The Instigator
1461748123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nathaniel.Braswell
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should WikiLeaks be allow to continue to operate?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Nathaniel.Braswell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 75584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

1461748123

Pro

Wikileaks is the first platform that provide a way for people to safely report corruption and misuse of power. Many civil right organizations have so far openly supported the work of WikiLeaks because of these reasons. The reasoning behind their support is based on the fair rules and justified functionality of democracy and civil society. If secrecy of administrative documents is used to cover government misbehavior, especially inhuman conditions and killing of people, there must be legal grounds to overcome formal borders of secrecy. This has seen as a justified way to protect democratic society and citizen against secret arbitrary government power.
Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

One great thing about living in America is the transparent, democratic structure upon which our government operates. However, as the saying goes, too much of a good thing is never a good thing. It is my belief as the Con speaker that WikiLeaks is an example of too much governmental transparency. Before we examine why, let's lay down some burdens, since the Pro speaker did not do so.

As the Pro speaker, my opponent has the burden to prove that WikiLeaks should be allowed to continue doing what it is currently doing-- this means no reforms or restrictions, but truly being left alone.

As the Con speaker, my duty is to prove that there are enough disadvantages to WikiLeaks which warrant not allowing them to continue their current courses of action.

So what about governmental transparency? When we hear the term we often associate it with a good and secure government that is always in check with the people. However, when certain organizations such as WikiLeaks start compromising vital government secrets, political transparency transcends from the realm of "secure" to straight out violations of National Security. For instance, take what happened in 2010. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released 92,000 classified documents on the war on terror in Afghanistan. While his intentions were likely good, the end result was for from it. Liz Cheney summarizes it well, "Clearly Julian Assange's effort was to change course for the US policy in Afghanistan. He was unsuccessful in that. He does clearly have blood on his hands potentially for the people whose names were in those documents who helped the US and I think that's something he will have to live with now. I would really like to see President Obama to move to ask the government of Iceland to shut that website down. I would like to see him move to shut it down ourselves if Iceland won't do it. I would like to see them move aggressively to prosecute Mr. Assange and certainly ensure that he never again gets a visa to enter the United States. What he's done is very clearly aiding and abetting al Qaeda. And as I said, he may very well be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan."

As you can see, sometimes transparency is not the best thing. As soon as WikiLeaks releases information that is absolutely critical the government keep safe, the national security is compromised and the safety of innocent citizens at home is placed in jeopardy.

IN RESPONSE to the last speech, I would first like to point out that he specifically said, "Many civil right organizations have so far openly supported the work of WikiLeaks," however he failed to bring up the name of even one of these "many civil right organizations." While I don't doubt the presence of such groups, it would be helpful to this debate to have some details on these groups so we can discuss this topic a bit more in depth.

Second, the Pro speaker hasn't actually brought up any examples where WikiLeaks upheld such goals such as a democratic society. Once again, the only reason I point this out is so we can have a more focused and pointed debate.

In conclusion, this resolution does not ask for me to support abolishing WikiLeaks, however it does ask me to support not letting WikiLeaks continue doing what they are doing and operating the way they are today. It is my belief that while transparency is often good, certain secrets are absolutely VITAL to keep.

Thanks, and I look forward to the next rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
1461748123

Pro

1461748123 forfeited this round.
Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

Since Pro has forfeited, please extend all my arguments.

I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
1461748123

Pro

1461748123 forfeited this round.
Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

Well since PRO forfeited both rounds... I would strongly urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
Well if you make a similar debate I might be interested in debating it with you.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Absolutely wikileaks should not be oppressed. Freedom of speech and all that trumps all tyranny, in my pea brain.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
1461748123Nathaniel.BraswellTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - pro had a full forfeit and thus does not get the conduct point | Args - con successfully proved that having full governmental transparency leads to a very bad society (aiding and abetting al-Qaeda, leads to death of many), which is a very large impact on society. Governmental transparency of inhuman conditions has less of an impact because these people are still alive and there are likely fewer of them than the many that are dead because of Mr. Assange. | Happy to clarify if needed
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
1461748123Nathaniel.BraswellTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Forfeits by Pro, so conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
1461748123Nathaniel.BraswellTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture