Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

My first debate, so to start here is my case for negating the resolution. It wasn't the dagger, merely a shaft of steel, which killed Cesar, it wasn't the cobra, an instinctive animal without motives, that killed Cleopatra, and it was not the lifeless, gas-fueled fires that burned millions of Jews throughout the holocaust. It was the conspiracy against Cesar that killed him, it was the assassin with a motive that plotted to kill Cleopatra, and it was under the direction of Hitler and the Nazi party that accomplished what they did throughout World War II. In order for something to be a real threat, it cannot be simply in existence… There has to be a motive, a mission, a goal. Wikileaks is merely a tool that can be manipulated. Because Wikileaks is not a legitimate threat, I must strongly negate the resolution Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security. To start off, I offer my first reason why Wikileaks is not a threat to our national security. Main Point 1 – WIKILEAKS IS MERELY PARANOIA HYPE. Think back to the McCarthy era of the 1950's. McCarthy was a politician from Wisconsin that used his political power to target the idea of communism. McCarthy used the hype from the cold war to fuel his political machine. He gained many followers, but soon the hype wore off and people realized that "The Red", or communism, was not discreetly seeding itself into American society. People only believed in this hype because of other major happenings in this time period. The same goes for Wikileaks. The media got their hands on a story that seemed to have depth to it, and blew it up to gain viewers, or followers. Think to why this mere website gives the illusion that it is harmful… That is because it is believable. Just as McCarthy used the cold war to his advantage, the media is using our on-going war against terrorism to their advantage. People believe the sudden hype that Wikileaks is bad because "terrorists can use the information against us." This is illogical thinking that jumps to conclusions because of foggy presumptions. People will believe what the media tells them, and the media is telling people that Wikileaks is a bad thing. But when we actually do our own research and think into what Wikileaks is, we can clearly see that the media is acting as a modern-day McCarthy. Moving on to my 2nd main point Main Point 2 – WIKILEAKS, BY DEFINITION, CANNOT BE A THREAT Threat, as defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. We need to think critically now, what exactly is Wikileaks? Wikileaks is a website with information on it. Does not matter what information, but it is still information. Wikileaks does not display intent to disrupt the United States. Nowhere on the website does it even state that its motive is the downfall of western civilization, or the United States. We admit that, when in the wrong hands, Wikileaks can be a threat. When in the hands of a terrorist organization, or a country that does not like us, it is a threat. But that would change the resolution. The resolution states: Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security. It does not state: Wikileaks, when in the hands of North Korea, Al-Quada, or Iran, is threat to United States national security. So to say that it is a threat because our enemies can use it against us, would be the same as saying, "This pencil on my desk is a threat to my friend's security because I can take it and stab him in the neck with it." The fact of the matter is, it is not the pencil that is the threat, is I, the one with the pencil, ready to strike him. The information on these sites, however embarrassing they may be for whatever country it streams from, is not a threat, but simply an embarrassing truth that has already come to pass. The Pro side of this debate must show a few things to prove their side. They must prove that Wikileaks lives, and intends to destroy the United States. They must prove that McCarthy and Wikileaks did not blow the story and idea out of proportion, and they must prove that Wikileaks can cause destruction without being manipulated to the use of what the user wants to use it for. It is for these simple, logical, and realistic reasons that I stand in firm negation of the Resolution. Thank you! I hope to have a clean, organized, and respectful debate.