The Instigator
jdog2016
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Whomp
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points

Lying/Cheating is Always Morally Unacceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,560 times Debate No: 44107
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

jdog2016

Con

The Morality of Deception

I will be arguing that there are times in life when lying/cheating can be morally acceptable.

mor·al

adjective
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.-GOOGLE



un·ac·cept·a·ble


adjective
1. not satisfactory or allowable.-GOOGLE

In todays society, social structure is everything. The general and overall stability of our society today is caused in large by people being ‘good’. The word ‘good’ is simple, however it encompases a suprisingly large catagory of human actions. These include such things as truthfulness, selflessness, kindness, and so on. All throughout our lives, we have been taught to be strictly ‘good’, and that we are to never stray from that path. Should we stray from it, we are to be punished. This is not only enforced by our parents, or mentors persay, but also society as a whole. Be as it may, what if one was to ‘lie’, or ’cheat’ in a good way, or rather a way that benefits more than the culprit themselves. My own belief is that while ‘lying’ or ‘cheating’ as a whole can be categorized as ‘bad’, there are certain sub categories within the one that can be of mutual benefit to all.

The idea that ‘lying and cheating is always wrong’, is absurdity. There are indeed times when one individual may become conflicted in any given situation because they believe in that moment, that were they to lie all would be solved in a justified manner. In a more specific approach, how would you respond in the unlikely event that a terrorist approached you, and said he would kill you on the spot if you were an American. Of course you are going to start frantically denying that you are American and start speaking Arabic, thereby lying, and cheating the man. The liar is simply doing so to prevent his own doom. Is that wrong? As were the wise words of Brian Fantana, nope.

In terms of cheating in a competitive aspect, it is usually unjust. The only remotely possible way to cheat in a game or competition and still keep your honor, is in the instance that the person whom you are cheating, is cheating as well. In doing this, are not simply making the competition fair once more? All of this goes back to to the classic rule that is well known by anyone who grew up with a sibling.

The quote “Don’t hit back!”, said by every multi childbearing parent ever, means simply that if someone either physically or mentally attacks you, ignore it and the issue will resolve itself over time. While this quote seems reasonable, the idea it encompases is highly contradictory, as it basically instructs you to remain idle while being harassed. So, when someone is cheating you, should you cheat them back? The answer is uncertain.

While I myself do not condone lying and cheating, I do believe it is an inevitable part of human nature. For the most part, cheating someone has morally negative effects, however there seems to be some instances when it can be reasonably justified, whether someone is preserving their own, or others safety and well being, or even if they are just evening the playing field. The bottom line is this. I lie, and you lie. If for any reason you said you weren’t a liar, you would be most certainly lying all over again.

-Jayden P.

Whomp

Pro

The argument revolves around whether it is morally right or wrong to lie/cheat.

I concede there are times when you can justify the use of lying/cheating.
Just like there are times when you can justify the use of killing ie. self defense or stealing ie. starving and about to die.
That does not change the fact that the act itself is still morally wrong.
If it weren't, why would you need to justify it based on the circumstances?

It is an inevitable part of human nature but that's with the idea of fighting against it (at least for most people). We lie and cheat even though we think it's wrong. What would happen if we thought it were morally permissible in all situations to lie/cheat?

Trust, a foundation for many civilized societies, would be lost and getting even the simplest task accomplished involving two people would be near impossible. You can trust people with the assumption that they will find lying/cheating morally wrong and will make an attempt to be honest and good.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Oh wait it's a one round debate, so Pro actually does have a chance...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Who would take this? It's suicide.
All it takes is one counter-example to completely debunk Pro's case.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
jdog2016WhompTied
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: Sur glg qrw frqfhgh eb vdblqj lw frxog vrphwlphv eh mxvwlilhg, dv kh zdv qrw wdonlqj lq d prudo vhqvh. Frqgxfw wr Frq dv Sur glg pdgh d rqh urxqg ghedwh. HAHAHAHAHA. Pro did not concede by saying it could sometimes be justified, as he was not talking in a moral sense. Conduct to Con as Pro did made a one round debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
jdog2016WhompTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: "I concede there are times when you can justify the use of lying/cheating." Args CON. Conduct PRO due to CON posting a 1 round "debate".
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
jdog2016WhompTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "I concede there are times when you can justify the use of lying/cheating." - Pro shot himself in the foot hard with that one. The debate is whether or not its ALWAYS morally unacceptable and then pro starts out his 1 argument by conceding that there are cases where its acceptable.
Vote Placed by xXx_Warshak_xXx 3 years ago
xXx_Warshak_xXx
jdog2016WhompTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: I Believe Cheating is cheating and shouldn't be done you share a special bond with 1 person no more and lieing never really is all that good either if you can't be honest then why say anything at all you'll just hurt someone in the end with a lie.