Resolved: A world where no one can lie, is better than the world we live in right now.
Debate Rounds (4)
As to avoid a semantic debate I hope we can agree on defining better as being improved. A lie being a deliberate spoken untruth and the world being earth.
Thanks for the challenge THEBOMB.
This round is for round 1 of lannan13's tourney which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
As I stated in the comments, I would like to change the definition of "better" to a world where people are happier. A better world, is a happier world.
Furthermore, when "no one can lie", we mean that lying would just be impossible. Much like how licking your wenis is impossible, this is the same. Therefore, there is no need for any law enforcement to enforce the no lying rule.
Please PM or comment if you disagree before you post your arguments.
Also, I propose that you change the debate plan. I would like the 4th round to contain arguments as well. I just feel it would be an overall deeper debate that way.
I look forward to your arguments.
C1. Iraq War (2003 to 2011)
My logic on this point.
S1. Bush lied about the reasons for going to war
Sub1. The said justification was the only reason in the public's eyes, for war.
S2. The Iraq War killed and wounded thousands of people
S3. Death and injury causes unhappiness.
S4. Bush's lies caused unhappiness.
C. A world without lying has less unhappiness and therefore, is better.
Now I will prove my logic.
S1. Bush lied
The three reasons given for going to war with Iraq are as follows:
1) Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)
2) Saddam Hussein has connections to al Qaeda (combating terrorism)
3) The promotion of Democracy
1) There are no WMDs in Iraq. The military has not found any. Bush knew there were no WMDs before invading Iraq as the UN had not found any and the CIA confirmed that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq (1). And if Iraq's WMD program was such a threat why was there not a larger international coalition to bring down this program? Simple answer, there were no nuclear weapons. Furthermore, why don't we invade Iran or N. Korea who quite obviously are developing and have nuclear weapons? If this is the United States justification for invading one country then the United States is justified and has the responsibility to invade another country which actually has WMDs.
2) The CIA found no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. Just look at al Qaeda's objectives. To replace any non-fundamentalist Islamic government with a fundamentalist government. The Baathist regime once in Iraq does not qualify. So under al Qaeda's doctrine, it must be swept away.
3) The United States is allied with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, these two countries are not democratic by any stretch of the imagination. If the United States was promoting democracy the United States must also depose the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait replacing them with a democratic government. Furthermore, in the past, the United States supported oppressive regimes such as the Shah of Iran (the reason why they hate the US now). In the past, the United States supported Hussein supplying him with weaponry and information. The United States does not promote democracy only what serves it's own interests.
Bush lied about the reasons for the War. Since Bush lied about the justification for the War there would be no justification in the public's eyes for going to War. Since people generally oppose unjustified wars there would be no war.
S2 and S3. Killing/wounded
According to the Department of Defense, 4,421 soldiers were killed and 31,921 soldiers were wounded (1). The families of the 4,421 soldiers would be grief stricken and extremely sad due to their passing. The 31,921 soldiers that were wounded would be much happier if they were not wounded. This is only the American side. There were many more Iraqis (mostly civilians) who were wounded and killed as a direct result of the war. There were 864,531 Iraqi civilians killed and an astonishing 1,556,156 Iraqis who were seriously injured (2). The same logic applies here the families and friends of the deceased would be much happier with them alive. The people injured would be much happier uninjured.
S4. Bush's lies caused unhappiness.
It is through Bush's lies that there was support for the War in Iraq. Bush's lies caused the Iraq war to begin and for death to occur, death causes unhappiness.
Therefore, if Bush had not lied about the motives for war there would be no justification for the said war. The Iraq war never would have begun and the people who were killed and injured would never have been killed or injured. This means more people would have been happier. Since, more people are happier the world is happier, the world is better if it is happier.
C2. The Catholic Church (CC) spread misinformation about condoms adding to the AIDs epidemic in Africa.
S1. The CC spread misinformation (lied) about condoms effectiveness in fighting AIDs.
S2. Less people used condoms.
S3. More people got AIDs.
S4. AIDs causes unhappiness.
C. The CC lies caused unhappiness
"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass – potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. The Church is making the claims across four continents despite widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus." (4) This quote speaks for itself.
S2. Less people
If people are told something does not work why would they use a product which does not work?
S3. More AIDs
Less people use condoms means less protection from the transmission of AIDs which means more transmission of AIDs.
A deadly disease obviously causes unhappiness as it is deadly. When the person(s) die the family and friends left behind are going to be unhappy with their death.
Lying about condoms caused more death. Therefore, it caused more unhappiness. A world without lying means less people would have contracted this deadly virus. Less people would have died. More people would be happy. The world would be better.
C3. Lying affects peoples health and longevity.
"Lying is taxing both physically and emotionally. Because one lie leads to another, you can be forced into a nerve-wracking cycle of lies that becomes harder and harder to keep track of. Long-term exposure to stress can lead to serious health problems and can decrease longevity." (5) A world without lying is a better world as there will be less serious health problems. People naturally are happier if they are healthier.
Lying can also lead to three things (5):
1) Depression and anxiety
2) Damaged relationships
3) Shattered self-esteem
All three of these above stated things is some form of unhappiness. Depression is just another word for being unhappy (although more complicated). Damaged relationships cause unhappiness. A shattered self-esteem causes you to look at yourself badly which means your emotional health will not survive. All three things stem from lying. Less people lie = less people are unhappy = a better world.
Thanks to Pro for posting his arguments.
I did not expect the debate the turn out like this, however, I guess this could work.
Now, both of Pro's contentions could be easily refuted with one point.
If you scroll up to Pro's opening round, he defines a lie as: "being a deliberate spoken untruth", meaning that the party lying must know that they are lying and deceiving others.
Now did Bush know that there were no WMD in Iraq before going to war, or no connection to Al Qaeda?
Now this is not a debate on the reasons Bush went to war, so I will not go into detail on this.
Sure, the CIA found there were no WMD in Iraq and Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda. But maybe, they realized this after Bush declared war on Iraq, meaning there was a different reason for going to war with Iraq, perhaps to promote democracy, as you say (and before you say anything, maybe Iraq was just first on the US's list on countries to promote democracy for).
This would mean that Bush did not lie when going to world with Iraq, but lying later in order to cover up his mistake and to save face.
In fact, lying later by saying that he went to war with Iraq to combat terrorism and to destroy WMD, would actually save American families lots of grief, as they would know their sons and daughters went to war for a noble cause, not just something random. And Iraqi families would think, my son died protecting my country.
Now moving on to your catholic church contention.
Well, first, I must point out that in the source you provided, I noticed that the title was "BBC Accuses Church of Worldwide Condom Misinformation Campaign".
Accuses means that BBC thinks that the Church was spreading misinformation, however, it has not yet been proven whether or not the Church intended to lie about the condoms.
In fact, it seems more likely that the church did not lie about the condoms. What does it have to gain from lying about condoms? Nothing, really. It seems as though the church truly thought that the condoms did not work.
Take a look at this scenario.
Some few hundred years back, the church burned witches at the stake because they practiced "witchcraft". Obviously there is no such thing as witches or witchcraft. However, the Church truly thought that witches were real, so they were not lying by saying that those people were witches and are going to be executed.
It is the same with this. The church truly believed that the condoms did not work, so they did not lie, because they believed it to be the truth. In fact, if they lied by saying that the condoms did work, more people would use the condoms and prevent the transmission of aids. Therefore, sometimes when people lie, the world becomes a happier place.
C.1.: Protecting others
Imagine that many people thought that you were a loser, and someone who is a bad at debating. You want to know what people think about you.
In a world where no one can lie, everyone must tell the truth, and say that you are a loser and bad at debating. What would that do? That would crush your self esteem, you would not want to debate ever again. That would give you depression and anxiety, you would feel sad from bing called a loser and be anxious to try to win everyone's favour back. That would damage your relationship with others, as you now know everyone thinks that you are a loser.
