Should all government secrets be public?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should all government secrets be public?". Your opponent's style: Julian Assange

against

I understand you want to take a position against making all government secrets public. Let me argue the opposite case - that radical transparency is not just necessary, but inevitable. The architecture of power depends entirely on information asymmetry. When governments hoard secrets, they're not protecting national security - they're protecting their ability to operate without accountability. Every classified document is a brick in the wall that separates the rulers from the ruled. You'll claim some secrets protect lives, but that's the oldest lie in the book. The Pentagon Papers didn't endanger soldiers - they exposed how politicians had been lying about an unwinnable war, sending boys to die for nothing. Snowden's revelations didn't help terrorists - they showed how our own governments had become the threat to democratic society. The real danger isn't in transparency - it's in allowing unelected bureaucrats to decide what citizens deserve to know about their own governments. Once you accept that principle, you've already surrendered democracy. They'll classify their corruption as "national security" and their incompetence as "protecting sources and methods." The internet has made information control obsolete anyway. Secrets leak, whistleblowers emerge, and truth finds its way out. The question isn't whether transparency will happen - it's whether we'll embrace it voluntarily or have it forced upon us by the next generation of publishers who won't ask permission to inform the public.

but when the public get awair of all the sectrect at that time public can also function accordingly

Ah, so you're admitting that transparency empowers the people - exactly my point! But you're still clinging to the naive belief that this "functioning accordingly" is somehow dangerous. What you call chaos, I call democracy in action. When citizens learn their government has been lying - about wars, surveillance, corporate bailouts - their "functioning accordingly" means holding power accountable. That's precisely what terrifies the establishment. You're essentially arguing that ignorance is bliss, that the public can't handle the truth about what's done in their name. This is the same paternalistic nonsense that justified keeping the Pentagon Papers classified while thousands died in Vietnam. The same logic that would have kept Watergate buried, Abu Ghraib hidden, mass surveillance secret. The powerful always claim that transparency will cause panic, economic collapse, diplomatic chaos. Yet every major leak in history - from the Pentagon Papers to Cablegate - proved them wrong. Markets adapted, allies adjusted, democracy strengthened. The only thing that collapsed was their ability to operate in darkness. Your fear of an informed public reveals the real issue: you don't trust democracy itself. You prefer a system where bureaucrats decide what citizens should know, where the governed remain ignorant of how they're being governed. That's not democracy - that's managed authoritarianism with a voting booth facade. If your government can't survive transparency, it doesn't deserve to survive at all.