The Instigator
Haasenfeffor
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to 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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,372 times Debate No: 14763
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Haasenfeffor

Pro

Challenge open to anyone! Debate begins in round two. Thanks!
CAPLlock

Con

Wikileaks isnt dangerous.
So next round?
Debate Round No. 1
Haasenfeffor

Pro

Transparency in government, in the bodies of politic men and women who lead democratic nations is, and always has been, an important part of how democracy functions. The general public unarguably deserves a degree of respect and information in this respect, in order to further that democratic discourse. There comes a point, however, when those who seek to publicize and actively disseminate volatile information in search of a narrow, high ideal do so at the cost of the safety and well-being of millions of people around the world and, most importantly to today's debate, in the United States. Hello, I am Tristan Haas,and I will be affirming the resolution that Wikileaks is a threat to national security. The release of uncensored, unfiltered information under the auspices of the Wikileaks organization is unforgivable; that release constitutes an undeniable threat to national security. In the interest of today's debate, we would like to define national security as the well-being of the general public and the general operations of the United States government. We would also like to define a threat to that security as some action that increases the risk of harming the well-being of the general public or the operations of the government. As the well-being of both US citizens and the US government is dependent on global security, Wikileaks is not just a threat to national security but also a threat to that global security. The release of this information is dangerous and poses a grave threat to people around the world. Our three main contentions regarding this threat are:

First, the release of classified information increases risk of severe terrorist or extremist damage to critical global infrastructure.

Second: Wikileaks's actions in posting this information implicate it as the main culprit in increasing this risk.

Third: the spread of this information has and will damage American foreign policy and bargaining positions, and has illegally released vital military information. For these reasons, and for the overarching argument that these releases have increased the threat level to our national security, I urge the readers to affirm the resolution.

First: the release of classified information increases risk of severe terrorist or extremist damage to critical global infrastructure. The releases posted by wikileaks over the past year have contained sensitive information from governments around the world; the most concerning leaks were from the United States Department of State to posts in various sensitive areas around the world. A particular cable, written on February 18, 2009, outlines hundreds of sites around the world "whose loss[es] could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States." In the words of the cable, the sites listed provide clear sites which terrorists can target to cripple global governance. The clear classifications at the top of the cable (NOFORN, which means No Foreign Nationals, SECRET, and NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION) provide the ramifications with which this cable should have been treated; these laws were broken and, as a result, the terrorist threat to the integrity of the United States government was further compromised. The sites listed in this cable include many undersea cable sites, several nuclear powerplants, mines and pharmaceutical sites, hydroelectric dams, oil pipelines, weapons and munitions factories, and natural gas lines. The list goes on and on...essentially, for a terrorist to inspire terror and fulfill his mission, all he has to do is target one of the hundreds of sites on this list; a more complex group like Al Qaeda could even target several without the world governments being able to find out and thus truly cripple the world, and certainly harm our national security.
Second: Wikileaks's actions in posting this information implicate it as the main culprit in increasing the risk to national security. In the case of posting these cables to the Internet, Wikileaks showed no restraint and total lack of journalistic discretion, and posted every piece of information without any redaction or consideration. The cables outline military strategies, describe critical infrastructure sites, and release the names of Afghan and Iraqi civilians aiding the US military, which can amount to a death sentence in these areas. Due to these reasons, Wikileaks, although not the sole perpetrator in this web of intrigue, was totally responsible for its actions; this information would not have found its way into a public forum if not for the efforts of Julian Assange and his organization. Thus, Wikileaks is at fault here, and, seeing as how we have proven that the release of this information is a threat to national security, it follows that Wikileaks is then a threat to national security.
Third: The spread of information has and will damage American foreign policy and bargaining positions, and has illegally released vital military information. We have shown to you how one cable has potentially compromised the safety of citizens around the world; what follows adds on to that one piece of evidence. In several of the cables released recently as well as in many of the Afghan and Iraq War Logs, tactics and positions used by the Allied forces in those countries were released, potentially giving terrorists a wholly unnecessary look at how our military functions. We the citizens of the United States may arguably have a right to this information, but we really don't need to know it. Foreign nationals, who can now access these cables, have absolutely no right to see this information. There are no true benefits for us to seeing in type the words of diplomats; there are only drawbacks in the form of possible terrorist action. The New York Times reported on the tense situation in Egypt in the past two years; a leak through Wikileaks revealed some of the strategies Hillary Clinton had been planning in her talks with Hosni Mubarak. With these strategies revealed, Ms. Clinton was left with her position lessened, and possibly made less headway in her diplomatic talks.
All in all, the existence of Wikileaks is a threat to not just national but global security. In the interest of continuing to keep the world's governments functioning, I urge the readers to affirm the resolution today. Thank you.
CAPLlock

Con

1. Many Middle Eastern nations are far more concerned about Iran's nuclear program than they've publicly admitted. According to one cable, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake" -- meaning, it appears, to bomb Iran's nuclear program. Leaders of Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and other Middle Eastern nations expressed similar views.

From Yahoo.

This will not affect the US and China's relationship. At less it SHOULD'NT. And I saw you said something about 'damage'. Well what happened, well, HAPPENED. Most of the damage will come from us doing what the cables say. The US public MUST be told. other-wise we be following a liar. If any could HURT us, its this
(also from yahoo.)

The United States has been working to remove highly enriched uranium from a Pakistani nuclear reactor, out of concern that it could be used to build an illicit nuclear device.
The effort, which began in 2007, continues.

Its a free country. HOW did Wikileaks get THESE cables? Hm? Because I never heard of a massive hack. We are still kicking. nothing bad happened. It been a year. NOTHING HAPPENED. So, if America messed up, I think I would what happened
Debate Round No. 2
Haasenfeffor

Pro

I'm sorry that it took so long for me to write a reply. I was trying to figure out if my opponent was attempting to make a mockery of the proceedings. My opponent has yet to offer one shred of proof to back up his contentions, which he has not even stated. Rather, all he has done is copy and paste what Wikileaks has released, according to yahoo. Shall I add a few more to that list? In the Afghan leaks, where Wikileaks deliberately released the identities of informants in the governments, ruining their usefulness to the United States and her interests, or perhaps cable releases, as I mentioned above, that gives any potential terrorists a target list??? My opponent has yet to even attempt to rebut my case, or even to build up his own. I hope that we can come back in the next round with my opponent fully collected, and ready to debate. With that in mind, I trust that the readers will remember when it comes down to voting that my opponent has yet to rebut my contentions, or build up his own, and thus affirm the resolution. Thank you.
CAPLlock

Con

You don't get it. Okay, where's your proof that Wikileaks a threat? It been a while. Nothing bad happened. Is it unlawful, yes, is it a threat to national security,no. Unless B.O does something stupid. You have no backing then predictions of what may happen.
Debate Round No. 3
Haasenfeffor

Pro

No damage? Like the revelation of informers in Afghanistan was no damage? Like other countries lack of trust in us no damage? Like the fact that Hilary Clinton has been going around to other countries apologizing for the revelations of wikileaks?? Like the target list it released, giving any terrorist a target list??? And you have yet to address my contentions. I hope you will do so in the next round.
CAPLlock

Con

Yes people are pissed. But the chance of it being a threat is not looking good. Besides being mad what are the damages?
Debate Round No. 4
Haasenfeffor

Pro

I'm sorry? How about what I just mentioned, having our informants being named, and made useless? And I don't understand what you meant by your last comment, do you really think that people being mad at us will not jebordize our relationship with other countries, therefore threatening national security? And do you really think that a site that hands out a target list doesn't endanger the united states?

Ladies and gentlemen, as this is my final speech, I will tell you why I have won this debate. My opponent has yet to offer any reasonable evidence that negates any of my contentions, nor has he been able to negate anything I have said about his own contentions. Every point that he has made I have shot down. The opposition, while fighting for his side with honor, has no choice but to concede the victory, as it is obvious that I have won this debate. Therefore, I urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you for your time.
CAPLlock

Con

I'm sorry? How about what I just mentioned, having our informants being named, and made useless?( Nothing bad has happen) And I don't understand what you meant by your last comment, do you really think that people being mad at us will not jebordize our relationship with other countries, therefore threatening national security?( They won't bomb us) And do you really think that a site that hands out a target list doesn't endanger the united states?(Not at all)
Stop using speculation.
I meant something, like, us getting bombed.
This is what he REALLY meant.
"Ladies and gentlemen, as this is my final speech, I will tell you why I have loss this debate. My opponent doesn't need to offer any evidence that 'negates' any of my contentions, because you can't prove what would happen in the future. Every point that he has made I have twisted and turned around while I used speculation . The opposition, while fighting for the truth , as it is obvious that I have loss this debate. Therefore, I urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you for your time."
Thank you for agreeing
Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
A plain ol debate being turned into a flame war.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
Debate fizzled after 1AC.

Conduct : PRO. CON was sarcastic and rude throughout the debate.
S&G : Tied. Both sides made spelling and grammatical errors.
Arguments : PRO. CON failed to refute anything.
Sources : Tied. Both PRO and CON failed to cite sources.
(Yahoo <--- like this is not a source.
http://news.yahoo.com... <---this is a source.)
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
But that just it. Wikileaks isnt a threat
Posted by King_of_Contradiction 6 years ago
King_of_Contradiction
@ CAPLlock
- Okay, you may not be aware of this at the moment, BUT the resolved clearly states that wikileaks is a "THREAT." The Pro side doesn't need any actual hard numbers of instances on all levels to justify it a threat. For example: If someone says they will punch you, that is a threat! even though you don't have a clue if he has punched anyone else before this threat.
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
You said wikileaks is dangerous right? Well I said that its not that harmful. Besides, how did a PRIVATE
get this info? If anything THAT's the most dangerous.
Posted by Haasenfeffor 6 years ago
Haasenfeffor
hey... i really can't tell, are you joking with your latest arguement? You didn't really rebutt anything at all, and you didn't state any of your own contentions? Will await response before i post my next arguement.
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
Double true.
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
Wikileaks is amazing.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
HaasenfefforCAPLlockTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
HaasenfefforCAPLlockTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
HaasenfefforCAPLlockTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never offered any contentions, dropped several arguments, and offered very short arguments to what he did respond to. Meh.
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
HaasenfefforCAPLlockTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40