CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Definitely, "Democracies die behind closed doors". Simply put, government secrecy is incompatible with a healthy democracy. Yet today, most of the developed nations have their government's business conducted in secret. They have a multitude of secret agencies, secret committees, a secret court and even secret laws.
As the number of terrorists is growing day by day, the transparency of the government would be "more helpful to the terrorists" than to the members of the country.
Certainly some level of security is necessary for protecting the nation from potential enemies. But even when secrecy is needed, it must be recognized as a necessary evil, and effective checks against error, abuse and corruption must be re-established.
The government can't tell us where all their spies are. The government needs to keep tabs on other governments to make sure they don't get out of hand.
The government can't tell us where all their spies are.
Spying could be done differently. The old paradigm for gathering intelligence could be outmoded by a new one that doesn't require keeping us citizens in the dark about what "our" intelligence services our up to.
The government needs to keep tabs on other governments to make sure they don't get out of hand.
Sure, but explain why our government couldn't do this better with more concerned citizen's eyes on intelligence data. I think a swarm of ordinary interested citizens would be better at gathering and analyzing intelligence, and the government could stop piling up secrets.
When I said "ordinary concerned citizen" I certainly wasn't thinking of "average citizens". It's hardly the "average" folks that would take it upon themselves to seriously gather and analyze intelligence data. I think that there are exceptional people who could as citizen journalists/intelligence agents out do our top spies.
But opening it to everyone would cause signal to noise ratio problems, would it not? How would you propose barring less intelligent individuals from participating? I'm all but certain there are a number of individuals that are poorly suited to the task who would still be quite interested in participating.
But opening it to everyone would cause signal to noise ratio problems, would it not?
Worse than those already inherent to analyzing "big data"? I don't think so.
How would you propose barring less intelligent individuals from participating?
I wouldn't
I'm all but certain there are a number of individuals that are poorly suited to the task who would still be quite interested in participating.
It takes a certain level of intelligence to participate in a meaningful way in intelligence gathering and dissemination. I'm not worried about less intelligent voices drowning out the more intelligent ones any more than I am with things as they currently are.
Worse than those already inherent to analyzing "big data"? I don't think so.
How does opening up the analysis to countless untrained individuals alleviate this in any way?
It takes a certain level of intelligence to participate in a meaningful way in intelligence gathering and dissemination. I'm not worried about less intelligent voices drowning out the more intelligent ones any more than I am with things as they currently are.
I would generally expect a higher standard of competence from those who do this professionally than from those who do not, intelligence assumed to be equal. The average person currently involved in intelligence work is of above average intellect and is trained specifically to do this job- some, though not all of the requirements and expectations for these positions are detailed on the organizations webpages. Opening it up to everyone means that both the average intellect and level of competence of those involved will plummet to 'average intellect' and 'no training.'
That aside, how would you prevent intelligence from leaking outside of the country?
How does opening up the analysis to countless untrained individuals alleviate this in any way?
More minds working on the problems
I would generally expect a higher standard of competence from those who do this professionally than from those who do not, intelligence assumed to be equal.
Yet we see citizen journalists (though untrained) outmoding big media as we speak. I think a similar thing can happen to how we handle national security news (intelligence dessemination and analysis)
The average person currently involved in intelligence work is of above average intellect and is trained specifically to do this job- some, though not all of the requirements and expectations for these positions are detailed on the organizations webpages. Opening it up to everyone means that both the average intellect and level of competence of those involved will plummet to 'average intellect' and 'no training.'
Somehow I doubt that screening for high intelligence is an effective bulwark against corruption. Governmental transparency is our best defense against governmental corruption.
That aside, how would you prevent intelligence from leaking outside of the country?
I'd rather consider how to handle the risks of an informed global population than an uniformed one.
Yet we see citizen journalists (though untrained) outmoding big media as we speak. I think a similar thing can happen to how we handle national security news (intelligence dessemination and analysis)
Journalism is rather a different field than intelligence, I would say. I'm not arguing that the potential for individual citizens to outperform individual intelligence agents isn't there. I am arguing that quality intelligence would require more screening than is warranted by complete transparency and opening the table to everyone.
Somehow I doubt that screening for high intelligence is an effective bulwark against corruption. Governmental transparency is our best defense against governmental corruption.
