Instigator / Pro
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#2761

Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

I, PRO, believe that the benefits of the US federal government using offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms. As CON, you believe that the harms of the US federal government using offensive cyber operations outweigh the benefits.

In accordance with the harms-benefit analysis built into the resolution, BoP is shared.

DEFINITIONS:
I’m defining offensive cyber operations as any cyber operation that involves the willful invasion of the cyberspace of another party aside from the US federal government. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute furthers:
“In both UK and US military doctrine, offensive operations are a distinct subset of cyberspace operations that also include defensive actions; intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance and operational preparation of the environment”
(https://www.aspi.org.au/report/defining-offensive-cyber-capabilities#:~:text=US%20military%20joint%20doctrine%20defines,6)

STRUCTURE:
R1- PRO Constructive & CON Constructive
R2-3- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.

RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.

RULESET PENALTY:
If the ruleset is broken, the penalty will be the loss of a conduct point. By accepting the debate, the contender accepts the RULESET and the RULESET PENALTY.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks! It won't last for long unfortunately... Ragnar is about to beat Mairj23 in a debate, so he'll pass me up again. Good to finally reach this milestone though.

-->
@MisterChris

Congratulations on getting boosted to second place in the leaderboard for beating me!

-->
@Undefeatable

Just gonna say what WF said: it's difficult to compare live and writing. I feel that this debate was more difficult in the sense of raw effort I had to put into it, but that's just because a live debate takes about 45 mins and you're done lol

-->
@Undefeatable

I think that would be comparing apples to oranges. You both had arguments, but one was presented live and the other via writing. Also, though MisterChris's case is much the same, he definitely added a bit to this, clearly at least partially in preparation for arguments that Speed made against him. That being said, I think Speed's case was stronger (largely because CX helped elucidate it), but the arguments themselves had similar heft. Speed probably did a better job on impact analysis, though I think you did better at addressing some of the issues with Chris's case.

-->
@MisterChris

(also, I should've probably brought the debate into a more technical focused sphere, because I doubt you know more about computer science than me, which would've given me an advantage, instead of politics which was your forte)

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

damn, I suspected my argument wasn't good enough. Well played, Mr. Chris.

Did I do better than Speedrace in your opinion?

bumperino

-->
@Undefeatable

Started reading it today.

-->
@blamonkey
@whiteflame
@Theweakeredge

bumping this early since it's a long one. May take some time for people to vote...

-->
@MisterChris

also I think the official public forum debate framework is a little bit weird to say China is zero threat because it's very hard to find anything beyond the handful of sources. So you're just slinging mud back and forth. I had to try to step back and see what it shared with Russia and culminate into an overarching idea. The Public Forum advice seems a little strange given the amount of evidence presented. I just ignored that in the end and decided to focus on US destroying itself since it seemed central to the entertaining "Paranoid" idea.

-->
@Undefeatable

Don't write yourself off yet. You have unlimited stamina, so even if I squeeze out a few victories you could catch up soon enough. I appreciate the compliment though. It helps that I've debated this topic multiple times now

-->
@MisterChris

If I lose this one, congratulations Mr Chris you are officially a better debater than me XD. I probably said the same thing in three different ways but I couldn't think of what else to do

-->
@MisterChris

that makes sense. I might have lost, but I'll repeat points as much as I can to muddle the debate and make it a tie.

-->
@Undefeatable

Debating live is harder in every way. You have a limited time to think, you have the pressure causing your brain to fart during what little time you have, and you only have your previous knowledge and prepped materials to help you. You can't research your opponent's argument during the debate either. The biggest kicker is the limited speaking time though. It's the bane of my existence. If you're someone like me who likes to ramble and be meticulous instead of quick and concise, you'd hate it too until you got used to it.

That said, live debating has its own joys. The difficulty of it is what makes it a great sport

-->
@MisterChris

just curious, whose case did you find tougher to counter, my case, or Speedrace's?

Well that's a wrap. I'm gonna take a small break from debating just to recover some stamina. Looking forward to seeing what Whiteflame and others think of this one though.

-->
@MisterChris

are you purposefully framing my arguments in a weird way? I'm trying my best to put them in an extremely clear and concise manner, repeating ideas with comparisons and analogies. If they are too confusing, do say so.

I'm a little over halfway through this.