As Pro pointed out in the previous round, "All three of these above stated things is some form of unhappiness". However, I have pointed out a real life example where these occur from not lying. Pro has not proven that these symptoms occur from lying.
In the above scenario, if everyone lied and said that you were the best debater and the coolest guy ever, your self esteem would not shatter. You would feel more confident and better about yourself. You would not experience depression or anxiety. In fact, you would be really happy about what others think about you. Your relationships with others would not be damanged, in fact, they would improve as you try to get closer to everyone because you think that they think you are cool. After time, people could change their feelings and grow to genuinely like you.
Before Pro says that he would feel much better if people told him the real truth by saying he is a loser, please understand that that is not logical at all. No one would feel good if people told each other that they were losers. Everyone would be happier if they lied and said that they were the coolest people ever.
Therefore, in our world right now we have the ability to lie at our discretion. Sometimes it is much better to lie. Other times it is much better to tell the truth. When we have this ability to choose, we have a much happier world. We build relations with each other. And overall, our world would be much better and happier.
C.2: Self protection
Now imagine you have a family of 4. An insane gun murderer serial killer breaks into your house. You tell your family to run to the car to get away while you distract the gun murderer. The gun murderer wants to rape your wife. He demands that you tell him where she is.
Now let's look at this logically. Obviously, you love your wife. You don't want her to be injured. In a world where you cannot lie, you must say that she is in the garage trying to get away. Then the gun murderer would go to the garage and catch up to her, since you were unable to delay him because you can't lie, and rape her then kill her. Obviously you would be very devastated. In fact, it would be on your concious for the rest of your life, that you led the murderer to kill your wife, that you indirectly caused the death of your entire family. You would feel sad, you would never be able to live with yourself again. Please, Pro, explain how a world like this would be better than this world we live in right now.
Now back to our world. Now you are able to lie. The gun murderer asks you where your wife is. You lie by saying she's upstairs in your bedroom under the bed. He goes there. By doing so, you buy the time for your wife to get away in the car. Now your family won't die, and they are able to call the cops to arrest the murderer and bring him to justice. In a world where you are able to lie, in our world, you are able to protect people you love.
Lying is necessary to survival, to human life. Everyone lies, and has lied, and will lie, that is a fact. With lies, you are able to protect yourself and your loved ones. Generally, if you are alive, you are happier. Therefore, a world where people are able to lie, the world right now, would be better than a world where no one can lie.
Pro, unlike me, has not provided real tangible reasons where not lying and telling the truth would be so much better.
Furthermore, he provides facts from the past (i.e. the iraq war), when the resolution clearly says "right now". That means that data from the past is irrelevant and scenarios, such as the one I have provided, must be used as proof instead.
Therefore, as Pro did not prove that both Bush and the Catholic Church intended to lie, and did not just mistakenly lie, both his arguments are invalid. Furthermore, they are also invalid because they are not relevant to "right now".
As a result, Pro has lost this debate.
D1. Yes Bush did know there were no WMDs in Iraq just look at my source. The CIA confirmed that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq (1). Bush knew, through the CIA, that Hussein had no connection with al Qaeda or 9/11 (2). The United States is not interested in promoting democracy in the middle east as I explained above. Iraq was not a threat (2).
Bush's lies gave Congress a reason to authorize military action in Iraq. Without this authorization there would have been no War in Iraq. His lies are what led directly to the War. Congress would not have authorized military action therefore, Bush could not have sent soldiers into Iraq. Therefore, without the lies there is no war and none of the death the War caused. People therefore, would be happier because the death would not have happened. It may save some grief but, there still would be grief. Without the war there would be no grief therefore, the world would have less grief and would be happier. The world would be happier.
D2. The Catholic Church
Alright, here is a better source. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
They did lie. They set aside all scientific information pointing to the opposite conclusion that Condoms were effective and spread disinformation. They knew according to science condoms worked and lied about all scientific evidence saying the exact opposite. Science proved condoms are effective. The CC decided to read this science, set it aside, and state the opposite. The Catholic Church's lies have made the world a less happy place. If they could not lie then they would have to say the truth, Condoms work. The world would be happier because less people would contract AIDs.
