Wikileaks

==War Effort== 1-Again, it isn't the actual likelyhood of informants being exposed that matters—what matters is the perception of the safety of that information among potential informers. With Wikileaks having access to that information so easily, that perception of safety goes down, even if Assange never *actually* releases the information. 2-Pro continues to argue as if her position was on the side of justice for the victims of war crimes. It is not. The leaks provide information about those crimes, but, as I've said, nothing particularly new or shocking. The leaks don't make a difference as far as the possibility of prosecuting war criminals goes, because the lack of specific reports of these crimes is not the reason the criminals aren't being prosecuted. We already know who's a war criminal and what they've done—a lack of details isn't what's stopping the prosecution. Since the information Wikileaks released doesn't actually help bring justice to any war criminals, this is not a point in its favor. Pro also states that even though the leaks released won't help stop the wars, future leaks might. This isn't really fair to argue, since all information about the wars Wikileaks actually had has already been released. Speculating on leaks that Wikileaks *might* get in the future isn't really an argument—I could just as easily argue, "what if Wikileaks found and released some big leak that *helped* the pro-war side? " They could release a leak that showed that Iran was a couple months away from making ICBMs—a leak that later turned out to be planted by Israel. That wouldn't be a fair argument either, since there's no evidence that that's happened, or would happen in the future—it's just speculation about what Wikileaks might get. Next, Pro tries an emotionally packed non-argument about me being raped. In addition, she continues with the presumption that this is a matter of prosecuting criminals vs. not prosecuting criminals, which is not the case. Again, since the criminals won't be prosecuted either way, and Pro has failed to show that Wikileaks will even increase the possibility that they'll be prosecuted, this is irrelevant. Pro concludes by saying, "So far [Con's] only advocation is avoiding conflict, though this accomplishes nothing and perpetuates the problem. " Well, Pro's advocation is to increase conflict, which also accomplishes nothing and perpetuates the problem, AND makes the problem worse. ==Diplomacy== Here, I made two main arguments. 1-Information Wikileaks released brings the U. S. and Israel closer to war with Iran 2-Because of the evidence of spying and other illegal activities by U. S. diplomats, other countries will be less willing to work diplomatically with the U. S. , at a time when we most need diplomacy. Pro, rather than responding to these core arguments, chose to rant about the U. S. and Israel "the U. S. has been on its high horse for far too long, policing the globe, manipulating others, setting the rules and then breaking them without consequence. " "The U. S. and Israel are not above the rest of the world. " These are nice sound bites, but they aren't really responses to what I said. Pro does respond to 2) at the end, with "There is no reason to assume leaders will suddenly want to avoid diplomatic relations just because they will be exposed to the truth for once. " I don't expect world leaders to suddenly break off diplomatic relations with the U. S. --but the leaks do make diplomacy harder. Other countries will be less willing to work with the people who they know have been spying on and stealing from them. Both of my contentions stand. ==Economy== Pro now suggests that even though the leaks would bring down the financial system and destroy the world's economy, this could be a good thing. The negatives of this option are obvious—as Pro points out, during the last crash, "People have lost everything - homes, careers and more. " But Pro offers no support for her assertion that destroying the financial system would be a good thing, other than the claim that vague, unnamed "capitalists" suggest that doing so "is the appropriate response to the devastation failing banks caused by their own irresponsible lending practices. " This hardly shows that financial collapse is a good thing, and that Wikileaks should cause one. The main benefit the leak would bring is "justice. " Pro argues that punishing the criminals responsible should be our "utmost priority. " This is absurd. Going back to Pro's rape example, it would be as if the only way the authorities would be able to punish the rapist is if they murdered his victims. Sure, the criminal responsible would be punished—but at what cost? The cost in the real world is the economic well being of everyone. To punish bankers for destroying people's wealth and jobs, Pro suggests we sacrifice even more people's wealth and jobs. That is not justice. ==Conclusion== Pro repeatedly appeals to ideals of truth, justice, and fairness. Surely, if these appeals were legitimate, and Wikileaks actually did help us in those ways, Pro would be able to provide evidence of this. She has not. She has failed to show that Wikileaks' leaks are beneficial, and I have shown the many ways that they are not.