Snowden did nothing wrong

"Its relevant because you have to acknowledge that the arguments you've presented have a paradox within them. "There is no paradox in my explanation whatsoever. Pro is the only one who's argument has centered around a paradox. That paradox is that the Constitutional oath is more valuable than the Standard Form 312. However, if Edward Snowden didn't sign Standard Form 312 he would of never been hired. That is an unequivocal fact. Let's sum up this debate. 1. My opponent has made his entire debate entirely on the case that "Two Wrongs make a Right. " This is inherently is a fallacy in its' own right as I showed in Round 4. Pro has made the case that it is acceptable for Edward Snowden to steal government property and violate his oath because Edward Snowden is allegedly upholding his oath to the Constitution. In doing this Pro has admitted several times that Edward Snowden did wrong. But Pro claims it was justified in order to uphold the Constitution. Yet Pro never provided any evidence to how Snowden upheld the Constitution. Instead he insisted that Edward Snowden upheld his Constitutional Oath without providing any section of the Constitution that Edward Snowden has upheld. Therefore there is no evidence to make this case that Pro has presented. No evidence means no valid argument.2. Pro has decided to attack the National Security Agency instead of debating the resolution and addressing the points I have presented. This has nothing to do with the debate resolution "Snowden did nothing wrong. "3. Pro has committed several fallacies throughout the debate ranging from "Two Wrongs Make a Right"(it is acceptable to break one oath for another oath), "Appeal to Authority" (The Constitution which my opponent repeated several times but didn't quote a single time), and a "Hasty Generalization"(Pro claims that the NSA committed illegal acts but has yielded in providing the information of what they did was illegal). Therefore a number of Pro's points originate from poor reasoning. These are the points I have made in the debate to show that Edward Snowden has committed wrong acts:1. Edward Snowden violated his oath. Pro has agreed that the written oath Standard Form 312 was broken. 2. Snowden stole government property that he was entrusted with. Pro has agreed that Snowden did steal. Therefore he has conceded this debate. Stealing is inherently wrong. See Round 4 in particular. -Steal[1]: "to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal"[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. Edward Snowden has broken the trust of his employers and future employers. Is this not ethically wrong considering the amount of trust given into such a relationship between an employee and an employer?4. Snowden was engaging in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience requires the breaking of the law. Therefore it is inherently wrong.5. My opponent has claimed that Edward Snowden chose to do less wrong by upholding the Constitution and his oath to it. But how does something being less wrong mean it is not wrong?6. My opponent has rested his argument on the "Two Wrongs Make a Right" fallacy when he justified Edward Snowden's actions. Here are several prime examples quoted by Pro himself: "True he did steal documents and leak them to the public which is clearly illegal""they will break the law to enforce the law" "Did Snowden break any laws? Yes he did"7. My opponent has conceded the point the Edward Snowden has committed a wrong. Pro has only tried to rationalize away the wrong doing done by Edward Snowden.