The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
shmackies
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Resolved: Wikileaks has threatened U.S. National Security

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,241 times Debate No: 15115
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: wikileaks has threatened U.S. national security

Argumentation Round 2.

: )

shmackies

Con

I enthusiastically accept your challenge! May the best Jedi win! (or sith i guess)
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

Contention 1: International Cooperation and Cohesion

1. Leaks undermine critical information exchange

A) Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Congressional Documents and Publications, December 16, 2010, p . online writes:

For one thing, leaks significantly impact our ability to engage in exchanges of information with allies and adversaries alike. Even routine diplomatic discourse becomes impossible if both foreign and American officials labor in fear that their confidential remarks are to going to end up on the front page of the New York Times via an outfit like WikiLeaks. More dangerous is the impact on intelligence sharing. In any particular instance in which information gathered by an ally is particularly sensitive, foreign intelligence officials can be quite reluctant to share it with our government if it will result in a headline that might compromise their own sources and methods, and possibly lead to the deaths of informants and agents.

B) Grand Rapids Press, December 5, 2010, reports:

There are things said in private, and there are things said in public. In the sensitive world of diplomacy -- where closed-door candor is just as important as carefully calibrated press releases -- the two should remain separate. The recent massive document dump from WikiLeaks reveals privileged and sometimes secret cables from U.S. diplomats around the world. The revelations jeopardize U.S. relations with other countries -- including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- put lives in danger and expose serious deficits in the Defense Department's ability to keep secrets. All of that is troubling, especially in a time of war.

2. Islamic terrorism is a transnational movement, and thus requires international cooperation

A) Pino Arlacchi, UN Chronicles, writes:

Mankind is facing its first great challenge of the twenty-first century, which has been labelled in media headlines as "the war against terrorism". But this is going to be entirely a new kind of war, because we face a new kind of enemy: this time it is not a single entity, not even a single State, but a network that functions in many countries and affects all countries, using advantages of globalization and modern technology. Over the last decade, gradually losing the sponsorship of States, international terrorism has developed a huge and well-concealed infrastructure of support.

B) U.S. Department of State bulletin 2009 reports:

The best strategy for dealing with terrorism--be it in the United States or abroad--is for the nations of the world to cooperate in fighting against the terrorists. We must make common cause and work together to ensure that terrorists are arrested, extradited, tried, and severely punished for their crimes. Above all, nations must stand together in dealing with countries that support terrorism, where possible to convince those countries to abandon their support for terrorism and, where this is not possible, to apply sanctions or other appropriate measures as incentives to change their behavior and to reduce their capacity to support terrorist acts… Improving international cooperation--not just between the United States and its traditional allies but also with other nations--must be one of the primary elements in any effective strategy for containing and deterring terrorist attacks.

3. Al Qaeda is trying to purchase nuclear materials in order to kill a lot of people

A) Peter D. Zimmerman, professor of science and security in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, Jeffrey G. Lewis, executive director of the Managing the Atom Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government, NATIONAL POST, December 20, 2006, p. A26 writes:

Osama bin Laden's long-standing interest in developing nuclear weapons is deeply troubling, and the attempt to purchase uranium from the Sudanese was far from an isolated incident. Al-Qaeda operatives have repeatedly tried to acquire nuclear materials over the years. In August, 2001, a month before the September 11 attacks, bin Laden received two former Pakistani nuclear officials, asking them to help recruit other Pakistani scientists with expertise in building nuclear weapons. After the military effort to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, U.S. forces found extensive documents, including crude bomb designs, at an al-Qaeda safe house in Kabul. In 2003, bin Laden sought a fatwa from an extremist Saudi cleric permitting the use of weapons of mass destruction, calling their acquisition a "religious duty." As recently as September, al-Qaeda put out a call urging nuclear scientists to join its war against the West. Bin Laden's attempt to purchase highly enriched uranium in the past belies the conventional wisdom that terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead. Clearly, some terrorists do want a lot of people dead.
shmackies

Con

1. Assange has stated in many interviews that he does not oppose governments concealing certain things for practical necessity, but rather the abuse of this practice, which has no check. Wikileaks provides a way for sources to anonymously leak information, if Wikileaks deems it necessary. Daniel Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers, which exposed that President Johnson had systematically lied to and mislead the public and Congress. He stated that if he had leaked the papers today, "I would be called not only a traitor—which I was then, which was false and slanderous—but I would be called a terrorist... Assange and Bradley Manning are no more terrorists than I am."

Wikileaks does not undermine critical information exchange. It provides a check on governmental abuses of their monopoly on government secrets. Assange also stated in the interview that public figures need not be afraid of secrets being exposed, unless they are abusing their right to have secrets. Diplomats can still have private cables unless they are abusive.

