The Instigator
Mutineer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daerice
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

It takes more bravery to tell a highly inconvenient truth than a highly risky lie.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
daerice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 29824
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Mutineer

Con

Evidence is allowed.

Pro must propose their case in first round.

This is not an 'acceptance is first' round and doing so will be equated to a forfeit as I will be left with nothing to rebut/refute.

Bravery will not be defined but instead referred to by its synonyms: intrepidity, fearlessness, boldness, daring, prowess, heroism, pluck, spirit, audacity, nerve, mettle, spunk.
daerice

Pro

Greetings, I am accepting this debate and taking the position the it requires more bravery to tell a highly inconvenient truth than a highly risky lie.
My points are as follows:

1. Philosophers who suggest paradigms that a contrary to the dominant belief system are usually publicly destroyed, vilified, banished and in many cases killed. I will be providing a few examples from history.
-Socrates
-Giordano Bruno
-Uriel De Costa
-Baruch Spinoza
-Nicolaus Copernicus
-Galileo
-Hypatia
In each case these philosophers risked it all to speak the truth. They did so because they believed the truth to be more important than even their own lives. Some fled and hid, trying to make nice with the church, some died, but all were persecuted for speaking a truth that was highly inconvenient to the governing paradigm.
They did not take on these risks for profit or personal gain, but for a much loftier and noble reason, they did so in order to further and uplift the whole of human understanding.
However....should my opponent wish for a more contemporary example of someone who risked it all in the name of truth, I will offer up:
-Bradley Manning
-Julian Assange
Both of these men face serious legal consequences for their actions, and in the case of Bradley Manning, I would say he sought to gain little for himself personally, his bravery then was solely realized in the aim of a selfless and moral act

2. Telling highly risky lies doesn't require as much bravery because you have only to evade those you lied to, or possibly law enforcement. In fact, recent history clearly shows us that those who tell the biggest and most risky lies of all, do so with impunity and have nothing to fear from law enforcement as the lack of indictment against Wall Street players who brought the world economy to the brink of collapse illustrates.
Has any CEO from JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo or Fannie and Freddie suffered legal consequences? No.
This award winning film "Inside Job" explains completely how the biggest financial fraud in the history of the world was perpetrated by men who walk free today: http://www.sonyclassics.com...

3. In a society that no longer values any universal truth referent the highly risky lie is admired, even exalted.
- Fox News
- advertising
- cosmetic surgery
The general public cares little whether a statement is true or false, they only care if something contradicts a comfortable idea they themselves wish to believe.

Conclusion: In fact the greatest risk in a society of spectacle and lies, is to the purveyor or truth who represents the single greatest threat to the status quo.
Those who illuminate the base structure in a house of cards do so at great risk to themselves, but they do it not for immediate profit or notoriety, but they do so out of concern for the value of truth and the greater good of posterity.

Therefore I assert that the decision to speak a highly inconvenient truth requires more bravery, because
1. it is a more noble thing to do, since such an act is rarely motivated by money, it must be motivated by an altruistic concern for others, or the good of society as a whole.
AND
2. carries a far greater liability because it threatens not just one person or group, but the very foundational beliefs of an entire society.
AND
3. this is particularly true in contemporary global society where mainstream media saturates humanity with lies and suffers very few consequences, if any.
Debate Round No. 1
Mutineer

Con

This account is now shutting down.

Suicide mission.

Goodbye.
daerice

Pro

My goodness, well.....not sure what to say. I assume that you are opting out. However, should you change your mind I'd still be willing to engage.
Debate Round No. 2
Mutineer

Con

Mutineer forfeited this round.
daerice

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I won't be posting a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
Mutineer

Con

Mutineer forfeited this round.
daerice

Pro

Perhaps Mutineer's forfeits are meant as a very subtle strategy and he's going to surprise me in the final round....
Debate Round No. 4
Mutineer

Con

Mutineer forfeited this round.
daerice

Pro

That's all folks.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mutineer 4 years ago
Mutineer
I hope you get to really se the actual debate and how I win that.
Posted by Mutineer 4 years ago
Mutineer
You win this debate.

Good for you.
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
A wiser man would better express himself. Debating is not for comments? So one shouldn't make comments for debates. Or are you trying to say that the art of debating shouldn't be expressed in comments? Which leads us to ask, isn't this whole debating structure a platform for comments. Perhaps you should have said the comments section is not for debating.
Posted by Mutineer 4 years ago
Mutineer
The wise man knows when and when not to wield his blade.

Debating is not for comments.
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
How very irrelevant of you, then.
Posted by Mutineer 4 years ago
Mutineer
No reason :)
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
Why wouldn't I be?
Posted by Mutineer 4 years ago
Mutineer
You are entitled to that opinion.
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
Bravery is too vague a teem esp. if you are not letting it be defined
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
MutineerdaericeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit (his account was closed)
Vote Placed by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
MutineerdaericeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited and the example of bradley manning was exactly on point
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
MutineerdaericeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
MutineerdaericeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Victory by Forfeiture