Bradley Manning. Traitor.

Well Id like to start off that my opponent didn't even attempt to dispute any of my arguments in the last round nor acknowledge them. Next Id like to point out that my opponent only brought up two different subjects in the last round other then the one that has no relevance in this argument which was who our enemy is. But lets move on from that. First. That wikileaks and Bradley Manning didn't just dump all the data they stole out to the world but that they sorted through them and with held things they thought might be dangerous. wikileaks very well may have done so but they are not the ones on trial here nor the topic of this debate and furthermore no proof whatsoever says that Manning sorted trough the documents prior to sending them to wikileaks. There were over a quarter of a million cables of data, literally hundreds of thousands of hours of information, to sort through. Are you really going to try and tell me that ONE single, Bradley Manning, was able to go through all of this and insure nothing was national security risking in the short time he had between stealing said information and handing it over to wikileaks? And although this debate is not about wikileaks I would like to point out since my opponent has already posted it that the source she used saying wikileaks sorted through the data did not state that wikileaks did so but that the individual news organizations that they gave it to did as well as them not giving it to any nation demand hostile. ie ones ruled by warlords or dictators. And wikileaks has full intentions of releasing the other 15,000 documents they have. They did not withhold them because they were a threat to the US. Why they have not been released yet only they know. I'm sure they have there reasons. Collateral maybe? She also says that there is no proof that they release of the data directly lead to anyone's death. Id like to say there is no possible way to determine if that is correct or not. We are fighting two wars here. Soldiers are going to be killed. We were being killed prior to the release and we are being killed after. To determine who died or who didn't die as a direct result of what Manning did would be realistically imposable. However, the death of troops was not the only harmful thing caused by Manning as I pointed out in my last round and my opponent didn't even mention those things. ie the Pakistani ISI scandal. The only other thing my opponent tried to argue in this last round was that the US is to blame for the rise in anti-American opinions and that the US is to blame for the increase in radical Islamic attacks on the world. Id like to ask what your point relevant to THIS debate is? If you'd like to have another debate or ten or twenty which is how many you are instigating here then id love the challenge however everything you said after this paragraph "Moreover, contrary to the belief that Manning and Assange arbitrarily and lazily released all classified information they received, there is also evidence that BOTH of them sorted through the documents for material that could threaten national security, holding back more than 15,000 documents for this reason. They reportedly even asked the White House itself for assistance vetting prior to releasing any documents, but received no response [3]" has absolutely no relevance to this debate. you may or may not be right. Heck you probably are. But the US, the US government and the US military are not the ones on trial here, they are not the ones who released hundreds of thousands of classified government cables and they are not they subject of this debate. Bradley Manning is. You started going in to how much death and destruction the US has caused and how it was for bad or wrong reasons well once again you are arguing the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan wars and as I have said those are entirely separate debates. If the US has committed any crimes it does not change the fact that Bradley Manning broke the law. And an increase in radical Muslim activity has nothing to do with that. As I said we are at war. This is unfortunately the reality of war and this is what happens in war. TRUST ME. It SUCKS. But it does not change the fact that we have an enemy to destroy and we are damn well going to do it. And you in fact completely contradict your self and it appears that you have completely change what your original opinion was, "is Bradley Manning, by legal definition, a traitor against the United States? That depends on what you mean by "the United States""are you speaking of its military-industrial complex, or its people? Manning did indeed leak classified military documents; that much can"t be denied. He also threatened the integrity of the aforementioned MI complex." "Is Bradley Manning a traitor to the American military? Maybe. But that also makes him a champion of the American people. In a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, for the people," that makes him a hero, not a traitor". You have gone from saying that he was not a traitor to saying "well maybe" and if you look at it closely you pretty much say "yes he is". Which is a complete contradiction to what you said in your opening arguments and is admission that he is a traitor which is what this whole debate is about. "But he did it for the good of the people". His reasons are irrelevant and do not change what he is or what he did. "That depends on what you mean by "the United States""are you speaking of its military-industrial complex, or its people?" You say that as if we are two different things. Is the United States Government not elected by the people for the people? Is the US military not made up entirely by a voluntary American citizen force? Once again this is pushing borderline conspiracy intricacies and is not what this debate is meant for. But I digress. the majority of your argument in this last round seemed to me was that although yes Manning is a traitor its nothing compared to what the big bad US military industrial complex has done. Saying that "well he did break the law but someone else did worse then him so its now suddenly ok and he should be a hero" is not a very good argument. As it admits to my being correct. And to counter ahead of time in case my opponent trys to say "Contrary to what my opponent believes, I was not, in the previous round, "arguing about the legitimacy of the Iraq War." "He did so for the very taxpayers that are funding these extravagant and unfounded wars. He did so in an attempt to protect us, to show us what goes on behind closed doors, to enlighten us to the realization that it is our government and our military, not the Taliban or al-Qaeda, not Muslims, not Iraq or Afghanistan, whose actions are fueling anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world and killing Americans." Oh really? The last thing I will point out in this round is that almost all my opponents sources in this round were quite obviously completely biased to the issue and in one case was a "Free Bradley Manning" website. Obviously such sites are going to be completely one sided and not show the reader the whole of the story from a neutral point of view.