A world without deception is better than a world with deception

Intent, And the Nature of Deception Well, it seems like in the last round, Pro has decided to change his definition of what constitutes deception. First it was deviating from the norm. Then it wasn’t deception if it was for the sake of politeness and wasn’t provoked. Now it is based on intent. This is the last round; it isn’t even worth arguing anymore. I’m just going to primarily go by the first couple of definitions. Crime “I did not change my argument” Pro changed his argument from talking about “repeat criminals” to “people who are not caught,” but it really doesn’t matter. The point is that he has chosen to concede my point about openness with criminal records. “As far as Semion” He is perfectly out in the open. Whether or not part of it is through illegitimate means is irrelevant. He is free, yet he is still on the FBI top ten most wanted lists (1). “No such binding exists for some random person” Once again, this is implying that certain people have more power to make something truth than others. In a world without deception, the standards are evenly distributed, because deception is deception, regardless of who caused it. To make only certain people have that binding ability would be impossible, as that would be, in this case, attempting to legislate a change in the natural world. “If omission is always deception” It isn’t always deception. However, with your criminal example, you established the standard that a deviation from the norm requires a statement, or it counts as deception. As a world without deception would mean that all deception is impossible, then standards would be set in stone, and if someone was a “member of the Asgard” or a Communist, then it would be deception by omission not to clarify this. “If I’m gay and…’I’m Gay!’” By the standard you set with the criminals, since this is a deviation from the social norm, it is deception. “I’m unsure that organized crime” Organized crime would embrace that structure, because it would embrace whatever structure is necessary to keep itself safe and profitable, as explained in Round 3. Fraud “Arrowhead…water plant.” The water is not from the water plant, rather, it is bottled at the water plant. There is a difference. Also, I’m confused as to what Pro’s source here accomplishes. Arrowhead wasn’t even mentioned on the page. “Advertising might change” It is relatively common for articles like (2) and (3) to pop up outlining the safety of bottled water, and people’s consumption has not changed. Also, the commercials still have a limited amount of time and the posters and labels still have a limited amount of space. Advertising wouldn’t change. “Clean coal’ is cleaner” This is true, and because it is true, and that is all that clean coal is trying to say, this is not deceptive. Corruption “Self-deception can still exist, if on a subconscious level…isn’t true.” By that definition, just about every viewpoint could be considered deception. I would like to say that we are on a debate website right now, and if any long-time user (more than a few debates) can honestly say that they have never doubted their own position, then that user is a liar. Also, if the doubt were on a subconscious level, then people would not be able to know whether or not they were deceiving themselves, and if deception is always intentional, then subconscious self-deception is not actually deception. “The official does not intend to deceive. Therefore it is not deception.” In this case the official intentionally left out information, which would be intentional omission, making it deceptive. “I have shown complete government transparency to be, on balance, a good thing.” If Pro had shown that complete government transparency to be, on balance, a good thing, then he would have made points about it. All he has given has been a faulty loophole for how an official could get out of answering a question and a false assumption that tyrannical governments would not exist because of subconscious self-deception, which I have already shown to be a false notion. On the other hand, I have shown how complete government transparency would be detrimental with specific examples of how national security could be put at risk with total transparency. Critical Thinking While analyzing scientific information also improves critical thinking skills, it is not constant. Lying is advantageous to consider is because it is almost constant. People are constantly forced to determine what they can and can’t believe until this sort of critical thinking has become second nature to them. The presence of deception is wonderful for the development of critical thinking skills. Better and Stronger Relationships “Are Olga’s friends…” This can be best summed up by imagining a world with deception. If someone chooses to not mention something that disgusts them about a friend, it is to make the friend feel good about his or herself, so yes, as you said, it would be deception. “I disagree with this statement, and require supporting evidence of some sort.” I assume that this is based on my continuum argument, so I’ll address that. In a society where there is no evil, people will only act good. In that society, if someone performs a good deed, it will not be praised, because that is only acting as a person is expected to act. Likewise, in a world without deception, or in other words, a world with only honesty, honest language would not be appreciated because that is all that there is. Honest language is simply expected. That being said, since this is the last round, if my opponent is not satisfied with this argument and he wants to have a whole other debate about that statement, l'd be more than happy to take him up on that. Conclusion I have shown why my opponent’s arguments followed inconsistent logic, had serious problems, or were straight up wrong. On top of that, I’ve also shown that a world with deception has significant advantages over a world without deception. I’ll conclude this debate by listing some points that Pro has failed to effectively address or address at all (if I miss any, I’m sure the jury will notice). Openness with criminal records leads to a higher rate of repeat criminals. My many examples of non-deceptive water brands. Since the brands aren’t deceptive, consumers wouldn’t end up changing their habits in regards to bottled water. Clean coal does not remove mountaintops because of the process, but only because of the energy demand, and for that reason, coupled with lower emissions, clean coal is honest. In the North Korea hypothetical, it would be better to keep the situation secret. Deception improves critical thinking skills. Lies are often harmless, and even keep people happy. Deception is deception, regardless of legal standards that are set. The absence of deception does not prevent tyrannies. Deception would have to be completely standard based on principle, and would not differ on a case-by-case basis. Things are appreciated on a continuum, so honest talk would not be prized. I thank my opponent for a very interesting and thought provoking debate, and I thank the Jurors for the time that they will spend reading this debate. Sources: http://www.time.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.mnn.com...