As for my opponents stance with the witchcraft. There was no knowledge at the time these people were not witches. There was knowledge that condoms work. They are two completely different scenarios.
Dropped. My opponent therefore agrees tat lying causes the three above said things. Since it does so the world would be better with less depression, less damaged relationships, and less shattered self-esteem. Lying causes this therefore, a world without lying means less of this.
Yes, I would want to know what people think about me. It would not crush my self-esteem, I still would debate to gain experience, and I would not develop depression and anxiety. (If this was true I already would have developed these symptoms said). I am who I am. My position is completely logical, I prefer to know what someone truly thinks about me rather than a facade.
Furthermore, my opponent never provides why they have the person has to say these things. Lying is defined as "a deliberate spoken untruth". If they do not speak the mean things, then there is no lying as one of the aspects of a lie is that it is spoken.
I have one simple question. When the gun murder turns to go to your wife. Call the police, stab the person in the back with a kitchen knife. There are options. And you also have the other option of not saying anything, deliberately not saying something is different than lying as you are withholding the truth not stating something inaccurate. This situation is highly unlikely in any case. Crime is not all that present in the United States.
Now for another contention:
C1. The Criminal Justice System
I define justice in the Aristotelian sense: Justice is everyone receiving what they deserve. Criminals deserve to be sent to jail. A world where no one can lie promotes justice as the Criminal Justice system will basically work by a police officer or prosecutor asking the defendant "did you commit x?" X being the crime they may have committed. If they answer yes they did it and are sent to jail. If they answer no they did not do it and go free. Justice promotes happiness because people will be safer as criminals are arrested and almost immediately sent to jail if guilty. (It also promotes speed in the system). Justice leads to safety. People are happier when they are safer. Furthermore, when criminals see how easy it is to be convicted of a crime they will be less likely to commit the crime. This means less crime. Less crime means more safety. More safety means happiness. So the scenario my opponent presents in his second contention would over time be less likely to happen as the crime rates diminish. As time grows on, there would be less need for the criminal justice system as there would be less crime.
This entire debate deals completely with hypothetical. In my hypothetical world, there is less death, less disease, less suffering, and less crime for the overall population. Are these bad things? No, they are very good things in fact.
Furthermore, my opponent claims my first two contentions are invalid because the resolution says "right now." Here is the resolution. "Resolved: A world where no one can lie, is better than the world we live in right now." No where it do the two words "right now" appear. Therefore, past events can be used to support a claim. The resolution just deals with the world. It does not specify a particular time period.
I have shown that Bush and the Catholic Church intended to lie. Their lies have caused death and suffering for thousands of people. This death and suffering around the word was a direct result of lying. A world without lying is a world with less death and suffering. Therefore, it is a happier world as overall there is less death and suffering.
I have given superior reasons
I have just come upon a new source that says the real reason Bush went to war with Iraq was for oil and the future of the dollar, therefore, Iraq was a genuine threat. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
So, Bush was lying about the WMD and terrorism. But it was justified. Secret agencies and governments lie all the time in order to protect the public, as well as withholding information. And withholding information is the same as lying. http://www.choice101.com...
Therefore, as the author says in the guardian, those were credible reasons for going to war with Iraq. However, there must have been a reason to the WMD and terrorism lie. Perhaps the CIA told Bush to say those reasons because they knew that by using oil as a reason to go to war, no one would agree, and those were credible reasons.
Iraq was withholding oil. Everyone around the world needs oil for their cars. With Iraq withholding oil, the price would go so high that no one would be able to afford the oil. Therefore something needed to be done. Iraqi officials were not negotiating with the US, forcing the US to go to war with Iraq.
As a result of going to war with Iraq, oil becomes more plentiful, and as a result, more affordable. This benefits the world, making people happier. We sacrifice the lives of soldiers to benefit the lives of the world. Therefore, it was justified. Bush needed to lie to get to the oil. Therefore, we see the benefits of lying.
