The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Lying is always Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,857 times Debate No: 55212
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (2)





-- BOP is on Pro to prove that lying is an intrinsically immoral action regardless of context.

-- Pro will provide opening arguments in Round 1

-- Pro will abstain from posting anything relevant to the debate in Round 4 to ensure that we both have an equal number of rounds to debate

I look forward to a fun debate!
Good luck to my future opponent!


Romanii failed to define any word, and he never said trolling wan't allowed....and so, I will define the words and defeat Romanii troll wise! That is the punishment! *laughs maliciously*
I define lying as "(of a person or animal) be in or assume a horizontal or resting position on a supporting surface." (From google search results), and I define immoral as "going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules." (From
So, you may be wondering, why did I choose "lying down"? Would not it be harder than "speaking what is not the truth"?
Well, I want to have some fun! This topic is so over-used, time to do something new!
Opening arguments:
1. Lying somewhere in nature

You could easily fall over and die by hitting the ground. Plus, this is not commonly accepted, fitting the definition of immoral.

2. Lying in Bed
This would probably be the hardest thing to prove immoral. I mean, how do you prove lying down in beds not what is "commonly accepted"? I mean, look at this guy--he's happy! My point should be impossible to prove!

However I have faith in myself--I know I can prove lying in bed to be immoral. Why is it immoral, you might ask? Well, the heap of this argument is based on the word "LYING". He is lyING. This is not the proper "bound", or rather, the way to say it correctly. If you go to sleep, you LAY DOWN. If you woke up, you LAY DOWN before getting up. If you are LYING, you are probably sleeping, which isn't commonly accepted due to the fact that you can't work, you can sleep walk and accidentally suicide, and nobody is going to care if you are LYING. Here's my point--if you are lying down, you are sleeping, or you just don't care about what others are going to do, since laying back is a relaxed motion (see picture above). Nobody is going to watch you when you sleep (except Santa), so it doesn't really matter, unless an assassin is going to kill you when you are LYING down, in which case, he or she has overstepped his or her boundaries, fulfilling my definition of immoral. Even if you aren't sleeping, you're staring at the ceiling in boredom, or closing your eyes, attempting to go to sleep, which is very bad if you had a tiring day and you are troubled to go to sleep. In this scenario, you do not commonly accept being awake and wish to go to sleep, and thus, fulfill my definition of immoral. (not commonly accepted)

3. Lying online
This final one is very difficult to prove too: what if a person is lying online in a virtual space? Will it then still be overbounding the rules? The answer is simple: yes. The computer is invented by the human. The computer was not there in the first place, as well as factories, the lightbulb, the wheel, etc. These weird man-made inventions overstep the laws of nature, and thus, follow my definition of immoral.
I have fulfilled my BoP and give Romanii a chance of rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1


It seems that Pro has decided to troll...
I shall play along, since he is using valid dictionary definitions of "lying" and "immoral", and so I have pretty much no chance of getting this debate back on track... Let's see how I do in my first real troll debate on this site...

R1) Lying in Nature

Pro argues that lying down in nature could result in falling and dying (which is supposedly an immoral act), demonstrating his point with a picture of people lying down in a tree.

There are several problems with this argument...

1. Lying down on a tree does not automatically mean you're going to fall down and die; if you have good balance you can lie down up there in a perfectly moral and comfortable manner.

2. Lying down in nature does not equate to lying down on a tree. You can lie down on a flat plain somewhere where there is no chance of falling and dying, thus making lying down there completely moral.

3. Dying is not immoral, even by Pro's definition (i.e. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits). More than a hundred people are dying every minute around the world from different causes; it is not at all uncustomary to die. Thus neither death nor the lying down that leads up to it is immoral.

R2) Lying in a Bed

Pro's argument here basically boils down to: "If you are LYING, you are probably sleeping, which isn't commonly accepted due to the fact that you can't work"

1. I am lying down on a bed right now and writing my argument to this debate on my phone; I am not sleeping even though I am lying down. Even if sleeping is immoral, that does not extend to lying down.

