The Instigator
Xenith967
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Scyrone
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Wikileaks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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
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: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 14028
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Xenith967

Con

Wikileaks should be classified as a terrorist organization bent on the downfall of the United States of America.
This will be the Pf debate style.

Contention- Wikileaks should be shut down because it is a terrorist organization with only one goal in mind and that is to destroy the United States of America.The latest breed of anarchist is not a protester who takes to the streets, Molotov cocktail in hand. His weapon of choice is the laptop and his battleground the Internet, which he uses to steal information or to disrupt life in the digital age.
The personification of these Internet intifadists is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks infamy.Retaliating for his arrest on rape charges and his pariah status in Internet commerce, a band of hackers known as Anonymous used denial-of-services attacks to crash the websites of Visa, MasterCard and other corporations that refused to have anything more to do with Assange.Surely enough, Anonymous got the world's attention. But the scary fact is that group is just a visible example of growing cyberwarfare.A concentrated attack via the Web could disrupt any facet of American life, from banking to medicine to transportation - and with the same murderous effect as a conventional act of terror.Make no mistake: America's enemies will work that game if they can.Already, Web-savvy jihadists are scouring the WikiLeaks documents for signs of American vulnerability. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, "a member of the jihadi forum the Shumukh Al-Islam initiated a 'workshop' aiming to collect, categorize and pinpoint all U.S. interests worldwide mentioned in documents released by WikiLeaks." That information will without question be transmitted - digitally, most likely - to those most willing and able to harm the United States.America must block such a catastrophe from happening by mounting a massive and ever-evolving cybersecurity drive.Someone recently demonstrated how effective an attack can be by, for the first known time, successfully wielding a cyberweapon against a real-world target. A virus called Stuxnet infiltrated Iran's nuclear program and damaged its processing equipment.The end was fantastic; the means were terrifying. Suppose the tables were turned on the U.S.?Assange has been arrested on rape charges unrelated to his cyberanarchy. The government appears to be moving to indict him under the Espionage Act. It's a pleasing prospect but would no more prevent cyberattacks than sending Osama Bin Laden to the nuse would quell Islamic terror.
President Obama called cyberwarfare "one of the most serious economic and national security threats our nation faces." But America's response has fallen far short of the mark. The government must devote the research and money necessary to exponentially increase cybersecurity.
Former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke proposed creation of a Cyber Defense Administration. This new defense system will ban wikileaks as well as current military television and internet shows.
Scyrone

Pro

The topic statement is unclear. But out of rational thought and obvious statements, I assume my opponent means to say that HIS position is against Wikileaks (will now be known as WLs). I will not only show you my arguments for WLs being a good organization, but I will also show you my opponents faults and failures in argument as well as content.

WLs was created with the intention of revealing the truth behind secret, classified, and anonymous sources into the open eyes of the public. The original creation was claimed by "educated Chinese dissidents" whom shared a passionate dislike for the secrecy of governments and corporations throughout the world. As many know, WLs has unveiled documents, recordings, and other types of media to ALL the public of the world. These agents are usually notified as citizens of countries, web hackers, political dissidents, and those whom are for pirating, hacking, and the free spreading of information (as in saying knowledge should be open to everyone).

WLs provides truth. They are not an organization that lies to the people they serve (unlike the governments and corporations whose secrets they reveal). They reveal truths and help perform justice in a positive environment.

WLs does not tell anyone what to do with the information they reveal. They do not give orders or control an army of sorts. WLs is a group of people willingly giving up information for the sake of truth and freedom of speech and of the press. Remember, the information they reveal was not created by them. It was created by those whom wish to stop freedom of speech and keep secrets which deserved to be open, such as real relations between countries and political vices that grip the upper-political populous. The slogan of WLs is, "We open governments".

My opponent states that WLs wants to disrupt the American lifestyle, has jihadists scouring WLs for information, and is the pinnacle of the cause of the internet cyber war. My opponent says WLs should be classified as a terrorist organization.

Terrorism:
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Summarized, terrorism is when someone uses violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, causing a state of fear and submission in the form of resisting a government, with the intention of political purposes.

In order for WLs to be a terrorist organization, they would have to be causing fear, using violence and threats, intimidating and coercing people to reveal information, and causing states of fear.

Yet they do none of this. They reveal information that was hidden by someone else. So far, the revealing of WLs documents has done almost nothing to US foreign policy. A few smaller countries are angry with the way the US has thought of them, and a few bigger countries are angry with the way they find out they truly think of each other, but that is the extent of the violence. I must ask the question: does my opponent believe that speaking freely, either among governments themselves or WLs intelligence gatherers, is a terrorist and violent act? Does speaking freely cause fear and intimidation? The answer would be no for Americans. But the answer would be yes for many Islamic countries. These Islamic terrorist cells are against speaking freely, yet this is exactly what WLs is doing. How is it possible that fundamental Islamic terrorist groups are working alongside a group that opposes exactly what they do? The answer is quite simple; they do not.

I must also ask my opponent; how does a website failing cause distress among Americans? I will quote my opponent as part of my own defense: "A concentrated attack via the Web could disrupt any facet of American life, from banking to medicine to transportation - and with the same murderous effect as a conventional act of terror"

Yet according to my opponent, a concentrated attack already happened: " a band of hackers known as Anonymous used denial-of-services attacks to crash the websites of Visa, MasterCard and other corporations that refused to have anything more to do with Assange."

Now we must conclude that American life was disrupted by this attack. Yet the banks were still open. People were still able to use their credit cards (including me). The only thing I wasn't able to do is access the MasterCard website. I will show you a link to the MasterCard website, and I will guide you in a process of how American life was disrupted by this website failing:

"http://www.mastercard.us...;

I want my opponent and all the people reading this to look through the website and see what harm the lack of this website has done to the American card and ATM system. Once you are done looking at the website, I want you all (especially my opponent) to think real hard on how this disrupted a facet of American life. Were you not able to find an ATM? Even though there is a separate application for it for the iPhone? Weren't you able to use your MasterCard rewards? Even though they can be accessed through your bank? Did you really want to read about their products and card benefits that day? You weren't allowed, so obviously your day was sent into ruin by this attack, correct? At least, that's what my opponent assumes.

Yet my opponent wants to call upon an even bigger cause than mere information revealing and attacks on websites built around advertisements where all it's useful information can be found anywhere else. His main point is against cyber warfare (something completely different from WLs). He claims Anonymous is the army of WLs. Anonymous has been in existence for a fairly long time. They've gone against those who wish to quell freedom of speech, those whom wish to profit on memes and sayings which come out of the Anonymous movement, and go against Scientology. Yet my opponent assumes that since Anonymous agrees with the same things that WLs does, they must be in league with each other. This is a non-sequitur. My opponent blames one organization for the faults of another organization. He is using the dislikes of one group of people and relating them to the dislikes of another. Let me show you a clear cut example:

The 1936 Olympic Games were held in Berlin, Nazi Germany. The US decided to not boycott the Olympics and go to the games. Since my opponent believes that those whom possibly congregate together have the same beliefs, we must also believe that the USA was supporting Nazism.

We know this isn't true. And thus, we also know Anonymous has nothing to do with WLs. They merely have the same goals in ONE aspect of their organizations. Are we to say the Constitution of the USA (or of any country guaranteeing free speech) is also in league with Anonymous and therefore in league with WLs? No.

My opponent can talk about cyberwarfare all day. I love hearing about those things. Yet he has not provided a link between cyber warfare and WLs. Don't be bought out by his explanation of the attack on the Iranian nuclear defense program. Was there an attack? Yes. But it wasn't WLs. My opponent says, " Suppose the tables were turned on the U.S.?" Let us suppose that a virus was sent to the US nuclear defense program, and wrecked havoc on the system? That would ultimately be terrible. Yet WLs has never taken responsibility NOR has EVER been blamed for such attacks.

Even my opponents ONLY solution is later taken away by none other than my opponent: "The government appears to be moving to indict him under the Espionage Act. It's a pleasing prospect..."

My opponent ADMITS that stopping and arresting a cyberterrorist (which my opponent has YET to prove he is one) will not stop cyberattacks.

I had more, but I will wait till next round since I went way above the character limit.
Debate Round No. 1
Xenith967

Con

Xenith967 forfeited this round.
Scyrone

Pro

To be honest, I am not surprised he forfeited that round. I will continue with what I had not been able to say previously because of the character limit. I will start by quoting my opponent's passage here:

"President Obama called cyberwarfare "one of the most serious economic and national security threats our nation faces." But America's response has fallen far short of the mark. The government must devote the research and money necessary to exponentially increase cybersecurity.
Former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke proposed creation of a Cyber Defense Administration. This new defense system will ban wikileaks as well as current military television and internet shows."

Not only is Wikileaks not part of cyberwarfare, but if we were to hypothetically say they were then my opponent would have just used a logical fallacy (logic which does not make sense or logic which is a lie within itself). He used appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is when someone says something is true because someone of higher power or position said so. Obama is not an expert on cyberwarfare. He is not an expert on Wikileaks. He taught Constitutional Law and sat on the Harvard Law Review board, but Constitutional Law does not involve cyberwarfare in any way. If he were to say something about the first amendment, then he might be more credible. But on the subject of Wikileaks, his ideas on it are pointless. And of course he is going to say something negative about them. Wikileaks revealed information which was not in favor of the US. They are doing exactly what they want to be doing, "Keeping Governments Open".

If we were to still hypothetically say that Wikileaks is part of cyberwarfare, then his second statement would be even weirder. Richard Clarke wants to help create an organization that will not only defend the internet but ban "military television shows" and "internet shows"? Why? How does the military have any involvement with Wikileaks? And even if they did, should we merely ban that form of freedom of speech to make sure the US keeps things classified? No.

All in all, Wikileaks isn't a part of cyberwarfare. To they get access to information? Yes. Is it a war? No. Is it even merely cyberwarfare? Not at all. A lot of it is written down info that is written up on computers and passed to Wikileaks. The only reason they call it a cyber war is to make it sounds more serious than it is. Anonymous is not connected to Wikileaks. They have the same agenda in specific cases, but not in all.

I have a feeling that my opponent will also forfeit he next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Xenith967

Con

Xenith967 forfeited this round.
Scyrone

Pro

Obviously my opponent does not feel strong enough about this issue to care about it.

Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
You would do that Xenith
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."

Fix and I'll accept.
Posted by Adamant1 5 years ago
Adamant1
You spelled noose wrong.
Posted by zGodMode 5 years ago
zGodMode
Hey look mom, it's another ignorant person who blames Assange instead of the US for having confidential articles open to a Private in the army.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
I found a random article through Wikileaks which says,

"Xenth967 has plagiarized his text from http://www.nydailynews.com...;

Interesting.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
I can take this, but I will not do it now. If you are up for it later, you can challenge me.
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
annhasle
Since this debate: http://www.debate.org... started before yours and you are Con, you should cancel your newly started debate and accept the other one. In my opinion.
Posted by Xenith967 5 years ago
Xenith967
this will be a pf debating style by the way.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lerch 2 years ago
Lerch
Xenith967ScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a most convincing argument, and pointed out a plurality of logical fallacies in Con's argument. A clear victory for Pro, especially considering Con's forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
Xenith967ScyroneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Though Xentih967 forfieted 2 of his speeches, I do agree with him and I liked his speech.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Xenith967ScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeit