The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 14871
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




My first debate, so to start here is my case for negating the resolution.

It wasn't the dagger, merely a shaft of steel, which killed Cesar, it wasn't the cobra, an instinctive animal without motives, that killed Cleopatra, and it was not the lifeless, gas-fueled fires that burned millions of Jews throughout the holocaust. It was the conspiracy against Cesar that killed him, it was the assassin with a motive that plotted to kill Cleopatra, and it was under the direction of Hitler and the Nazi party that accomplished what they did throughout World War II. In order for something to be a real threat, it cannot be simply in existence… There has to be a motive, a mission, a goal. Wikileaks is merely a tool that can be manipulated. Because Wikileaks is not a legitimate threat, I must strongly negate the resolution Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

To start off, I offer my first reason why Wikileaks is not a threat to our national security.

Think back to the McCarthy era of the 1950's. McCarthy was a politician from Wisconsin that used his political power to target the idea of communism. McCarthy used the hype from the cold war to fuel his political machine. He gained many followers, but soon the hype wore off and people realized that "The Red", or communism, was not discreetly seeding itself into American society. People only believed in this hype because of other major happenings in this time period. The same goes for Wikileaks. The media got their hands on a story that seemed to have depth to it, and blew it up to gain viewers, or followers. Think to why this mere website gives the illusion that it is harmful… That is because it is believable. Just as McCarthy used the cold war to his advantage, the media is using our on-going war against terrorism to their advantage. People believe the sudden hype that Wikileaks is bad because "terrorists can use the information against us." This is illogical thinking that jumps to conclusions because of foggy presumptions. People will believe what the media tells them, and the media is telling people that Wikileaks is a bad thing. But when we actually do our own research and think into what Wikileaks is, we can clearly see that the media is acting as a modern-day McCarthy.

Moving on to my 2nd main point

Threat, as defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. We need to think critically now, what exactly is Wikileaks? Wikileaks is a website with information on it. Does not matter what information, but it is still information. Wikileaks does not display intent to disrupt the United States. Nowhere on the website does it even state that its motive is the downfall of western civilization, or the United States. We admit that, when in the wrong hands, Wikileaks can be a threat. When in the hands of a terrorist organization, or a country that does not like us, it is a threat. But that would change the resolution. The resolution states: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security. It does not state: Wikileaks, when in the hands of North Korea, Al-Quada, or Iran, is threat to United States national security. So to say that it is a threat because our enemies can use it against us, would be the same as saying, "This pencil on my desk is a threat to my friend's security because I can take it and stab him in the neck with it." The fact of the matter is, it is not the pencil that is the threat, is I, the one with the pencil, ready to strike him. The information on these sites, however embarrassing they may be for whatever country it streams from, is not a threat, but simply an embarrassing truth that has already come to pass.

The Pro side of this debate must show a few things to prove their side. They must prove that Wikileaks lives, and intends to destroy the United States. They must prove that McCarthy and Wikileaks did not blow the story and idea out of proportion, and they must prove that Wikileaks can cause destruction without being manipulated to the use of what the user wants to use it for. It is for these simple, logical, and realistic reasons that I stand in firm negation of the Resolution.

Thank you! I hope to have a clean, organized, and respectful debate.


First I thank my opponent starting this. I actually have not formed an opinion on Wikileaks yet, so I took this hoping I would ge an idea of what to think.

I will affirm that Wikileaks is a threat to national security.

I will begin by going over my opponent's aguments then giving my own.

His first argument: Wikileaks is merely paranoia hype.

This paragraph is full of logical fallacies.

First, he gives you a mere one example of something being perceived as a threat (the Red Scare) that in the end did not cause any harm. He is arguing that in the same respect, Wikileaks is only hype that will not result in any harm.

Problem 1: He assumes that because this one instance was just hype, wikileaks is as well. In reality, there is no correlation between the two. This is like saying that, because I didnt die when not wearing a seatbelt in my first car crash, I wont die in my second either. Like Wikileaks, we have no way of knowing if this is true.

Problem 2: He is only assuming that Wikileaks will not do harm. Still being relatively new, Julian Assange will have many more years to have his creation potentially harm the United States. The threat is not over, it is still there.

His second argument: Wikileaks itself is not a threat, the people using it are.

First, I disagree with his definition of threat. According to his, something must have an intention to harm somebody to be constitued a threat. This is incorrect. For example, nuclear weapons undoubtably pose a threat to the human race. But they themselves do not have any intention to harm. Yet they are still a threat.

So we must reject his definition and look to mine. "a person or thing that is regarded as dangerous or likely to inflict pain or misery " (1)

His argument is that Wikileaks itself is not a threat, the people using it are. You can extend my nuke weapons example which shows the object itself can be a threat. Furthermore, using my opponent's logic is also like saying that the hammer about to hit me in the head isnt a threat, its the gravity pulling it down. Obviously, once again the object itself is still a threat despite being acted on by outside forces. This applies to Wikileaks as well, as it is an inherent threat to security.

On his pencil example, the pencil does not constitute a threat because the chance of it being used to kill someone is improbable. A classroom with kids and a teacher is not the ideal environment for a killing to happen. A world filled with terrorism, extremists, and a device that exploits weaknesses in their enemy nations, is a threat.

Finally, he tells me what burdens I have. On the first one, I dont have to prove Wikileaks intends to destroy the United States, I just have to prove it can, which is what constitutes a threat. His second is that I must prove Wikileaks has not been blown out of proportion. I accept that. The third is that I must prove wikileaks is harmful without being manipulated by others. This seems somewhat unfair, its like forcing me to say that car crashes threaten human life, but only in a world where nobody drives cars. Its impossible. For a fair debate it is necessary to have outside forces using Wikileaks be a factor in the debate.

So now onto my points.

1. Wikileaks has exposed the geographic weaknesses of several areas across the world.

This is confirmed by the Homeland Security (2), "WikiLeaks has released a secret list of infrastructure-related facilities and topics, from pipelines to smallpox vaccine suppliers, whose loss or attack by terrorists could “critically impact” U.S. security in the view of the State Department."

This poses a threat to all nations the paper refers to. The document itself details areas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security and/or national and homeland security of the United States".

Essentially, Wikileaks has posted critical geographic weaknesses in US security, and to the point where anyone with internet can access it. This threatens the US because now, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other extremist group who is enemies with the US can plan to attack any one of these areas with confidence.

The US Army itself even came out and said Wikileaks is threatening US security. (3)

2. Wikileaks destroys US credibility with foreign nations.

Wikileaks has also posted video and logs of human rights abuses by the US military, such as rape, unprovoked attacks, and murder of foreign civilians (4).

While the military certainly deserves to be criticized for this, the revealing of this info creates other negative impacts. Now, anyone across the globe is seeing Americans raping and shooting innocent civilians. This is detrimental for the US public image. We will have a hard time justifying the movement of our military, as well as private contractors, into foreign nations if it is required, in light of these leakes tapes. Furthermore, seeing these abuses will only strengthen the resolve of Afghan and Iraqi terrorists, whose fellow civilians are the ones being killed in the tapes.

Its for these reasons I urge a pro vote.

Debate Round No. 1


BigWes forfeited this round.


Well, I guess thats that.
Debate Round No. 2


BigWes forfeited this round.


What a shame :(
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 7 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, both only provided minimal arguments with little weighing (due to forfeit). So I vote Pro because all Cons arguments had no tangible impact, whereas the Pro's points of U.S. credibility and geo-tactician have implied, but clear impacts => loss of life and war advantages
Vote Placed by tvellalott 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious conduct is obvious.