Resolved: Wikileaks has threatened U.S. National Security

1. Assange - I misrepresent his argument --> lol, I "Assang = good" wasnt supposed to be a direct quote, just a tagline --> (EXTEND) He drops my analysis that what wikileaks criticizes about the government, and what he says is good about wikileaks, wikileaks is also to blame. There is no check on wikileaks besides what Assange deem is necessary. --> His argument about harm to national security was done by the person abusing their power is falacious cause he is assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. Pvt. Manning i being held accountable for providing the information. But moreover, his argument still has no link because he has not responded to the fact that BECAUSE of the leaks we have harmed information exchange (which I will elaborate on futher down) Wikileaks contacted the U.S. --> False. Rueters: The Pentagon said on Tuesday it had not been contacted by WikiLeaks, despite claims that the whistle-blowing website sought its help reviewing thousands of classified Afghan war documents ahead of their release.U.S. officials have appealed to WikiLeaks not to post any additional documents and accused the group of endangering lives of Afghan contacts named in its initial release of tens of thousands of classified U.S. military reports last month. A WikiLeaks spokesman said on Tuesday he wanted the Defense Department's help reviewing 15,000 additional U.S. documents ahead of their potential release, according to The Daily Beast news website. Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said WikiLeaks had not contacted the Defense Department. ^This was a new argument in his last speech, dont let him use it in his last because I only had one round to respond to it, where he has 2.^ --> (EXTEND) Extend the turn I made in my last speech,it went unresponded to. And dont let him respond to it, since I have no recourse. Wikileaks posted clearly unnecessary information about sites, some not even dealing with the military but communication centers and health centers that could be targeted by terrorists. This directly affects the war on terror due to the fact that vital strategic centers are now at risk. Right Vision News, December 8, 2010, p. online "A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security..." Daily Mirror 2010: A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programmes with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines. ^These arguments give me clear offense in the round. Even if you dont buy my diplomacy argument, you would still vote here because it is a clear threat to our security, which he dropped^ 2. Information Exchange He says his cited authorities negate my Schoenfield Evidence --> His German Minister authority has no impact, as I pointed out in my last speech, since I'm not debating if it undermined negotiations with Germany --> His Secretary of Defense authority has already been explained in my last speech. Which he also dropped (dont let him respond to it). I said the DoD does not deal with negotiations and cables. The State Department does. Thus extend my analysis in the last speech that the State Department has come out and said it has hurt information exchange. He says hes an advisor but tis has no impact. Prefer my evidence: logically based and authority based. --> (EXTEND) Extend the Grand Rapid Press Evidence. He completely mishandles it, it is the crucial piece of evidence from my point 1. Why is it the critical piece of evidence? Because it specifically mentions that certain leaks has hampered our intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. --> (EXTEND) Extend the analysis from the last speech that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our two crucial allies in the war on terror. Remember I said in the last speech if i win a minimal link to exacerbation or prevention to fight terrorism, I should win the round. Well, since the GRP Evidence was dropped, I win the minimal link. Moreover, he dropped my analysis of Pakistan and Al Qaeda being in the FATA region. 3. Definition of threat --> The first round is used for contextualization, not the middle of the debate. He failed to bring up a definition in the debate in the first round, it is null and void. But, the Center for Security Studies at the University of Michigan write, a threat in terms of security is: "possibility that vulnerability may be exploited to cause harm to a system." This definition is contextually preferable because we are discussing specifically national security, and is directly linked to the AC arguments because wikileaks has exposed information which may be exploited to cause us harm due to: (1) noncooperation and (2) the turn, explosed facilities. 4. Wikileaks didnt steal --> Sure wikileaks didnt go into the system themselves, but the impact is two-fold: first, this argument has no offense in the round since it isnt saying that this information has not threatened national security, and two the harms that wikileaks caused didnt have to be intentional to be threatening. 5. Points 2 and 3 --> He didnt even mention them in the last speech. --> (EXTEND) Extend the Arlacchi and State Department Evidence --> (EXTEND) Extend the Zimmerman evidence. --> But Cross-apply the extended evidence from GRP, it links directly into it. My opponent makes a nebulous claim at the bottom of the speech that we can work in open with our allies. That might be true with Franc or Britian, but not with our critical allies in the Middle East. ==List of Extensions (what he dropped)== (Dont let him respond to these, unfair to me, no recourse) 1. No check on wikileaks 2. (Turn) Exposed facilities 3. State Department = wikileaks has undermined intelligence sharing 3. Grand Rapid Evidence - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia 4. Arlachi Evidence 5. State Department Evidence 6. Zimmerman Evidence ==Offense/Vote Pro== 1. I win risk of harm to national security via the GRP Evidence, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan now wont cooperate on intelligence sharing. => Arrlacchi and State Dpt Evidence states intelligence cooperation KEY to fighting terror. => Zimmerman evidence states nuclear attack on U.S. if U.S. falters in fight against terror. Thus, I outweigh 1) Magnitude, more people will die in the Con world due to terrorism. 2) Probability, this is likely if our middle eastern allies dont share intelligence. 3) Timeframe, terrorism more likely now than extreme governmental abuse. 4) Reversibility, right violations of those killed in terror attacks cant be given their rights back, but infringement of knowledge can be compensated for 2. (Turn) The dropped turn I made that wikileaks has exposed crucial facilities => decreased national security. He didnt even touch it in the last speech. This gives me clear offense. 3. No reason to vote Con, no offense. All his arguments about governmental abuse have no link to the resolution, and doesnt show how wikileaks hasnt threatened. His authority evidence was from authorities who dont deal with intelligence sharing or diplomacy. Great Debate, buddy!! :D