I wasn't arguing regarding corruption, but rather competence. I agree with you regarding transparency is an effective defense against corruption, but when we're talking about matters of intelligence relevant to national security, I wouldn't personally opt for transparency if it comes at the cost of competence. Again- if it was not open to everyone and some reasonable screening could be provided, I'd be more open to this angle, but I can't lend support to opening it up entirely.
I'd rather consider how to handle the risks of an informed global population than an uniformed one.
I think that's a rather naive overly-optimistic viewpoint. No offense intended, mind you. If the entire world was going the route of transparency it'd be one thing, but I couldn't countenance opening our intelligence up while our enemies and competitors keep theirs closed.
No one said all opinions should be respected equally. Just that citizens who are expected to support a government shouldn't be expected to do so when seriously uninformed.
Journalism is rather a different field than intelligence, I would say.
I'm not arguing that the potential for individual citizens to outperform individual intelligence agents isn't there. I am arguing that quality intelligence would require more screening than is warranted by complete transparency and opening the table to everyone.
So we create tools to screen for quality information. Think of Twitter as a potential intelligence gathering tool. Twitter users screen out sources they deem to be low quality.
I agree with you regarding transparency is an effective defense against corruption, but when we're talking about matters of intelligence relevant to national security, I wouldn't personally opt for transparency if it comes at the cost of competence.
I don't think being more transparent would necessarily harm our intelligence gathering and analytical capabilities.
Again- if it was not open to everyone and some reasonable screening could be provided, I'd be more open to this angle, but I can't lend support to opening it up entirely.
I think keeping secrecy out of government is a good ideal to work towards, and of course current geopolitical conditions don't allow for immediate disclosure of all information. However I just can't whole heartedly support an organization that I cannot thoroughly examine.
I think that's a rather naive overly-optimistic viewpoint. No offense intended, mind you.
It's OK. I knew before hand that people would see my position as naive.
If the entire world was going the route of transparency it'd be one thing, but I couldn't countenance opening our intelligence up while our enemies and competitors keep theirs closed.
I agree with this. Of course I think intelligence gathering capabilities can advance to a point where those trying to keep secrets will fail quite consistently. Big things that require massive cooperation are hard to keep secret from people who have powerful surveillance tools.
Sure, but explain why our government couldn't do this better with more concerned citizen's eyes on intelligence data. I think a swarm of ordinary interested citizens would be better at gathering and analyzing intelligence, and the government could stop piling up secrets.
How am I supposed to gather data on China while I live here?
Can you actually provide an action I can take? I don't have electronic surveillance equipment and I still have no idea how to use technological innovation to spy on China.
But, the government would have to tell everyone what I found and that would make it so that China found out and it becomes worthless. How do you prevent China from getting the info?
If they found out that what they were trying to keep secret was quickly becoming public knowledge, I think that they would have to change their behavior, and they would be monitored more rigorously, by the whole world, rather than by only a select class of intelligence agents.
They would be finding out whatever is becoming public knowledge, and figure out how to keep secrets. Plus, it isn't that China knows that we know stuff, they would know exactly what we know. If you give the information to the American public the Chinese will easily be able to get it.
They would be finding out whatever is becoming public knowledge, and figure out how to keep secrets.
Or they would be paralyzed by constantly having to change plans. How can you be sure that if popular opinion changed to become intolerant of government secrecy, that efforts to expose wrongdoing won't out pace efforts to keep it hidden?
Plus, it isn't that China knows that we know stuff, they would know exactly what we know. If you give the information to the American public the Chinese will easily be able to get it.
I will admit that this is currently too much to risk, but should global public opinion change, I think fully transparent government would make better governments than we've ever had.
The idea that we are a self-governing people here in the US is an illusion if we are kept in the dark about actions taken by government officials. If we are willing to let go of the idea that we are a self-governing people, we can have national security, but we will be subjects of our government not real participants.
Or they would be paralyzed by constantly having to change plans. How can you be sure that if popular opinion changed to become intolerant of government secrecy, that efforts to expose wrongdoing won't out pace efforts to keep it hidden?
Or the more likely scenario that we would be paralyzed by constantly having to figure out new ways to find their secrets. It is easier to keep secrets than to find them.
I will admit that this is currently too much to risk, but should global public opinion change, I think fully transparent government would make better governments than we've ever had.
You plan is contingent on 7 billion people agreeing on one thing?
The idea that we are a self-governing people here in the US is an illusion if we are kept in the dark about actions taken by government officials. If we are willing to let go of the idea that we are a self-governing people, we can have national security, but we will be subjects of our government not real participants.
I don't think you know what the word participants means. The software developer at Microsoft doesn't need to know what Bill Gates does on a daily basis to be a participant.
Or the more likely scenario that we would be paralyzed by constantly having to figure out new ways to find their secrets. It is easier to keep secrets than to find them.
The only secrets easily kept, are those that don't involve planning and coordinating group activities. I disagree with you that it's easier to keep state secrets than to reveal them. I don't think you can justify that belief.
You plan is contingent on 7 billion people agreeing on one thing?
No. I am saying that working towards the ideal of governmental transparency requires a period of transition.
I don't think you know what the word participants means. The software developer at Microsoft doesn't need to know what Bill Gates does on a daily basis to be a participant.
I'm not sure how Microsoft is governed, but I strongly suspect that the common software developer DOES NOT PARTICIPATE as a executive decision maker.
In an organization that purports itself to be democratic, how many official secrets can be kept before we are really talking about cryptocracy?
The only secrets easily kept, are those that don't involve planning and coordinating group activities. I disagree with you that it's easier to keep state secrets than to reveal them. I don't think you can justify that belief.
I didn't say easily kept, I said it is easier to keep than to find. You have twisted words several times here. Is that the only way this makes sense?
No. I am saying that working towards the ideal of governmental transparency requires a period of transition.
Well, since we aren't on the road to even starting the transition I can't see you succeeding.
I'm not sure how Microsoft is governed, but I strongly suspect that the common software developer DOES NOT PARTICIPATE as a executive decision maker.
Then, the US citizens do not participate as executive decision makers either. There is no reason to believe that citizens are supposed to be executive decision makers.
In an organization that purports itself to be democratic, how many official secrets can be kept before we are really talking about cryptocracy?
A cryptocracy doesn't occur just because secrets are kept. We can use the transparency that would prevent a cryptocracy without needing 100% transparency of national security information.
Spying could be done differently. The old paradigm for gathering intelligence could be outmoded by a new one that doesn't require keeping us citizens in the dark about what "our" intelligence services our up to.
How would they share secrets with us without sharing it with our enemy?
I advocate increasing governmental transparency until there is no need to keep state secrets. The ideal to work towards, is keeping the public informed about the official activities of government officials. To not have this as an ideal invites corruption.
Things like this are why the transition to open government should be gradual. After a point I suppose these type of secrets wouldn't exist to be kept secret. Global devastation shouldn't hinge on our ability to keep secrets.
It could be by God to set up the events of the Book of Revelation. It is actually in a way not the actions itself as in the conflict in the Middle East sets up the return of Jesus .
While we have these weapons, we need details of how to detonate them kept secret. But the fact that they can be detonated by someone of ill will who gets ahold of that information, is reason enough to dismantle them.
Same with any weapons? So in order for your system to work... we'd have to be completely defenselessly so that our defenses couldn't get into the wrong hands?
It certainly wouldn't be wise AT THIS POINT, for the government to blow the cover of covert spies. This doesn't speak to a neccesity of having covert spies in the first place.
The government needs to keep tabs on other governments to make sure they don't get out of hand.
Sure, but I am saying this could be done just as effectively, if not more so, by increasing transparency
Sure, but I am saying this could be done just as effectively, if not more so, by increasing transparency
You keep saying that, but don't provide any way to do it. If the USA keeps saying "hey we found this out" over and over, other countries will just learn how to better protect their info.
The rackets that we call war would be exposed as such, and I think our conflicts could be then be addressed in a manner we would have a right to be proud of.
If we told everyone where our military was stationed they would be easily targeted.
Not if we didn't position our defenses in easily attackable positions.
The rackets that we call war would be exposed as such, and I think our conflicts could be then be addressed in a manner we would have a right to be proud of.
I'm sorry, I don't live in fantasy land.
Not if we didn't position our defenses in easily attackable positions.
So, you would rather spend effort on making it harder to attack than to just not tell people stuff?
Yes in a way. No nation would exist if it was completely transparent. Our enemies would know of our plans and the real face behind a government would be shown and in that case it's a cruel, cold, and dark face.
However, once you start spying on your own citizens and when someone challenges the system you call them a, "terrorist" then you are asking for trouble... from your own citizenry.
Once the government starts abusing their rights (like the USA have done way too much recently) secrecy quickly becomes hated by the general public. Then comes anarchy, unfortunately.
