Lying is Sometimes Justified.
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be arguing that lying is justified under certain circumstances.
My opponent will be arguing that even under the worst case scenarios, lying is not acceptable.
Lying: saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Justified: show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.
Religious references shall not be used (such as Bible or Qur'an).
When a scenario is presented, it can not be argued invalid.
By accepting, you agree what I am debating for, and what you are debating for. You agree to the rules and definitions.
With that said, let the debate commence!!
If you accept this debate, Then you are agreeing to all of the above information, and there are no changes or add on's.
The more the lye is prolonged the worse it becomes when the truth (Reality) hits. That is why I believe that you should define the certain circumstances in your answer, even under the worst of circumstances, a lye will only rescue you for a moment but he truth will bring peace upon you forever.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. Note: My opponent agrees to everything that was said in the first round.
--Argument 1: Legitimate reasons--
Scenario 1: Sam is a street medic. His job is to save people no matter what.
One of his patients is dying. To keep the patient from giving up, Sam must tell the patient a lie. This lie would give the patient confidence, and he could live long enough for the medic to save him. But is lying justified here?
Is this lying, and is it justified?
Would this really be lying? First we need to look at the definition. The definition of lying is saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Sam is intentionally saying a false statement in order to deceive the patient, so yes this is lying.
Now what we need to look at next: Is this really justified? In other words does Sam have a legitimate reason to lie to the patient? Yes he most certainly does. If he lies to the patient, he will keep him alive, and will be able to save him. His reason to lie is to save lives.
If I am correct, then saving lives is a legitimate reason to lie. For example, stealing has sometimes been justified, when it was for the reason of saving one or multiple lives. Stealing and lying are at about the same level as far as how bad the crime is, but even if they were not, they would both still be justified because of the Supreme Court justifiable system, where saving lives is a justifiable reason.
Therefore my resolution has been proved in the scenario.
Rose is a seven year old girl. Her mother had been kidnapped two weeks ago, and recently they found her body. She had been beaten, and suffocated.
The guardian, Tom has to tell the child that her mother died, but he lies to her and simply says she was hit my a car, so that the child is not scared, and doesn't have emotional problems in the future.
First we need to look at if this would be considered lying. Is Tom saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive? Yes he is intentionally deceiving the child, so that her pain and suffering are minimized.
How is this Justified? Tom would be saving a life, but in a different way than Sam in the previous scenario. He would be preventing Rose;s Future from becoming ruined. He would be giving her a chance at a more normal life.
This proves my resolution to be true.
Thanks for reading
abbassiadam forfeited this round.
papayarocx5 forfeited this round.
abbassiadam forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.