2. Not being productive is not uncustomary at all... being unproductive or even counterproductive is common practice in today's world, especially in office settings. The lack of productivity that comes from sleeping and/or lying down does not make them immoral at all.

The rest of Pro's argumentation in this section is too incoherent for me to understand exactly what he is saying and how it has anything to do with the resolution...

R3) Online Lying

Pro attempts to make some point about people lying down in an online virtual cyberspace of some sort, but that makes no sense, as no such technology has been developed yet, nor is it in the process of being developed... I don't get it...


Any one of my objections to Pro's first and second contentions can function to negate the resolution all by itself by implicating one or more instances in which lying is not immoral, based on the definitions used by Pro.

P.S. The reason I can't be funnier in this troll debate is because of Pro's definition of "immoral"... I had some mildly amusing rebuttals I could have offered had I been allowed to use a different interpretation of morality... Apologies to anyone who is disappointed :/


1. Lying in nature
You need good balance, as stated by my opponent. This shows how nature tries to prevent us from doing this action against its laws. Koalas sleep on trees. Meekats sleep on trees. However, humans are not meant to sleep on trees, and because such, we need good balance, which restricts who can sleep on the trees, showing us even nature is trying to limit us with its laws, and if we do not respect nature, we are going "proper boundaries", fulfilling my definition of immoral.

Lying in a flat plain--well, there are weird bugs and stuff hidden in the grass everywhere. Bacteria as well. Plus, you can get sunburn, or get chilly, depending on which season you decide to lay down. These, once again, show nature's limits, trying to get us to NOT lay down. If we lay down on a flat plain, we are disrepecting nature's laws, going beyound the "proper boundaries", and fulfilling the definition of immoral.

Dying being immoral--unless you want to suicide, or you have already lived life to its fullest, you do not commonly accept dying. You try to avoid it at all costs, going to the doctors for medication when sick, resting when having broken bones....all of these acts show people wanting to live, and not accepting death. Thus, "commonly accept" fulfills my definition of immoral.

2. Lying in a bed
This is the hardest argument to prove, as I stated. When being counterproductive, you aren't doing anything and wasting your body's energy. Take students, for example. They try to go back to lying in bed, but their parents tell them to get out. Why? You can't learn by lying in bed! Teachers won't take you seriously because they think you're slacking off! In addition, even if you work, you will be tempted to just go to sleep or rest any time. Based on down has these effects:
  • Zero perceived stress or discomfort along my spine
  • No stiffening or dullness in my legs
  • No dangling arms
  • Fully supported neck and shoulders
  • Easier, more enjoyable NEAT movements, e.g., bending and extending my legs, rotating my ankles
  • More robust exercise upon standing [since getting up from a reclining position involves greater exertion than from a seated position]
  • No butt fatigue
  • Much less thigh compression
  • No gravitationally-induced pooling of blood in legs.
Because these cause lying down to be so comfortable instead of perhaps sitting, which causes stress, which makes you actually want to complete your job, you are likely to enjoy the bed for a bit longer before actually working. Your parents or bosses do not want you to slack off, in other words, do not COMMONLY ACCEPT slacking off, which, fulfills my definition of immoral.

3. Online lying
This is how you "lay down" online: "I lay down on the bed, and think about the good things that I've done throughout the day, sighing about how heroic I was." Again, I stress that computers aren't natural, and typing even this one sentence oversteps the laws of nature, and fulfills my definition of immoral.
Onto you again, con!
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to my opponent for his argument.... kind of...
Actually screw it, I refuse to thank him for getting me into this bore of a troll debate.
Go away, Pro -.-

My rebuttals function independently of each other to negate the resolution; this means that objecting to contradictions between rebuttals does not work as a valid counter-rebuttal, since they are meant to be independent of each other.


R1) Lying in Nature

All of my opponent's claims relating to this argument can be refuted by proving that that death is moral.
I will use a simple syllogism to prove this.

