Getting corrupt spies to be exposed doesn't really seem to be a great datum to back your argument. He might have actually saved more lives indirectly since he stopped them from leaking secret Soviet information to the US. Anything else?

labeling the victims as "corrupt" is also weak

saying 'ok you're right but maybe it's a good thing' is weak

none of the arguments really seem great against the evidence presented. anything else?

Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it.

What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.

but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak:

- whether you agree with the killing

- whether it is 2 or 2 million

- what their profession is

- whether they are civilians

- whether you personally think they're corrupt

- what you personally have a problem with

literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed"

QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?

I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available.

Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.

sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED.

any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?

Sources?

Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.

Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening?

Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq"

And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting.

There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can.

Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?

maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything

> Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one.

the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 humans in history being killed by an intelligence leak, which, again, my example proves false (and is a ridiculous claim for you to make)

the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, trying to distract the topic at hand:

Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?

Yes. QED

> the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak

No.

I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time.

> Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?

This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?"

If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world.

If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.

No.

You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history.

Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of benefits or anything else.

Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth to the question we're discussing only shows that you seem to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts.

Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. "Alternative facts" don't count here.

"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?"

"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?"

"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?"

I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.

by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes") you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts