Snowden did nothing wrong

"Your entire demeanor towards Snowden shows that you are one of those that have the mind set that he is a traitor but to determine if what he has done is wrong you have to evaluate his reasoning"Where did I make the claim that Edward Snowden was a traitor? I never even made such a an insidious claim."You claim what he did was unethical so does that mean you believe an agreement to keep illegal activities that has upset the majority of Americans and other countries abroad a secret should be held with a higher regard than an oath to uphold the constitution?"It is irrelevant to ask what I believe on the subject. That has nothing to do with the debate resolution. I won't comment on it because it is a debate distraction." It is literally that simply, either path he chose he could be considered to be doing something unethical the only difference is he chose to do something "unethical" in front of the world to uphold his oath to the constitution. He chose to put his allegiance with the American people, not the government that was abusing its power."Pro has just admitted Edward Snowden would of been committing a wrong in either case. According to Pro's reasoning, Edward Snowden has chosen the least valued wrong by releasing the documents. Two wrongs don't make a right. That is a fallacy[1].[1]http://www.nizkor.org..." Snowden took an oath to uphold the constitution as I have shown, he merely signed an agreement that was conditional to him working with the NSA. You have provided a false source which does not coincide with what Snowden has stated himself. "No it is not a false source. Edward Snowden signed Standard Form 312[2] which is a valid oath. It is a non-disclosure agreement stating he wouldn't release classified documents. The oath is written so that whom ever breaks the agreement will be held liable. He broke the agreement and he has is being charged appropriately as the matter dictates. [2]http://www.wrc.noaa.gov...[3]http://www.dailytech.com..."True he did steal documents and leak them to the public which is clearly illegal but that does not mean what he did was wrong. He chose to put his allegiance with the American people and the constitution, not the government that abuses its power"Pro has agreed Snowden did steal. Pro just states stealing is not wrong. Pro is only attempting to rationalize away the thought of Snowden stealing is wrong. Let's examine the definition of stealing. Steal[4]: "to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal"[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Therefore stealing is inherently wrong no matter the reasoning behind the act."A police officer takes an oath to uphold the constitution as well and they will break the law to enforce the law. For example they will drive 100mph to catch a criminal or they will shoot someone to prevent other lives from being lost. The police break the law but its deemed "ok" because they are doing so for the better good. Snowden also broke the law for the better good. Whether my opponent likes it or not Snowden was true to his oath to uphold the constitution and he sacrificed more than more people ever would to do so."Well my opponent has just eviscerated his own claim about the NSA's alleged "illegal" activity. Pro stated "they will break the law to enforce the law." If that is the case the National Security Agency's alleged "illegal" activity was justified because they were trying to enforce the law by breaking it.My point had nothing to do with anyone justifying the breaking of any laws. My point was that Lon Snowden claimed that Snowden was engaging in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience requires the breaking of the law. Therefore it is inherently wrong.