P1: It is moral to try helping in improving the world.
P2: Dying helps in improving the world
C1: Dying is customary/moral

Defense of Premise 1


Defense of Premise 2

Dying helps improve the world in many ways

1. it helps solve overpopulation

2. it allows more food to go to the poor, thus contributing to the elimination of world hunger

3. it causes a slight reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (by stopping you from breathing)

4. if you are a kid, your parents won't have to spend anymore money on you

5. most people are jerks, so them dying automatically makes the world a better place

Thus, the conclusion is validated. Death is moral.
Since the assumption of death's immorality is a central component to Pro's argument, his entire argument falls apart.
By showing that lying in nature is not immoral, the resolution is negated.

In rebuttal to Pro's argument that since we always seek to avoid death, it is uncustomary/immoral, I would just like to say that he is blatantly disrespecting all the depressed and suicidal people out there with that comment; he probably just hurt their feelings even more by not acknowledging their existence, boldly proclaiming that "EVERYONE seeks to avoid death". That alone is grounds for making him lose the debate.

R2) Lying in Bed

Here, Pro simply repeats himself, re-asserting that the lack of productivity associated with lying down makes it immoral.
Again, I must point out that being unproductive is perfectly customary/moral. I can prove this using empirical evidence:
Dilbert comics- they show that humans are innately unproductive creatures, and that any acts of productivity are generally accidents. If non-productivity is the norm, then it is moral

Also, Pro refutes his own arguments by showing that it is much more comfortable and healthy to be lying down than doing work. The whole point of being doing work is to earn enough money to live a comfortable and healthy life; why bother doing all the extra work when you can just lie down and achieve comfort and good health instantly? Doing extra work is uncustomary, and thus immoral. Pro has negated the resolution for me.

R3) Online Lying

...Pro, just because you're typing about lying down doesn't mean there is a virtual 9spaceking lying down in cyberspace...



All of Pro's arguments have been refuted.
I hand the debate back to him for his final chance to try salvaging them (he can't post anything relevant to the debate in Round 4)

Please remember, that if I am able to point out even ONE instance in which lying down is morally desirable or morally neutral, then I win. I have done so in every single point I have made thus far.


So... final round to post arguments?
1. People don't want to die
You say it helps improving the world? No! Corpses go everywhere, and if a zombie acopolypse happens, you can't stop it due to the huge amount of people dying! Lying in nature only helps the zombie rebellion.
I mean, there's only few people on earth who are capable of standing against the zombie rebellion.

But Sir Obama is obviously outnumbered and cannot defeat them with reason. His nuclear missiles will be suicide to himself. This shows that if you die, the world will be doomed, as even president Obama cannot handle the zombie apocolypse. The zombies are much smarter than we think, they even already prepared a secret plan that I barely got--with a ton of pain and wounds, of course.

In conclusion laying down in nature, which leads to death, which leads to the zombie apocalypse, is immoral. And please read more carefully, I stated "unless you want to suicide, or you have already lived life to its fullest, you do not commonly accept dying." But because most people don't want to suicide, it is "common" for people to not accept death. Furthermore, if people who suicided knew about the zombie apocalypse, there's no way they'd kill themselves. I mean, nobody wants to help zombies!

2. Lying in a bed
Dilbert comics--it's a satire work which is meant to be humorous, not realistic. I mean, when have you seen weasels getting hired by people to work on game systems?

Even the soldier from Monty Python agrees.

Doing extra work gains you more money to buy (nearly) whatever you want. Who doesn't want to be able to buy food, clothing, extra vacation, and other stuff? It helps! We humans love help! Thus, it is commonly accepted. Err....except for Jim Carrey, who only "likes it a lot". But the difference is like nothing, and it only helps demonstrate how even famous peopel accept help.

3. Online lying
Yes there is. You just can't see him, because he's VIRTUAL. The internet space is so humongous you might as well never find him.

I have used troll arguments and proved lying down to be immoral. Good debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Hurrah. Finally done with this debate.

