Instigator / Pro
10
1558
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1633

Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
10
0

After 10 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Zaradi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1472
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

No information

“Economic decline caused by corruption triggers uncertainty and national security concerns – foreign rivals are emboldened to challenge American instability and vulnerabilities trigger loose nukes...”

I’ll be honest, I lol’d.

-->
@Zaradi

GG EZ Dub

Snitches can be scumbags but sometimes you have to be a scumbag to take down bigger scumbags, life is not so simple.

-->
@Zaradi

If you agree to define "the right to protect confidential sources" as absolute (i.e. without exception), then I would take Con.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Definitions are half of any debate. And if you think there's no recourse to someone defining something in a way that makes the debate unfair then you're not thinking particularly hard. That being said, I dont plan on defining something unfairly.

-->
@Zaradi

I think it's only fair to your opponent that you provide crucial definitions. How one defines "right to protect the identity of confidential sources" is paramount to the nature of the debate. If you plan to merely argue it is a right that could have exceptions, then there is a serious burden on your opponent. If you instead plan to argue that it is an absolute right that has no exceptions, there is more of a burden on you.

There is a difference between deciding on exact arguments and making clear the position you intend to advocate for. As the debate is set up right now, there is not way to discern what exact position you will be arguing for.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I mean, I haven't decided on what my exact arguments will be. You can certainly argue the opposite.

-->
@Zaradi

For the purposes of this debate, is this "right" you speak of absolute? In other words, do you plan to argue there are no circumstances under which a reporter should be compelled to reveal a confidential source?