Resolved: A world where no one can lie, is better than the world we live in right now.

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.R1: BushLook, 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.R2: CCNo, 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.R3: HealthHaha, 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.R4: JusticeYou 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. D1: ProtectionPro 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 protectionA lie does not have to be spoken. Pro drops my argument that lying is necessary to human survival.SummationBushWar 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.CCPope 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.HealthInvalid point, these health defects still occur in Pro's world = not better than this world.JusticeCriminals still commit crime regardless of liklihood of being convicted. No right to fair trial = infringing on rights = not a better world.FeelingsPro 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.Self ProtectionPro drops point that lying is neccessary to survivalVote CON