In the same way that restrictions and protocols are put on police for investigations to keep their power in check, governments need a check on their power of secrecy as well. A policeman might see jumping through the hoops of legal procedure irritating, but it is necessary to combat abuse.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziļæ½re stated that Wikileaks is "annoying, but not a threat".

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself has said that the release of the cables, while embarrassing, does not threaten US national security. He also said that Wikileaks did not threaten any sensitive information regarding the war on terror or diplomatic relations.

Wikilieaks is arguably a media organization, like the New York Times or the Guardian. Wikileaks did not "steal" this information – it was provided to it from another individual or set of individuals. Saying Wikileaks is a threat to national security is like saying that the New York Times is a threat to national security if it publishes leaked information provided to it.

2 and 3
Therefore points 2 and 3 are irrelevant, as multiple governments have stated that it is not threatening any critical information or international cohesion. It only threatens abuse of government powers, which keeps power in check and increases national security, by preventing government officials from lying to the public.

http://www.defense.gov...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.spiegel.de...
http://www.democracynow.org...
http://www.planetdebate.com...
some arguments put in exact words of sources.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

NC, AC, Extensions

1. Assange = good guy

--> My opponent assumes that Assange has best interests at heart. Since this is unverifiable, we cannot accept the person as a warrant himself when his corporation is the center of multiple breaches of security and is being indicted. If the Assange is the guardsman of rights, who checks the guardsman?

--> This point has no relevant link to the resolution. The resolution is asking if by wikileaks actions national security has been compromised. It doesnt matter if my opponent views assange as good or bad. The two are not mutually exclusive. Wikileaks could do good stuff, whilat the same time causing harm to national security.

--> (Turn) Wikileaks posted clearly unnecessary information about sites, some not even dealing with the military but communication centers and health centers that could be targeted by terrorists. This directly affects the war on terror due to the fact that vital strategic centers are now at risk.

Right Vision News, December 8, 2010, p. online

A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation. The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing.In addition to obvious pieces of strategic infrastructure like communications hubs, gas pipelines and so on, it contains, amongst other things, a cobalt mine in Congo, an anti-snake venom factory in Australia and an insulin plant in Denmark.The US missions were asked to list all installations whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security or national security of the United States. In Britain, for example, the list ranges from Cornwall to Scotland, including key satellite communications sites and the places where trans-Atlantic cables make landfall.

Daily Mirror 2010:

A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programmes with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines.

2. Wikileaks doesnt undermine critical information exchange

--> None of his last responses had to do with information exchange. It was just a restatement that wikileaks is a check

--> EXTEND the Schoenfield analysis: countries will be less likely to reach the U.S. in cooperation due to their own interests might be at stake.

--> EXTEND the Grand Rapid Press evidence: this provides empirics to this analysis. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan along with other nations are now apprehensive about sharing intelligence on terrorist activities. Pakisan is a crucial ally because they give us intel about terrorists in the FATA region. But due to wikileaks has remained silent on the issue.

--> He again argues that diplomats would still have private cabels. If this were true, why would they release a cabal involving U.S. distaste with German Chancellor Merckle, or about a location of a Pakistani nuclear facility? He puts all his faith into an organization with its own agenda. At least on my side, I am protecting against threats against national security, whereas he is not.

German Minister

--> Ok...so the German Minister says it isnt a threat? Impact?

Robert Gates

--> The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the State Department all differ on the issue. The State Department links better to the AC argument because the State Department deals specifically with diplomacy and cable exchange. The DoD does not. Argument lacks any link.

Wikileaks = news agencies

--> Other news agencies would be indicted for using stolen information

--> No impact. Who cares? If AC proves link to harm, you still vote pro

2. Points 2 and 3 irrelevant

--> Cross-apply Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Points 2 and 3 deal specifically with the war on terror.

--> Your check on government analysis has no warrant to it, plus you provide no brink evidence to the harm

--> EXTEND Arlacchi evidence and the the State Department Evidence

--> Extend the Zimmerman Evidence: Impact - as long s the AC is winning a minimal link to the impact, you still vote AC since the NC has provided no concrete material, empirics or analysis, besides simple assertions to warrant his point. Thus, any link that the AC wins to terror wins the round

*What I explicitly extended, he dropped. Dont give him the ability to respond to it, since it skews the AC strategy. But at this point, NC is winning no offense anywhere in the round*
shmackies

Con

1. I never said that Assange is a "good guy". You're entire criticism of my argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. I was emphasizing the stated goals of Wikileaks. Any harm done to national security was done by the person abusing their governmental powers.