Without lies, Iraq would still have the oil, driving the prices to $2 a litre or higher. No one would be able to get to work. The entire world economy would collapse.
Science and religion have always disagreed. Just because the Pope knew that science said that condoms worked, does not mean that he himself agreed and truly believed it. Personally, he believed that condoms did not work, and as a result was communicating his truth to the world. Therefore, he was not lying. He unintentionally conveyed the wrong information. For example, I might believe with all my heart that the sun is green. I would not be lying when I say that the sun is green, because I truly believe that to be true.
And the witchcraft scenario? It is exactly the same. Both times, the churches truly believed in what they were preaching. Therefore, both times they were not lying.
I did not drop that arugment. If you look at my first argument, I simply addressed it there. Furthermore, that is not true. As I pointed out, you did not prove a scenario where lying would cause this, I proved a scenario where not lying would cause this.
I can easily refute this argument of yours. Let's say I am lying when I say that I just saw a bird outside. How would that damage my self esteem? damage relationships? cause depression and anxiety? It would not. Therefore, the source you provided is not credible.
Furthermore, in your hypothetical world, emotional health problems would still arise. Your finace might break up with you, your husband wants a divorce. These problems would not just disappear by not lying. Therefore, the health argument is entirely invalid.
What Pro is suggesting is a big brother kind of world. You are infringing on rights. Everyone has the right to a fair trial http://en.wikipedia.org.... What kind of "better" world would it be when people's rights are taken away?
Furthermore, things are not always so black and white. Someone can be guilty of crime, but still be ethical and moral in the end.
To the gunman scenario. Okay, so you knife the gunman. You are guilty of murder. The police asks you: did you commit murder? You say yes because you can't lie. You are sent to jail for life as a result. Did you really deserve this kind of justice? Jail for life for protecting your family?
You did not have a trial. With the trial, you could have proven that it was self defense, and maybe gotten probation. Therefore, it is necessary to have a trial, so you are not immediately sent to jail. THis cannot be done in Pro's world. Without rights, Pro's world is not the better world.
Everyone says that, that they want to know what people really think of them. But it is much better to lie to protect people's feelings sometimes. If a disabled child asked you, "How do you feel about me?", and really, deep down, you didn't like her because she was disabled. However, any ethical, moral human would lie and tell her that she is the best. Lies are necessary sometimes in this way.
If you told her the truth and said you hated her because she was disabled, that would not be the right thing to do. It would affect the child's life for the rest of her life. She would develop emotional problems. The world would not be a better place as a result.
Imagine another scenario:
Bob has no artistic talent, but wants to be a sculptor. Bob has worked many hours every day, for an entire year on a sculpture. He asks you how it looks. If you don't reply, you are witholding information and that is considered a lie. Anyhow, but not replying, he would assume that you think it looks bad, as that is the logical conclusion.
Imagine how hurt he would be if you told him it was ugly. He spent so much effort in making that sculpture. Therefore, you tell him it looks great, to protect his feelings. As I said, it is necessary to lie sometimes in order to protect their feeligns. Furthermore, you truly feel that he should stop making sculptures. In Pro's world, you would constantly hurt people's feelings, not making a better world.
Pro has not explained to me why hurting people's feeligns would create a better world.
Pro says that he prefers to know what people really think of him, rather than a facade. Let's go back to the sculpture scenario. You say it's ugly, so Bob makes another sculpture. He asks you what you think. This one is ugly too. You tell him so, as you cannot lie. Repeat this a few times. Imagine Bob's shattered self esteem. You have crushed Bob's hopes and dreams of being a sculptor. Instead of saying it is ugly, you should have said it looks nice and unique, and encouraged him.
That is not moral nor the right thing to do. Therefore, Pro's world is so much worse.
D2: Self protection
Again, not saying anything is still a lie (look above). Therefore, you must tell the truth.
Pro still has not argued my point that lying is necessary to survival, nor has he contested the fact that it is much better to lie at our discretion.
For those people who didn't want to read so much.
War was neccessary to get oil and keep oil prices down. Helping world economy. Could only be achieved by lying.
