Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes." CNN. Cable News Network, 14 July 2012. Web.4. "Joining the Drones Club." The Economist, 3 Sept. 2011. Web.