Wikileaks

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.