Wikileaks

Thank you, LF. RE: WAR EFFORT 1. Con agrees that Assange will likely not provide information regarding informants, but claims people will still be afraid by the possibility. However if it's clear Assange is not releasing the information, there's no reason for informants to assume he will. There is risk in this profession regardless, and no reason for them to think Wikileaks has an incentive to endanger their lives. 2. Con says the fact that people are not being punished makes Wikileaks irrelevant. That is an entirely warped way to view the situation. The fact remains that these criminals *should* be punished - which Con agrees - and punishment is apparently only possible if Wikileaks forces certain people to take responsibility for their actions by exposing them. Con says we should view this as an on-balance scenario. Without Wikileaks, these crimes definitely go unpunished. With Wikileaks, these crimes have a chance of being punished (and just because people have been slow to react thus far does not set a necessary precedent for the future). Therefore Wikileaks should press on. Con continues, "My point was that ending the war sooner doesn't count as a point in Wikileaks' favor, since it is not doing that." Con has absolutely no idea whether or not Wikileaks can or will contribute to ending the war sooner. How can he speak for future leaks? Claiming Wikileaks cannot be helpful at ending the war the way the Pentagon Papers did is entirely presumptuous. Wikileaks at least increases the chances of something monumental like those papers being exposed. Con states, "If there are no tangible benefits to [crimes being brought to light], and the cost is harm to the war effort, then it simply isn't worth it." The benefit to criminals being punished is justice - the foundation of democracy - being served. I'm sure if my opponent was raped repeatedly, he would not be satisfied by someone telling him it was not worth it on a cost-benefit analysis to prosecute his assailant. Moreover Con hasn't proven that there is harm being done to the war effort. Further, I've explained how so-called "harm" could actually be a blessing in disguise, for instance if it *does* help to end the war sooner (or shed light on particular pertinent information to prevent future problems). Con concludes this segment by saying since criminals aren't being brought to justice, we should scrap all attempts at trying to change that. This is absolutely absurd. That's like saying since doctors sometimes fail at saving lives, they shouldn't try to save lives in the future. Obviously this is ridiculous. Wikileaks is the source that allows for potential changes to these atrocities, whereas Con's solution is simply ignoring them. My opponent also says there's no point to let the world (and Afghans) know just how corrupt America really is. Why not? I've already explained why leaders should be exposed considering their monumental power, and our right to influence and shape our society as active participating citizens instead of being ruled and kept uninformed to be manipulated like royal subjects. Meanwhile, Con has simply said we should not address people's outrage; we should work around it even though their anger is justified. This solution hasn't been justified by my opponent. So far his only advocation is avoiding conflict, though this accomplishes nothing and perpetuates the problem. RE: DIPLOMACY Con maintains that corrupt diplomacy is better than no diplomacy, and that people may now be reluctant to work with the U.S. if they know how corrupt we are. He also claims the Middle East and Israel are closer to going to war with each other. I say 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. I don't mind those in charge being called out on it. This can open up new foreign policy relationships based on honesty and openness. The U.S. and Israel are not above the rest of the world. Moreover the U.N. thus far has been ridiculously incompetent, so it's not like we're losing much credibility. 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. RE: ECONOMY Con claims that people will care about the Wall St. leaks since Americans obviously care about their finances. However the fact that tax payers bailed out banks in the first place was ludicrous yet the Americans tolerated it. Nevertheless Con claims that the collapse of several banks will destroy the economy thus mandating a response from the public. My response has been this is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact could be a *good* thing. Clearly all government fixes thus far have failed (that may be indeed what some new Wikileaks will reveal) thus if Americans feel the need to take the economy into their own hands and implement desired changes within the market that benefit the public, so be it. This might mean letting several banks fail and rebuilding accordingly. In fact this is what capitalists suggest is the appropriate response to the devastation failing banks caused by their own irresponsible lending practices. Next Con says that the Wikileaks information would create a "necessarily bad" outcome. I disagree. As I just mentioned, capitalism without government interference is a legitimate possibility. Overthrowing the system entirely is another. Getting rid of the corrupt leaders literally stealing from tax payers and lying while abusing their power is another. These are all realistic positive outcomes, especially if corrupt politicians are replaced with better ones. Con hasn't been clear about the worst possible scenario either. People will decide to either bail out the banks (which he said might be acceptable) or not to (which he's also suggested as acceptable). Either way I see no reason for mandatory havoc -- or why said havoc would be necessarily bad. You'll notice that Con's main argument thus far has been "Wikileaks is useless." However if he's implying that people will be so passionate about their new financial situation, then clearly this will change and people WILL become engaged in political discourse. This would therefore negate the rest of Con's argument that Wikileaks doesn't/won't help anything. Con also says that the option is either letting the SEC handle punishing criminals (i.e., nothing being done to punish them -- just how it is now) or witness an economic collapse. I've explained ad nauseum why this is not mandatory and/or necessarily bad. My opponent glosses over Wall Street crimes as if it's permissible to just let these so-called fat cats get away with their deceit. However as Con explained, their actions have literally threatened the entire world economy. People have lost everything - homes, careers and more on behalf of greedy bankers. Punishing those *responsible* for the collapse should be the utmost priority -- not turning a blind eye as Con suggests. This not only leaves criminals unpunished but allows citizens to be continuously screwed over. - CONCLUSION - My opponent has ignored my arguments pertaining to the value of justice. He's repeated that nothing positive can come from Wikileaks despite my lengthy explanation (particularly in R1) regarding the importance of such a medium in a functioning democracy. Con hasn't given a sufficient reason to keep citizens completely in the dark to continue being taken advantage of. As I said in R1, the public has a right to use Wikileaks in order to have a better idea of the politicians and policies we help elect. Nobody is above the law. Considering we forfeit so many of our liberties to a government that cannot be expected to regulate itself, it's important we have this check to keep government's honest. Wikileaks gives power back to the people, and is our defense against tyranny.