Religion and science always disagree with each other. Pope could have truly thought that condoms didn't work, so he wasn't lying by saying they didn't work.
Emotional health problems can still occur from not lying, therefore this point doesn't prove anything as lying is not the only cause of emotional health problems.
In pro's world we lose the right to fair trial. How can his world be better if we infringe on rights? Not possible.
Pro has not addessed:
-lying is necessary to survival
-better to lie at our discretion than to only tell truth
-lying is important to protect feelings
-why people with hurt feeligns makes a better world
-lying sometimes must be done to get important things done
-why right infringement means a better world
I have adressed all of Pro's claims and Pro has not addressed several of mine.
Therefore, I have won.
That still does not change the fact that his lies were the reason the United States went the war and so many people were killed. If the war so justified then why did Bush not just give the real reason for the war? Oil. The war was about oil. He did not tell the American public and Congress the real reason because nobody would never want to begin a war out of greed. The CIA told Bush that there were no connections between Hussein and al Qaeda and also that Iraq did not have WMDs.
If oil became so affordable why did the price in oil skyrocket after the War in Iraq began? (1). The War in Iraq did not benefit people. It caused death, destruction, and as my opponent brought up, economic harm to people around the world.
Bush's lies did not help the world economy in any way. In fact, his lies may have hurt the world economy due an invasion of Iraq. Oil prices still went up. His lies hurt people. Without lies prices still may have gone up some (not to the extremes my opponent suggests), but, less people would be dead and injured. Therefore, the world would be happier.
Furthermore, Iraq does not set oil prices on their own. That is OPEC's job. OPEC is responsible for controlling the amount of oil OPEC nations produce thus, influencing the price. (Yes, Iraq is part of OPEC). If Iraq was to somehow drive prices up so high the other OPEC nations would respond to this by increasing the amount of oil they produce. Thus, balancing out the price. So basically, here's what happens, Bush tells the truth. People do not support the War. The United States does not go to war. Less people are injured and die. The price of oil goes up some. OPEC causes the price of oil to balance out. The world is happier because there was less death.
A lie of ommision is not a lie for this debate because of the definition my opponent and I agreed upon in Round 1, A deliberate SPOKEN untruth.
D2. Catholic Church
I'm going to refer back to the definition of lying my opponent and I agreed upon once again. The Pope knew science had said that condoms worked. Whether or not he agreed with it does not matter. He preached an untruth when saying condoms did not work. In a world without lying, the Pope would have had to say that condoms are effective at preventing the spread of AIDs. He was lying according to my opponent and I's agreed definition. Whether you believe it is true has no impact when you have knowledge that your belief is false.
I have multiple medical doctors who agree with my conclusion my opponent has not provided a source backing up his argument. My opponent is making a straw man out of my argument with his bird situation. He is saying X may happen as a result of Y, I did Y, since X did not happen. X never happens. These problems MAY occur and in many cases do occur. Just because it did not occur to you does not mean it never happens.
I never said they would disappear, I just said that these problems would trend downward. Which is a good thing.
I am not infringing on any rights. I am merely saying criminals would immediately make a full confession if they committed the crime because they have to. Bring that in front of a jury, there is an instant conviction no matter what.
For the gunman scenario. My answer is not yes. It is no, I killed the gunman in defense of my family. He wanted to kill my family and rape my wife. In this situation I was justified in using deadly force. I would not go to jail. Self-defense=/=murder.
My opponent drops my argument that crime would trend downwards as a result of not being able to lie and there would be less need for the Criminal Justice System. Which means less crime. Less crime makes people happier.
Say What You Mean, And Mean What You Say -- Dr. Seuss.
One of the most renowned children's authors, Dr. Seuss agreed that people should say what they thought of people. In other words, do not say something if you do not really mean. In your scenario, it would not be a lie to say "no, I do not like you because I do not know you." That hurts nobody, and it is not a lie according to our definition of lie.
