Resolved: Wikileaks has threatened U.S. National Security

1. He took an entire paragraph to misrepresent my argument. I was stating that Wikileaks provides a system of checks and balances, like my previous analogy of police procedure that went unmentioned. I was only stating that the stated goals of Wikileaks are to expose government abuses of powers that go unchecked, not a war on privacy. Anything other than the pursuit of this goal would have drawn him into valid criticism from the people I have mentioned earlier. So Wikileaks is not "to blame" for what "it is good for". -"Because of the leaks we have harmed information exchange" He clearly fails to recognize or refute my evidence and analysis. Clearly, representatives of governments that represent this issue have spoken that although release of information is embarrassing to diplomats who were abusing their power of secrecy, there is no harm to information exchange. -Wikileaks did contact the United States government. To extend your argument, the Pentagon not only received contact from Wikileaks, but refused to assist in redacting names that were considered important to national security. -I already stated that any turn or extension is invalid because it becomes irrelevant. This would not necessarily clear and imminent danger and is no threat to national security. I won't take it any further or bring any new evidence since he doesn't have a chance to respond. -I did respond to it. The evidence is not just an argument from authority. The DoD is inherently biased since files they illegally withheld were exposed by Wikileaks. The Secretary of Defence, who oversees national defense and advises the president on the information, has claimed for the government that they say Wikileaks is a threat. His analysis is irrelevant and he claims that I never responded to these things and therefore can't respond now, even though his analysis never brought into question my original analysis, so I only clarify in regard to hismisinterpretation. -There being no clear threat to international relations, all of his points about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are irrelevant, as mentioned before. No analysis is needed if he is analyzing a point that doesn't need to be analyzed. Therefore, his analysis here fails. No significant impact on war on terror, and there are many possible alternatives. Fighting as an international community and Wikileaks are not mutually exclusive, and promotes more national security, as I explained before. He completely failed to respond, which I would say is my strongest point and is why Con should win. -Defining this is not even needed. I already refuted the noncooperation and exposed facilities. -He made it a point earlier to try to appeal to emotion and say Wikileaks was stealing. I already counteracted this with saying that this "stealing" isn't necessarily bad. Since that was his main point, this is now refuted. -The main reason my opponent's argument fails is that he fails to deconstruct my evidence and framework, and uses irrelevant analysis to "prove" his point. All analysis that he says I didn't address follows from my points when I said they are made irrelevant. So, I could respond to them further, even though I feel it is necessary. If Wikileaks poses no threat to national security, his analyses about cooperation and communication are all made irrelevant. --All of his impacts are actually in my favor-- -Magnitude also favors my argument. Abuse of government power promotes corruption, which as cited before with the Pentagon Papers, hinders international cooperation and facilitates deliberate misleading of Congress and citizens. -Probability is irrelevant as well. Don't use analysis of things already refuted. Middle Eastern countries are NOT discouraged by Wikileaks, and are actually encouraged. Wikileaks provides an anonymous source for citizens and officials to hand over evidence without being attacked. This has been done many times by anonymous citizens. -Timeframe is unknowable. Collateral damage caused by some falsified event in the Middle East caused by government abuse could be worse in magnitude than a terrorist attack. Also, Wikileaks does not promote terrorist attacks as before, so this point is turned to be in my favor. -Reversibility- Deliberate misleading of Congress and therefore governmental action is irreversible, so there is no reversibility. -As stated before, his turn "that gives him a clear offense" didn't respond to my original points that make it irrelevant, so disregard his argument. -There is offense in Con. There is a link to the resolution, that I have stated every time. Resolution is irrelevant to Wikileaks' existence, and international combatting of terrorism can still exist. My evidence is from people that represent the institutions that he says are being endangered. All impacts are irrelevant. -No reason to vote Pro. All arguments are extentions of points that have been refuted. Resolution is equally possible with Wikileaks. By combating government abuse, Wikileaks is promoting governmental honesty and cohesion. Great points, good debate :D