R1) Lying in Nature

Pro argues that more death means that a hypothetical Zombie Apocalypse would be even worse.
However, there are two problems with that argument:

1. If the Zombie Apocalypse is worse, then there would be even MORE death, which helps improve the world even more!

2. The Zombies would win anyways. The movies are big, fat lies, with their happy endings and whatnot. More deaths early on just helps the Zombie Apocalypse finish up faster.

Furthermore, Pro states that, " But because most people don't want to suicide, it is "common" for people to not accept death"

Oh, so now he's calling depressed/suicidal WEIRD!? What kind of horrible person is Pro!?

He then goes on to say that, "if people who suicided knew about the zombie apocalypse, there's no way they'd kill themselves. I mean, nobody wants to help zombies!"

On the contrary. Many people would commit suicide to avoid the pain of having their brains eaten. Plus, being a zombie is actually really fun.

R2) Lying in Bed

Pro questions the reliability of Dilbert comics, claiming that they are satires. However, what he fails to notice is that satires are meant to reflect reality. The only reason non-productivity is such a central theme to Dilbert comics is because it is so commonplace in office settings. Thus, lacking productivity is the norm, and is moral by Pro's definition.

As for the soldier from Monty Python, he has been saying that since the moment you accepted this debate; Pro merely noticed it just now, and is now taking his quote out of context. Shame on him. He owes the soldier and apology. GWL-CPA would give him a good scolding for this.

R3) Online Lying

Pro claims that since virtual 9spaceking is virtual, we cannot see him, but he is still there.
I will argue that anything which we cannot see does not exist.

P1: Out of sight, out of mind (adage)
P2: According to solipsism, anything which is not out of mind does not actually exist (i.e. only mind exists)
C1: According to solipsism, anything that is out of sight does not exist
P3: Solipsism is a metaphysical possibility
C2: It is a metaphysical possibility that anything that is out of sight does not exist
P4: According to Romanii's Law, all metaphysical possibilities are true in my little world
C3: In my little world, anything that is out of sight does not exist.
P5: My little world is more important than all of your stupid worlds
C4: Anything that is out of sight does not exist

Since that syllogism is too long and has too many big words for you to understand, you will simply accept its truth of it's final conclusion without further examining the premises leading up to it.


I have thoroughly refuted each and every one of Pro's arguments, showing that Lying in Nature and on a Bed is actually morally desirable (because death and non-productivity are moral), and that Lying Online is not possible because virtual people don't exist.

Vote Con!

Thanks to Pro for engaging in this debate, and thanks to anyone who votes on it.



Unfortunately I cannot post anything relevant. To, er...monkeys.
So here's something funny and random:

I hope it'll be enough for people do something that boosts me that has something relevant!
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 7 years ago
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Heh heh, I'll look forward to it :D
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
dang. looks like it'll be a 2-0 Romanii vs 9spaceking record. I hope I finally gain a win in the school uniforms debate! (commenced in summer.)
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Lol. As Jonbonbon said, this wasn't an established troll debate, so I was still allowed to use logical arguments :P
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
Eh...I personally think Romanii didn't manage to rebut my last arguments. He didn't prove the zombie acopalypse to be a good thing, neither did he prove weasels getting hired reflecting reality. His logical reasoning may be strong, but from the viewpoint of a troll debate, he failed, and I also had a famous celebrity as a "source", which should give me some kudos.
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Heh, I'm pretty happy with my last round, but all the other rounds seem pretty boring, to me...
Posted by Envisage 7 years ago
This debate was epic, lol
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Just post some random thingy in Round 4 to get this into the voting period.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 7 years ago
now this is awesome
Posted by Geogeer 7 years ago
That is what you get for debating with 9spaceking.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I must say, 9spaceking has gotten better at trolling since our last exchange, but it wasn't enough to beat Romanii. Romanii's no nonsense attitude won since it wasn't an established troll debate, it just sort of happened. Also he kind of destroyed what 9spaceking said in just the first response. So I give Romanii the win.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Good try, Pro, good try.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.