Your second scenario with Bob not replying would not be a lie according to out definition as a lie has to be a "deliberate spoken untruth". The key word is spoken. If you do not speak your mind you are not lying as you never said anything. Furthermore, would Bob's self-esteem be shattered more if I, someone who has no artistic talent once oh ever, told him it was ugly. Or if he decided to submit the sculpture into say a national or international art show and they told him it was ugly? What hurts more? A professional artists saying your work sucks or someone who has no artistic talent saying your work sucks. It is the lesser of two evils. Therefore, making the person happier.
Not saying something is not a lie as we defined lie as a "deliberate spoken untruth" once again you have to speak a deliberate untruth for it to be a lie.
Summed up points:
Lies were the reason the war started (never contested)
The war killed many people (never contested)
The war would not have begun if Bush had told the truth (not contested)
The war did not help the world economy and led to an increase in oil prices.
The Iraq war was the result of lies and caused great unhappiness.
If Bush could not lie then there would be no Iraq War and there would be less death which causes unhappiness.
P-C2. Catholic Church
The Catholic Church's beliefs are irrelevant, they still lied by disregarding all science.
The Pope had scientific information that condoms did work.
The Pope instead deliberately spoke an untruth in saying that Condoms did not work.
The Catholic Church helped increase the transmission of AIDs.
The Catholic Church by lying caused unhappiness.
If the CC did not lie the world would be happier as less people would have AIDs.
Emotional problems result from lying.
No lying means less emotional problems.
Less emotional problems means more people are happier.
If more people are happier then the world is better.
No lying means a further downward trend in crime (not contested)
Less crime means more happiness.
Better is defined as a happier world.
Less crime is better.
Never did I say that someone would lose the right to a trial by jury.
I have proven the world would be happier without lying about War, Disease, and Crime. And that without lying there would be less Health issues. Therefore, more people are happier.
First, let's set things straight about what lies really are. Okay, a deliberately spoken untruth. But being silent and withholding information still fits into this definition.
The action of being silent and withholding information speaks volumes, just as sticking up your middle finger at someone. Actions can speak for you. I apologize that I did not contest this earlier, but by Pro's definition, mute people cannot lie. And that is false. You can lie through writing or actions. I can write an article that is filled with lies, but by pro's definition, it is not a lie. That doesn't make sense.
What is untruth? Logically, it should mean, not the truth. So if someone asks you how you felt about their airt, and you keep silent, you are saying "not the truth", because the truth would be to say that it sucks. Anything else would be an untruth, as it is not the truth. Therefore, keeping silent and witholding information is still a lie in some circumstances.
Look, the CIA is a secret organization. If you look at your source: http://whitehouser.com...
it says that it is top secret information. So why would they release that information to the public? Probably to make Bush look bad and to benefit themselves. The CIA cannot be trusted, they lie all the time to protect the public, it is difficult to tell the truth. Therefore, that article is not a credible source.
Please look at my source: http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Oil was a credible reason to go to war with Iraq. If Bush told the truth, then no one would agree.
And with Iraq witholding oil, it would indeed drive the prices up. Basic supply and demand. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Less oil in the market, higher prices. This was a real threat. And your thing about OPEC? The reason why US was targeting Iraq was because at the time there were no other oil reserves that were discovered. Therefore action had to be taken immediately. It would simply not be possible to produce more oil, as there is no more oil that had been discovered.
Bush lied to try to fix this threat. Proving sometimes lies are necessary.
The world economy is much more important than the lives of soldiers.
No, you don't understand. The pope did not truly believe it to be true. Therefore, even if it was an untruth, it was not deliberate. Therefore he was not lying. In a world without lying, he would still say that condoms were ineffective. In fact, this would be much worse, as there would be no skeptism and everyone would immediately accept, as they would know that the pope was not lying, as it is impossible. This would affect many more people and be much more detrimental to the world, not making it a better place.
In this world, when he says that condoms don't work, people would think: "Is he lying or not?". Some people would decide he's lying, others will decide that he is telling the truth. Therefore, it would only affect a fraction of people who use condoms. In your world, all people will think: "He is telling the truth because he can't lie", and as a result, everyone would follow him and it would affect all people. Much worse than what I am proposing.
