This House Would Force All Governments to Become Totally Transparent

I have wasted one round trying to counter his fallacious assumptions based on rare cases that will, assuming this bill is passed, only marginally inconvenience or embarrass a small minority. By ignoring these I am absolutely not admitting their validity or their poignancy, on the contrary I am stating their irrelevance. What I asking for today is the recognition of the benefit to the majority; to the taxpayers, to the voters and to those seeking justice. I will expand on these ideas in just a moment. First I must contradict the inherent error in the logic of my opponent. He wishes to defeat my case by getting me, the debater, and you, the voter, wrapped up in the minute details. If we are to step back and analyze the entire situation, we find that these details are utterly insignificant. If this new standard for which we conduct ourselves helps to thwart even one terrorist plot by means of facilitating the inter-agency and inter-governmental flow of information, isn't that much more preventing Joe Schmo's friends from knowing he has erectile dysfunction? If this openness allows police agencies look at the juvenile record of a suspected serial killer (puberty, by the way, is when most violent offenders exhibit first signs of deviant behavior) and stop him before he kills again, isn't that more important than protecting Microsoft's secret formula for data chips when bidding on a government contract? And isn't it more important that I, the taxpayer, know if my representative has been implicated in sexual crimes against children than protecting the details of a couple's divorce? I think these questions have very obvious answers. My opponent would have you believe in the ridiculous, albeit admirably ideological, idea that privacy must trump one's safety or well being. And what's more, this plan would not destroy the privacy of everyday Jack and Jill, far from it. Democracy means that we, the taxpayers and voters, are part of the government. Those who we vote for are merely pawns for our wishes, therefore why should they be allowed to keep secrets from us? By extension, it is not as though the government is looking into our homes, we are merely able to look out from our windows. WE, my friends, are the government and we must not let the politicians forget that. I think it is absolutely obvious that this is time for an open-source government. The technological-based movement of open-source software has given us free and amazingly functional programs that have greatly proliferated the exchange of technology through the internet. One of the results of this has been wikileaks ( http://wikileaks.org... ) a website dedicated to passing on government information to the people. This has resulted in backlash from many governments, especially that of Germany. ( http://www.wired.com... ) I would ask; what are they so afraid of? The government is attacking US for wanting to know more. I would suggest that my opponent is the Big Brother of this debate. Through this law, we will have a very clear and precise way of tracking our tax dollars, we will be able to know exactly how much is going to pave roads and how much is lining the pockets of our so-called 'representatives.' It will allow us to further catch criminals and deter crime. It would benefit doctors in treating patients by giving them full access to vital information. Most importantly; it will save lives. Perhaps my opponent still wants facts and figures, but I refuse to see what I could offer. In a society of secrecy and deception, am I truely able to offer anything without first wondering if it is truely the full story? The 9/11 Commission report given for public consumption was edited for classified material. The CIA's 'Family Jewels' is missing several diamonds due to government paranoia. I cannot give proof because it has never happened before; I am arguing for a new way of life. I ask my honorable opponent; what are you so afraid of?