The Instigator
kmw
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Wikileaks is wrong in releasing their online documents.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/6/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 15165
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

kmw

Con

This is open to anyone and everyone.
I'm using this as a simple basis for my class debate on the same subject.
I'm sorry if I don't use the proper format, this is my first online debate.
petersaysstuff

Pro

If I understand your position correctly you are arguing that Wikileaks did a good thing correct? Well considering I am arguing against you I must say that what was done was an attack on our national security. After Wikileaks released their cables foreign powers have done less dealings with us. (1) They see their meetings with us as no longer secure and that undermines our foreign policy seeing as if we can't meet with other heads of state then we are essentially isolated.

Wikileaks is also bad because it lowers the credibility of our leaders and people in power and when political legitimacy lowers revolutions ensue. It is true that some revolutions may be good but most cause great loss of life. Look at the Russian Revolution for example.

So as we can see, Wikileaks hurts our foreign relations as well as undermines political legitimacy.

Con, its your turn.

(1)http://www.rferl.org...
Debate Round No. 1
kmw

Con

I, myself, am not American. A true Canadian at heart, living in a country that has had very few leaks about political dealings.

Why, you may ask? We guard our secrets well. We make sure we trust everyone in our government. After all, it isn't the media's job to guard political secrets, it's the government's.

Towards the idea that Wikileaks was an "attack on national security", no American has been hurt or injured because of the documents, not inclusing reputation. Even if the facts had put people's lives in danger... Consider this fact:
more lives have been in danger thanks to the government hiding their dirty little secrets.

The credibility of our leaders? Based on these documents, there is no credibilty. Not only does the government work on our behalf, but we are supposed to live in an open and transparent society. Why are there secrets that aren't necessary to be hid?

For example, the 9/11 commission reviewed a few of the leaks about Osama Bin Laden and Al Queada. The former governer of New Jersey said himself that 3/4 of what he read should never have been classified. Some of the leaked documents also include the wars in Iran and Iraq. It was revealed that out of over 109 000 people killed in Iraq, SIXTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHTY ONE were civillians. It that just?

Consider one last point, since we are talking about political history.
Gandhi & Hitler, both strong, memorable powers.
Choose one that was always open with his thoughts and hid nothing and one that hid his agenda until in office.
Now, choose one who made amazing changes for the better in the world and one who did damage that is still notable in today's society.
petersaysstuff

Pro

How have more lives been in danger by the government keeping secrets? What's that? That isn't true? Oh.
My opponent says that more lives have been in danger by the government keeping secrets yet this is blatantly not true. She provides no evidence as to when lives have ever been in danger by keeping secrets and thus we cannot look that "fact" as the basis for our judgement.

My opponent basically concedes the credibility point because before the leaks our government officials had credibility but, as my opponent states, they now have none after the leaks. So this point goes uncontested and thus we must flow that across. My opponent also makes no attack on the impact on the loss of government legitimacy so that still stands.

It is completely irrelevant as to what to what a former governor of New Jersey thought. It has no bearing on whether or not the leaks were detrimental.

My opponent then tries to argue that Gandhi was transparent about his ideals and he did great things whilst Hitler wasn't and did terrible things. Well first off is the fact that Hitler came to power on the basis of his anti-sematism and his promise to kick out the Jews so that argument doesn't work in the least. Hitler's agenda was well known and he was entirely transparent.

So Con, your turn.
Debate Round No. 2
kmw

Con

kmw forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Pro

I'm sorry my opponent forfeited the last round but since that is what happened we must extend all my arguments across therefore I win.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
kmwpetersaysstuffTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the credibility point, losing arguments. Con forfeit lost conduct. Pro should have done more research and cited damaging specifics. The names of US agents were revealed, subjecting them to possible assassination; Pro should have cited that.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kmwpetersaysstuffTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and Hitler - seriously.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
kmwpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by PervRat 6 years ago
PervRat
kmwpetersaysstuffTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a number of errors, including flaws in logic. The round forfeit sucks. Neither side cited any references, both seemed to have similar levels of grammar.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
kmwpetersaysstuffTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfiet