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

Resolved:Wikileaks is a threat to US National Security

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,336 times Debate No: 14876
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Wikileaks posts classified intelligence information, which foreign enemy countries can use to plan attacks on the US or US Army privates.
This contention is supported by a 2008 U.S. Army Document, which Wikileaks posted March 15, 2010. The document, attributed to the Army Counterintelligence Center and titled " -- An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?" cited the leaking of classified Army materials, as the chief reason Wikileaks is harmful to national security. "Such information could be of value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against U.S. force, both within the United States and abroad," the document says. By putting out this kind of information, it not only gives a boost for the FISS and terrorist groups, but also puts a risk in the safety of the United States.


I thank the Prop for his remarks, and for the debate before us.

I, the Con, disagree.

For starters, let's broaden the topic, eh? It's too narrow to debate. I suggest "Wikileaks should be shut down, immediately."
OR something along those lines. If not, your loss.

Anyways, lets refute your "argument".

You stated that "Wikileaks posts classified intelligence information, which foreign enemy countries can use to plan attacks on the US or US Army privates."

First of all, doesn't the government do this anyways? Look back through history, the government has always done these things. What makes wikileaks any more dangerous than the president?

Second of all, no they haven't. I see that you then quote AN ARMY/GOVERNMENT source. I'm afraid this is too biased and doesn't show anything, it's just a he-said she-said.

Third of all, I dare my opponent to name ONE life it put in danger, besides Bradley Manning, who was the private who gave wikileaks the information (he'll likely be killed for it. BY THE GOVERNMENT.)

Now, If my opponent would kindly agree or disagree on widening the terms, it'd be appreciated.

Also, the job of CON wins if the PRO hasn't made a clear point. My job is only to refute his arguments- adding my own are bonus.
If he doesn't have one good point, he hasn't won.

Vote con, and cheers to my opponent and future judges.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for making his remarks. Now he has not mentioned my second part of this argument. If this kind of information has been released foreign enemy countries can look through these documents and plan a successful attack on the US government. How can they not, they have plenty of information, why not use it? And second of all the US government does not do such. I pretty sure that the US government would not give the people such classified information, if we look back in history, if so could my opponent give me an example? Wikileaks and the president are completely different. Now the founder Julian Assange has stated that he wants to bring down the US government by cutting information from the government, I don't see how he and the President Obama could be at all the same. Why would the Obama become the president if he wants to bring down the government? Why not state Bradley Manning? He was a Army private that released 91,000 documents and has been charged 8 times with US criminal codes. Therefore I have refuted most of my opponents arguments, and I do not see one argument of his own individual self, therefore I have nothing to refute other than the arguments he has stated for my first contention.


TheBrightestNeon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


pavan234 forfeited this round.


TheBrightestNeon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by paddy11 10 years ago
Wikileaks has"ent revealed top secret information about the army,only things theyve done like the torture of iraqians that they have imprisoned.If its possible could you find me a link that shows that wikileaks has revealed "classified army documents" that pose a threat to the state of america?wikileaks has only provided the world with a small percentage of what the U.S government cover up
Posted by pavan234 10 years ago
I don't think it is fair for Wikileaks to reveal Classified Army documents to the people, what good would that do? Nothing, exactly, the people don't benefit at all and the government doesn't either, they can't do anything with that sort of information, therefore it only helps foreign enemy countries because it is now very easy for them to know the tactics of the US army. Also Bradley Manning was influenced by Wikileaks, and if more and more soldiers are doing this kind of corrupt thing then what will happen to the people, there is no more protection.
Posted by paddy11 10 years ago
Wikileaks does not only provide the world with true and hidden information but it also reveals the truth that the U.S government and several other governments deprive the world of information.The site does not showcase america so that other countries can find out what they are researching into.the site gives people the opportunity to be aware of how the worlds leaders try to hide vital information from us.Wikileaks is not a threat to national security but more so to the secretive government that exists today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.