"You're doing this last minute!"

Yeah, I know.

-->
@MisterChris

I intended for a more Jordan Peterson approach where I showed where we agreed and moved on from there, but I ran out of space. Jordan must have time trouble in regular debates where he isn't trying to win, lol.

Sources:

1. digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=fac_articles
2. apnews.com/article/73fa72b776f2403688a572b770d7f3b5
3. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf
4. researchgate.net/publication/249017059_Democratic_Hegemony_and_American_Hegemony
5. jstor.org/stable/222815?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
6. lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7155&context=etd
7. belfercenter.org/publication/why-cyber-operations-do-not-always-favor-offense
8. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/23/cyber-attack-us-security-protocols
9. cfr.org/report/promoting-norms-cyberspace

-->
@Undefeatable

Generally I do like to wait. It's best to read the arguments, marinate on them for a few days, and then see what you have come up with.

-->
@MisterChris

This is more difficult than I thought. I'll have to consult your debate with Speedrace for further potential responses.

Also, I may add another rule to my set of standards: Post only when you have half the time or less. If there's more time to use, the better right?

-->
@MisterChris

good to know. I hope you'll allow me to rephrase my counter to the military if you waive. I don't think the way I stated it is 100% crystal clear.

-->
@Undefeatable

worse case scenario, we could both waive R2 and I'd have a bit more time but I think I'll have it done

-->
@Undefeatable

I will be posting my R2 a bit last minute tomorrow. I'd work on it more tonight but I am braindead

-->
@Undefeatable

Yes, I feel like I'll hit 20k and then have to whittle it down to 15k

-->
@MisterChris

I feel like this kind of topic might be best with 20k character count. 30k Seems absurd; even my Systemic Racism debate just managed to reach it in R1 and I lost motivation to continue the same level of analysis the next few rounds.

About 25% through the rebuttal... Gotta say, I'm starting to wish we had a higher character count here. Oh well

ok, here's the actual copy pasted full article for easy access (couldn't be bothered to create a google account) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5640-cyber-offense-full-article

ah... this will be fun. Glad I gave myself 2 weeks lol

-->
@MisterChris

with "target of innocents" I meant "even if that were decades ago..."

re-upload of source 3 ( valid for 14 days) : https://smallpdf.com/shared#st=116f24ff-d981-4296-a945-c6e0a8c28d49&fn=Deterring+Russian+cyber+warfare+the+practical+legal+and+ethical+constraints+faced+by+the+United+Kingdom.pdf&ct=1612070241867&tl=share-document&rf=link

sources:

1. belfercenter.org/publication/exaggerating-chinese-cyber-threat
2. wired.com/story/russia-cyberwar-escalation-power-grid/
3. full article: smallpdf.com/result#r=2d79c0c85a30c2c072dec37724a50f00&t=share-document
4. icrc.org/en/document/potential-human-cost-cyber-operations
5. npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war#:~:text=In%20his%20new%20book%2C%20Kill,wounded%20and%2011%20million%20refugees.
6. nytimes.com/2020/05/07/world/middleeast/pentagon-civilian-deaths-afghanistan-iraq-syria.html
7. amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/us-military-shows-appalling-disregard-for-civilians-killed-in-somalia-air-strike/
8. justsecurity.org/64875/u-s-offensive-cyber-operations-against-economic-cyber-intrusions-an-international-law-analysis-part-i/
9. researchgate.net/publication/275270540_Denial_and_Deception_in_Cyber_Defense
10. deterrence.ucsd.edu/_files/Weaving%20Tangled%20Webs_%20Offense%20Defense%20and%20Deception%20in%20Cyberspace.pdf

-->
@Undefeatable

Heads up: I will probably not be publishing my R1 until next weekend due to my debate with Speedrace on Thursday

-->
@Undefeatable

fine w/ me. Offensive & Defensive contentions are both welcome.

-->
@MisterChris

Also is it fine to have my constructive be basically a counter attack on your framework (ex. Same countries and whatnot)? It’s rather hard to build a case independent of what Pro thinks is important

Neat topic!

-->
@Undefeatable

Well... you'll see. I have several args in mind

-->
@MisterChris

I can already sense your self-defense argument brewing in the background from supporting Violent Revolutions... I won't let you get away with it this time!