That it should be a criminal offence for a politician to lie

I'd like to return my opponent's warm welcome to this site by rebutting his five arguments, propping up my own four, and adding two more (in that order). Rebuttal: 1) My opponent suggests that proving lying is impossible. It's not. Does not everyone in the world remember the lie of Clinton? Regardless, even if it were true that it is difficult to prove a lie (which I don't admit and seems very counter-intuitive), my opponent would have contradicted his own point #3 below, because you can't sue without any evidence. I dispute that though. A proper judicial inquiry can and will find out these liars. My opponent asserts the excuse of "Oh, I just didn't have enough information at the time." Neither do the voters! That's who this debate is about. Yes, there is imperfect information. But if the former government lies about the state of the nation, then it is they, not the incumbent government, who are liable. If the incumbents are silly enough not to cover their bases and say that they will act on the basis of advice given to them by the relevant government departments in all instances, then they are lying and their excuse fails. 2) My opponent asks whether Obama's troop morale boosters are considered illegal if they have some hyperboles. I think most judges would be able to tell that the intent here would be to boost morale, not exaggerate the cost of war. Unless, of course, the prosecution can show that people believed that they are the actual figures, and acted on this belief. In that case the lie would have had a considerable negative impact on the country, and then Obama should be liable. 3) What if lots of people were to sue politicians for lying? I have four responses to this. First, even if lots of them do, at the very least politicians would be held more accountable by the judiciary. Second, where's your source for the cost to Sarah Palin? Why does omniscient Wikipedia know nothing about it? She must have hired a ridiculously costly lawyer. Third, people generally won't bother. Why? Because just as politicians have lives to get on with, so do ordinary people. If it cost Sarah $500,000 to defend herself against such clearly fallacious charges, imagine what it would have cost the prosecutor[s]. Finally, how is an ethics violation comparable to lying? It's not! You are arguing two unrelated charges as if they were alike! 4) I turn now to my opponent's "sock puppet government" argument, commending my opponent as I do for creating an epic argument name. A lie told by a politician does not need to come from the politician's mouth. It can be said by another agent, the politician's blog, an email to journalists or a sock puppet. If it was unreasonable for the politician to expect privacy in the situation (who'd expect privacy from a spokesperson) then the politician falls afowl of the law under my model. Related to this argument, my opponent states that politicians will simply no longer tell us their policies. I disagree. I think politicians will simply frame their policies more carefully, ie instead of "I will raise taxes" they might say "I will raise taxes if the treasury says it is viable to do so". I think that means greater transparency in the system and encourages honesty within the political class, which is a good thing. 5) My opponent describes how the US president is protected by constitution and thus cannot be sued. The US constitution, as I understand it, is as amendable as any other document. Good thing too (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My model would remove the sacrosanctness around the office of president, holding the president to the same level of accountability as everyone else. That's good, because the United States has had its fair share of bad presidents in the past. Propping up my supposedly "negated" points: 1) I told you lying is immoral. My opponent then proceeded to show a single example of a politician lying in war, which he claims is morally justified. Three responses. First, my opponent failed to give any real evidence as to why his example is morally justified. Second, war is generally also considered immoral. We already prosecute politicians who instigate wars. Hey, that's why we had the Nurnberg trials! If Churchill had used a lie to start a war, then he should be prosecuted for that as well. Third, it's not inductive logic to give only one example and draw out a rule from that. A better rule can be made of the countless politicians who were publicly hated for their lies. Think of Clinton. I could list several New Zealand examples too, and I'm sure that you don't like it when politicians lie in your country, wherever you may be. In the specific case of your example, I think any sensible jury (like the Privy Council usually are) would overturn the conviction of Churchill because the conviction is not in the public interest. Besides, even if he were convicted, a by-election would be held and Churchill would be re-elected. Frankly, it wouldn't matter. 2) I told you that it would improve transparency and faith in government. Perhaps my opponent failed to read this one, because he has no response. 3) I gave you an example of how else we censor lying, and why the comparison is legitimate. Again, my opponent ignores this point. 4) I gave you a principle, that of democracy. I do wonder whether my opponent bothered to read the second half of my speech. He ignores this point too. Please respond to my arguments! Adding two more minor points in: 1) Members of the public who are apathetic to government are often apathetic because they know that politicians pretty generally all institute the same policies anyway. Being more open about their policies, politicians discourage apathy among voters. This leads to more informed decisions being made. 2) Let's bring non-democratic nations into this. By encouraging transparency in our government, we at the same time encourage transparency in foreign governments (peer pressure). We also make them more trusting of us, because they know our politicians cannot lawfully lie in public. It supports and upholds democracy. It reduces voter apathy and improves transparency. It's consistent, moral and principled. It stands. That's why the resolution is affirmed. That's why I propose the motion today. That's why you should be voting PRO.