Transparency vs. Secrecy

Throughout my opponents last speech, he made it clear that he believed that transparency better ensures the freedom of the populace. But I ask him, then, why does he slander freedom throughout his opening contention? This inconsistency has me puzzled, and I would be delighted to hear from my esteemed rival why this contradiction has taken place. In response to my opponents first contention, I would like to begin by separating this contention into two parts. These sections are noticeable by where my opponent has created a new paragraph. Against the first half, I have two responses. 1. Freedom isn't Anarchy Justification: I have provided criteria for my value of freedom. Freedom cannot harm the rights of others through the criterion of the Constitutional Republic, because the laws of the country inhibit a man's ability to harm another. Furthermore, I have provided a quote from Frederic Bastiat, who states that freedom is essentially self limiting. In other words, the right to swing my fist ends at the other person's nose. Shouting fire in a crowded theater will harm other individuals, so in fact this is not an issue of freedom, but of anarchy. 2. No Alternate Standard Justification: My opponent has failed to provide an alternative to freedom, so that shall remain the primary goal of this debate. Therefore, the fact remains that whichever side best upholds the freedom of America, ought to be the side which wins the judges ballots. In response to my opponents second arguments under, I argue that my opponent is non-topical. Justification: My argument was that the security, thereby freedom, of American people was harmed by the disclosing of SEAL Team Six. My opponent has failed to adequately explain how refusing to disclose our justifications has harmed us. He has repeatedly stated that the problem lies in the fact that the government is too secret, but has not shown why this is the case. Therefore, my arguments still stand. My opponents second contention is, in my humble opinion, the strongest argument yet brought up. However, I contest this point via the following response: Consent may be Given Without Full Knowledge Justification: Look at Osama bin Laden. All that was necessary for the government to attack bin Laden was the consent of the people. We don't need to know how we are to attack him, we don't need to know he is even dead. All we need to know is that his organization harmed us, and therefore we must bring him down. We do not need an entirely transparent government in order to rule with the people's consent. In response to my opponent's third contention, I argue that he has given no sufficient examples. Justification: My opponent presented much beautifully woven rhetoric, but little logic or fact. His only example of why governments are more feared than terrorists was the fact that European monarchies persecuted religious minorities. But he has overlooked the inconvenient fact that Renaissance Europe did not have the massive, efficient terrorist cells in effect today. Thus, because of a lack of support, this contention cannot stand. My opponents fourth and final contention illustrates the fact that the government and military are separate entities. However, they are so closely linked, it is impossible to speak of one without the other. All nations rise and fall on military might. In conclusion, we have examined the arguments that have been suggested thus far, and seen that though a people may be allowed to have a general idea of what the government's intent is, as in the case of bin Laden, the fact remains that absolute transparency, like my opponent advocates, would be folly. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing my opponents next rebuttal!