Before releasing the documents, Wikileaks contacted the US government and asked them if any of the documents contained sensitive information that it didn't want disclosed and the US government did not respond.

I clearly addressed information exchange when I talked about cables.

The Schoenfield analysis fails because multiple previously sited government officials said that there was no danger to international cohesion, national security, or information exchange.

The German Minister of the Interior said that Wikileaks does not threaten national security or its ties with the U.S. Cables should be careful to not abuse their power of secrecy, even if they have subjective views.

A threat to national security implies a "direct and immanent harm", which all government figures that represent these branches of government and political analysts that I have mentioned have said that Wikileaks poses no threat to national security.

I also cited that Wikileaks does not use "stolen" information. Stolen implies that there was ownership, and if this information is being deliberately withheld illegally using government powers, then there is no "stolen" information. Information is leaked by sources that have access to the information and deem it in need of being in public knowledge. Wikileaks releases information based on what it deems necessary for their agenda, aka abuse of government secrecy.

As I said before, the Secretary of Defense is the advisor on threats to national security, and although he does not have the final authority, he is the figurehead for government security. He says that Wikileaks is no threat to international cohesion, communication, or national security.

All of your extensions are irrelevant. All assume that Wikileaks is threatening governments' communication and national security. You are using topic to support why your opinion on it is correct. You fail to address many points that I laid out.

There is no check on abuse of government secrets. Individuals with information like Daniel Ellsberg are personally threatened and discouraged to leak information of deliberate government abuse. You also assume that without abuse of government secrecy, no progress can be made to combat terrorism. Since I already refuted your "deterrence of international communication and cooperation" argument, there is therefore nothing stopping governments from working together legally with their powers of secrecy to combat global terrorism. Wikileaks, as claimed by the officials of the U.S., German, and Russia, poses no threat to national security and in no way assists terrorists. By promoting honest and legal tactics to combat terrorism, the war on terror is not skewed by deliberate misleading of the public (like with President Johnson).

Your weak evidence, unwillingness to recognize my evidence, and poor terrorism analysis is why people must vote for Con.

All evidence previously cited
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

1. Assange - I misrepresent his argument

--> lol, I "Assang = good" wasnt supposed to be a direct quote, just a tagline

--> (EXTEND) He drops my analysis that what wikileaks criticizes about the government, and what he says is good about wikileaks, wikileaks is also to blame. There is no check on wikileaks besides what Assange deem is necessary.

--> His argument about harm to national security was done by the person abusing their power is falacious cause he is assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. Pvt. Manning i being held accountable for providing the information. But moreover, his argument still has no link because he has not responded to the fact that BECAUSE of the leaks we have harmed information exchange (which I will elaborate on futher down)

Wikileaks contacted the U.S.

--> False.

Rueters: The Pentagon said on Tuesday it had not been contacted by WikiLeaks, despite claims that the whistle-blowing website sought its help reviewing thousands of classified Afghan war documents ahead of their release.U.S. officials have appealed to WikiLeaks not to post any additional documents and accused the group of endangering lives of Afghan contacts named in its initial release of tens of thousands of classified U.S. military reports last month. A WikiLeaks spokesman said on Tuesday he wanted the Defense Department's help reviewing 15,000 additional U.S. documents ahead of their potential release, according to The Daily Beast news website. Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said WikiLeaks had not contacted the Defense Department.

^This was a new argument in his last speech, dont let him use it in his last because I only had one round to respond to it, where he has 2.^

--> (EXTEND) Extend the turn I made in my last speech,it went unresponded to. And dont let him respond to it, since I have no recourse.

Wikileaks posted clearly unnecessary information about sites, some not even dealing with the military but communication centers and health centers that could be targeted by terrorists. This directly affects the war on terror due to the fact that vital strategic centers are now at risk.

Right Vision News, December 8, 2010, p. online

"A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security..."

Daily Mirror 2010:

A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programmes with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines.

^These arguments give me clear offense in the round. Even if you dont buy my diplomacy argument, you would still vote here because it is a clear threat to our security, which he dropped^

2. Information Exchange

He says his cited authorities negate my Schoenfield Evidence

--> His German Minister authority has no impact, as I pointed out in my last speech, since I'm not debating if it undermined negotiations with Germany

--> His Secretary of Defense authority has already been explained in my last speech. Which he also dropped (dont let him respond to it). I said the DoD does not deal with negotiations and cables. The State Department does. Thus extend my analysis in the last speech that the State Department has come out and said it has hurt information exchange. He says hes an advisor but tis has no impact. Prefer my evidence: logically based and authority based.