Haha, okay, I have several medical doctors backing up my claim that not lying can cause those health defects too.
No, I am not making a straw man out of it.
You say that lying causes self esteem issues, damanged relations and depression.
I have given you a scenario where I have lied.
You still did not prove that self esteem, relations, and depression were affected in that scenario.
Pro is unable to prove his own claims, therefore he has lost this debate.
He also says that in his world, where no one lies, these issues would not happen.
I have proven a scenario where not lying could still cause these defects (i.e. finance breaking up with you).
He did not contest this.
Pro has not proven that these effects would trend downward.
Therefore this point is invalid as it does not prove anything. In both worlds, there are health defects. THerefore, his world is not better than this world.
You are infringing on rights. Infringing on the right to fair trial, meaning that the defendant has the right to tell his side of the story. With instant conviction, you are skipping the trial altogether. No fair trial. This means you are taking away that right. That does not make a better world.
And for the gunman scenario, not everyone is as knowledgabe in the workings of the justice system. The policeman asks "Did you commit murder?". The person says yes, as he doesn't know that self defense =/= murder, and he just stabbed a guy and killed him. He gets convicted right away in front of the jury for life, because he didn't get a fair trial, and was unable to explain his side of the story. That does not make a better world.
Yes, thank you for reminding me. I simply ran out of space last round. Pro is making an assumption. He assumes that when criminals see how easy it is to be convicted, it would deter crime. In fact, look at this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org...
It shows that crime rates have been rising in the past decade. Technology has been getting better during that period, we have higher tech computer systems that can easily track criminals. in essence, easier to get the evidence to convict criminals. However, if it is easier to convict criminals, why is the crime rate still rising? Because those two graphs have no correlation. Criminals will still commit crime always. Therefore, there would not be a decrease in crime. Therefore Pro's world is not better than this world, as there is still equal crime rates.
Pro has dropped my argument that hurting each others feelings would not make a better world.
Actually, it would hurt much more if you told him it looked ugly, because you are Bob's friend. HE expects you to console him and be there fore him, not those professional artist judges. It would hurt his feelings much more when his best friend says that the scultpure is ugly, than some people he doesn't know.
Furthermore, if, as you say, it is the lesser of the two evils, wouldn't that mean it is still an evil? How would that make Bob happier, if it is still an evil? Pro is jumping to conclusions. He assumes Bob would be happier if you told him the lesser of the two evils. Bob would not know this. He wouldn't know that it is the lesser of the two evils, so it wuold not make a difference to him at all.
He would not be happier. He would be happier if you told him a lie, said it was the best. Therefore, lying in some circumstances to protect others feelings would make people happier. And a better world is a happier world. Therefore, my world is better than pro's.
D2: Self protection
A lie does not have to be spoken. Pro drops my argument that lying is necessary to human survival.
War was necesary to protect world economy and future of dollar. My source says that oil was a credible reason for going to war. If Bush did not lie, no war, meaning the oil would not be taken, meaning that oil prices world wide would skyrocket even more than it is now. People can't go to work, economy collapses. Lie was neccessary to go to war, to save economy = better world. Pro drops my point that lies are sometimes neccessary to get things done.
Pope not telling deliberate truth, not intending to lie. He believed it were true, so he was not deliberatly telling an untruth. Invalid point, Pope not lying.
Invalid point, these health defects still occur in Pro's world = not better than this world.
Criminals still commit crime regardless of liklihood of being convicted. No right to fair trial = infringing on rights = not a better world.
Pro drops point that how feelings being hurt would mean a happier world. Also drops point that it is better to lie at discretion than not to lie at all. Lying important to protect feelings.
Pro drops point that lying is neccessary to survival
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: first off, Iraq had nothing to do with oil and if you really think it was look at the debate i posted under the comments section .The Pro used only specific examples of lies whereas the con used lying in general while debunking the Pro's examples. The argument that lying can protect people and yourself was not overcome by the pro, so arguments go to con. Everything else was tied, ok 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.