Instigator / Pro
14
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#2783

MisterChris vs Speedrace - Live Tournament Cybersecurity Debate

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

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

Our tournament round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjjMCrhgWI

We appreciate any votes!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

While there are potentially many arguments to cover in this debate, in actuality, each side is dependent on one by the end.

In Pro’s world, the most important issue is taking the fight back to those groups that are already using cyber operations offensively with a focus on punishing bad actors, whether that’s criminal groups or whole countries. His argument largely rests upon two distinct points under this heading: 1) that these groups are regularly advancing and utilizing cyber technologies and, thus, that we must intercede in their machinations to prevent them from getting out of hand, and 2) that these parties recognizing that they could be the targets of offensive cyber operations yields a deterrent effect by putting them on notice.

Both of these points are hampered by a lack of empirical evidence, though the same holds true for Con’s case, so it doesn’t really give him a leg up. The deterrent effect, however, is more difficult to buy when it’s pretty clear that actors like Iran and Russia are still engaging in the same behaviors. Maybe that will change some point down the line, but the existing evidence suggests that any such deterrence is more aspirational than anything else. Still, I end up buying a lot of what Pro is selling from the first point, especially as it relates to criminal groups, since that aspect of the argument goes largely dropped. Con does try to cut the legs out from under this by arguing that we’re better able to retaliate against governments under his case, but this looks to me like trying to have his cake and eat it, too. I don’t doubt that there are benefits to defensive operations and harms to escalation, but it seems like the issue of advancing cyber technologies doesn’t really favor a side, and defenses can (and by both sides’ arguments, always do) become predictable. Maybe defensive operations would be better early on, but I’m not convinced this is a long term solution, whereas interceding, particularly in efforts going on within the US but also outside of it, is likelier to yield longer term compliance by keeping bad actors on their toes.

In Con’s world, escalation rules the day. This is broken down to three distinct points: 1) that offensive operations are also limited by advancing cyber technologies and thus are consistently limited in their effectiveness to punish bad actors, 2) that said offensive cyber operations also tend to increase the degree to which other actors feel threatened and, thus, result in those actors lashing out in response, and 3) that defensive operations do not incur the same harms while offering a unique opportunity to better address attacks while simultaneously providing improved opportunities to hit back.

I largely buy the point that a good defense can be very strategic, particularly if you can draw bad actors to attack places of strength, though I see that as a short-term benefit, as I said above. If being outstripped technologically is a problem for offensive operations, then the same is true for defensive ones, particularly if I’m unclear (as I am by the end) what placing more resources into defensive operations actually does to advance them. That largely just leaves the escalation point, which is a stronger argument that is somewhat hampered by the very arguments Con is making about these bad actors engaging in the same activities before offensive operations went into effect. The threat of offensive cyber operations from other countries exists regardless, so it’s really a question of how much that threat increases with the US pushing for more of its own operations, and whether Con’s case also results in escalation. That’s another mitigating factor for this point, as while defensive operations may indeed bring down the temperature, the continued existence of some offensive operations may still keep the pot simmering. We may be better prepared to do those offensives, which increases their effectiveness, but therein lies the problem: if I fully buy that, then the effectiveness of cyber operations doesn’t go down with Con’s case, which means escalation still happens to the same degree because they feel just as (if not more) threatened; meanwhile, if I don’t buy that, then escalation goes down, but so does the effectiveness of defensive operations, making Con entirely reliant on escalations as an impact.

I can see what both sides were trying to do here, but I think Pro is more consistent and effective with his points than Con is. Maybe if it was clearer precisely how defensive operations give the US a greater technological advantage in the long term, or perhaps if Con had steered entirely clear of offensive operations and simply argued that our offensive capacities should be kept entirely outside of the cyber realm, refusing to play into a game of tit-for-tat with Russia, China and Iran, I could have seen this swinging differently. As it is, though, the benefits of Pro’s case appear more durable and less mitigated, so I vote Pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

In comments. Essentially, even if I apply pros self defense case against him, the retaliation ironically hold little water. I know that war is bad but even con explained nothing about comparing to violation of private information. I buy that defense is good at deception but con needs to bring this back to defeating pros first argument. pros case presented the war as a bit of a squabble in comparison (electrical grid problems? Please tell me why this is bad) and his Chinese standards case went widely unstopped. The reasoning behind stopping hackers is explained thoroughly and thus I can only vote pro