--> (EXTEND) Extend the Grand Rapid Press Evidence. He completely mishandles it, it is the crucial piece of evidence from my point 1. Why is it the critical piece of evidence? Because it specifically mentions that certain leaks has hampered our intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

--> (EXTEND) Extend the analysis from the last speech that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our two crucial allies in the war on terror. Remember I said in the last speech if i win a minimal link to exacerbation or prevention to fight terrorism, I should win the round. Well, since the GRP Evidence was dropped, I win the minimal link. Moreover, he dropped my analysis of Pakistan and Al Qaeda being in the FATA region.

3. Definition of threat

--> The first round is used for contextualization, not the middle of the debate. He failed to bring up a definition in the debate in the first round, it is null and void. But, the Center for Security Studies at the University of Michigan write, a threat in terms of security is: "possibility that vulnerability may be exploited to cause harm to a system." This definition is contextually preferable because we are discussing specifically national security, and is directly linked to the AC arguments because wikileaks has exposed information which may be exploited to cause us harm due to: (1) noncooperation and (2) the turn, explosed facilities.

4. Wikileaks didnt steal

--> Sure wikileaks didnt go into the system themselves, but the impact is two-fold: first, this argument has no offense in the round since it isnt saying that this information has not threatened national security, and two the harms that wikileaks caused didnt have to be intentional to be threatening.

5. Points 2 and 3

--> He didnt even mention them in the last speech.

--> (EXTEND) Extend the Arlacchi and State Department Evidence

--> (EXTEND) Extend the Zimmerman evidence.

--> But Cross-apply the extended evidence from GRP, it links directly into it. My opponent makes a nebulous claim at the bottom of the speech that we can work in open with our allies. That might be true with Franc or Britian, but not with our critical allies in the Middle East.

==List of Extensions (what he dropped)== (Dont let him respond to these, unfair to me, no recourse)

1. No check on wikileaks
2. (Turn) Exposed facilities
3. State Department = wikileaks has undermined intelligence sharing
3. Grand Rapid Evidence - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
4. Arlachi Evidence
5. State Department Evidence
6. Zimmerman Evidence

==Offense/Vote Pro==

1. I win risk of harm to national security via the GRP Evidence, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan now wont cooperate on intelligence sharing. => Arrlacchi and State Dpt Evidence states intelligence cooperation KEY to fighting terror. => Zimmerman evidence states nuclear attack on U.S. if U.S. falters in fight against terror.

Thus, I outweigh 1) Magnitude, more people will die in the Con world due to terrorism. 2) Probability, this is likely if our middle eastern allies dont share intelligence. 3) Timeframe, terrorism more likely now than extreme governmental abuse. 4) Reversibility, right violations of those killed in terror attacks cant be given their rights back, but infringement of knowledge can be compensated for

2. (Turn) The dropped turn I made that wikileaks has exposed crucial facilities => decreased national security. He didnt even touch it in the last speech. This gives me clear offense.

3. No reason to vote Con, no offense. All his arguments about governmental abuse have no link to the resolution, and doesnt show how wikileaks hasnt threatened. His authority evidence was from authorities who dont deal with intelligence sharing or diplomacy.

Great Debate, buddy!! :D
shmackies

Con

1. He took an entire paragraph to misrepresent my argument. I was stating that Wikileaks provides a system of checks and balances, like my previous analogy of police procedure that went unmentioned. I was only stating that the stated goals of Wikileaks are to expose government abuses of powers that go unchecked, not a war on privacy. Anything other than the pursuit of this goal would have drawn him into valid criticism from the people I have mentioned earlier. So Wikileaks is not "to blame" for what "it is good for".

-"Because of the leaks we have harmed information exchange" He clearly fails to recognize or refute my evidence and analysis. Clearly, representatives of governments that represent this issue have spoken that although release of information is embarrassing to diplomats who were abusing their power of secrecy, there is no harm to information exchange.

-Wikileaks did contact the United States government. To extend your argument, the Pentagon not only received contact from Wikileaks, but refused to assist in redacting names that were considered important to national security.

-I already stated that any turn or extension is invalid because it becomes irrelevant. This would not necessarily clear and imminent danger and is no threat to national security. I won't take it any further or bring any new evidence since he doesn't have a chance to respond.

-I did respond to it. The evidence is not just an argument from authority. The DoD is inherently biased since files they illegally withheld were exposed by Wikileaks. The Secretary of Defence, who oversees national defense and advises the president on the information, has claimed for the government that they say Wikileaks is a threat. His analysis is irrelevant and he claims that I never responded to these things and therefore can't respond now, even though his analysis never brought into question my original analysis, so I only clarify in regard to hismisinterpretation.

