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

R.1: BushI 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. R2: CCScience 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. R3: Health 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.R.4: JusticeWhat 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. Imagine this: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.Defense:D1: ProtectionEveryone 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 protectionAgain, 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.Conclusion:For those people who didn't want to read so much.1. Bush.War was neccessary to get oil and keep oil prices down. Helping world economy. Could only be achieved by lying.2. CCReligion 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.3. HealthEmotional 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.4. JusticeIn 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 worldI have adressed all of Pro's claims and Pro has not addressed several of mine.Therefore, I have won.