-There being no clear threat to international relations, all of his points about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are irrelevant, as mentioned before. No analysis is needed if he is analyzing a point that doesn't need to be analyzed. Therefore, his analysis here fails. No significant impact on war on terror, and there are many possible alternatives. Fighting as an international community and Wikileaks are not mutually exclusive, and promotes more national security, as I explained before. He completely failed to respond, which I would say is my strongest point and is why Con should win.

-Defining this is not even needed. I already refuted the noncooperation and exposed facilities.
-He made it a point earlier to try to appeal to emotion and say Wikileaks was stealing. I already counteracted this with saying that this "stealing" isn't necessarily bad. Since that was his main point, this is now refuted.

-The main reason my opponent's argument fails is that he fails to deconstruct my evidence and framework, and uses irrelevant analysis to "prove" his point. All analysis that he says I didn't address follows from my points when I said they are made irrelevant. So, I could respond to them further, even though I feel it is necessary. If Wikileaks poses no threat to national security, his analyses about cooperation and communication are all made irrelevant.

--All of his impacts are actually in my favor--

-Magnitude also favors my argument. Abuse of government power promotes corruption, which as cited before with the Pentagon Papers, hinders international cooperation and facilitates deliberate misleading of Congress and citizens.

-Probability is irrelevant as well. Don't use analysis of things already refuted. Middle Eastern countries are NOT discouraged by Wikileaks, and are actually encouraged. Wikileaks provides an anonymous source for citizens and officials to hand over evidence without being attacked. This has been done many times by anonymous citizens.

-Timeframe is unknowable. Collateral damage caused by some falsified event in the Middle East caused by government abuse could be worse in magnitude than a terrorist attack. Also, Wikileaks does not promote terrorist attacks as before, so this point is turned to be in my favor.

-Reversibility- Deliberate misleading of Congress and therefore governmental action is irreversible, so there is no reversibility.

-As stated before, his turn "that gives him a clear offense" didn't respond to my original points that make it irrelevant, so disregard his argument.

-There is offense in Con. There is a link to the resolution, that I have stated every time. Resolution is irrelevant to Wikileaks' existence, and international combatting of terrorism can still exist. My evidence is from people that represent the institutions that he says are being endangered. All impacts are irrelevant.

-No reason to vote Pro. All arguments are extentions of points that have been refuted. Resolution is equally possible with Wikileaks. By combating government abuse, Wikileaks is promoting governmental honesty and cohesion.
Great points, good debate :D
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
So con has one main argument; if diplomats dont want their info leaked, they shouldnt say and do abusive things. While this works to an extent, Cirrk proves that Wikileaks has posted info that is not related to abusive diplomatic actions. Mainly, the location of key military and Health centers, which give terrorists a clean list of areas to attack. Con had no response to this.

Furthermore, con gives very little, if any, warrant behind his claim that it doesn't undermine information exchange. He says it is only a check on abuses, but never substantiates why thats ALL that it is. Ultimately, Cirrk's claim that Wikileaks undermines exchange met very little clash as well.

Cirrk makes a strong point about Saudi and Pakistani cooperation, which is key, is being undermined to the leaks. The Grand Rapids evidence behind this was dropped, so Pro gains access to terrorism impacts.

In the end, Cirrk attacked almost everything while shmakies dropped several arguments and evidence.
Posted by debateZurZdonkeyZoff 6 years ago
debateZurZdonkeyZoff
wikileaks has not threatened us security because its leaking info out the people that threatened us security are the people who let the info be leaked wiki leaks are the messenger dont shoot the messenger
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I've added this to my faves; I'll have to vote on this later though
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Lots of drops by Con. Good points by Pro. Pro's evidence was excellently wielded.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Con drops arguments, however pro didn't uphold BoP, con provides sources. Pro has cards, but no stats or evidence, just qoutes. Argumentation goes to pro.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say before this debate, I firmly believed the Con stance. But now after the conclusion, I honestly no longer have a clear opinion :|Fantastic arguments from both sides! I loved how con didn't just quote evidence from random sources, but actually had analysis on them. The Con however didn't have as much analysis on their evidence. for that I am giving the Pro the sources point. all in all a great debate guys :D
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really have any decent response to Pro's arguments that it hurts our foriegn relations. Con tried to say that they have nothing to fear unless they are abusing their security, however, the fact remains that diplomats are less likely to work with us out of a real fear based on something that has already happened.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CiRrKshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have won this with proper sourcing of all assertions.