A world without deception is better than a world with deception

Intent, And the Nature of Deception(I am making this its own section. ) Intent is critical in deception. Criminals intend for people to think that they are innocent. Let's say I know a vast number of biology-related facts, ones that others don't know. Now, it's of course ethical for me to share my knowledge. But I am under no obligation to, when meeting a person, ascertain their knowledge and correct every misconception they have. And if I don't do that, I'm not being deceptive via omission. Why? I don't intend for them to have a misconception. I'm not specifically modifying my behavior to make them have a misconception. CrimeI did not change my argument; I attempted to clarify it. I do not doubt that current prison practices should be changed to lower recidivism rates. However, that is neither here nor there. It is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. As far as Semion, I have little doubt that his escape from justice is greatly aided by things like fake IDs, corruption, and being able to maintain at least the illusion of innocence. Unless Semion has been hiding in a forest away from human contact (any exceptions being stealing supplies and such), or has substantially changed his appearance and no one needs ID in Russia. The only reason the omission is deception in the cases I gave is that the people in question gave their word that they would identify themselves if so requested. No such binding exists for some random person demanding that all non-reptoids speak up. Furthermore, if omission is always deception, then you are being deceptive by not immediately claiming not to be a reptoid alien, or a member of the Asgard, or a secret Nazi infiltrator, or a Communist, or a communist, or a vampire. Clearly this is ridiculous. And that's because intention matters in regards to deception. If I am not trying to mislead--say, I'm poor at communication--I'm not engaging in an act of deception. If I'm gay and don't go around wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm Gay! ", I am not deceptive, because I'm not going around trying to make people think I'm not. However, criminals often attempt to cover up their activities. Even if mandated identification is useless, the inability to deceive could still be of use in that it would make investigations easier. I am unsure as to whether organized crime would embrace such a structure, as doing so would mean that the bosses has relatively little control over operations. Subsets could run their own criminal enterprises, making their own money, and the boss would not be the wiser. Though in a world without deception, the boss would only have to ask them if they had. Nevertheless, it would make tracking organized crime easier, and even if they adapted it would take time. FraudArrowhead Water does, however, also come from a municipal water plant. While it's completely possible that this would be entirely spring water, looking into it I see that it is not[1]. In the absence of a process to separate spring water from other water, it is not 100% spring water. Advertising might change, though. For instance, if one has the knowledge that bottled water is not necessarily better in quality would probably lead to a drop in consumption. And while I've admitted that 'clean coal' is cleaner (and I never argued otherwise), the fact remains that it is still fairly dirty. CorruptionIt's true that it isn't deception if you actually believe it. However, self-deception can still exist, if on a subconscious level one is aware that what they are saying isn't true. It's almost certainly true that not all dictators and tyrants had a part of their subconscious inform them that they were being stupid. But it's also probably true that some dictators did have that. Now, there is some debate over whether self-deception is intentional or not[2], and if not I would not consider it deception. In regards to this problem, however, I am an intentionalist; I believe one can intend to deceive themselves, on some level, into believing something. I hold that both the temporal approaches (the two beliefs are not held simultaneously, so, to quote the SEP, "an unbeliever who sets out to get herself to believe in God (since she thinks such a belief is prudent, having read Pascal) might well remember such an intention at the end of the process and deem that by God's grace even this misguided path led her to the truth") and the psychological partition approach (there is some degree of division allowing someone to believe two contradictory things simultaneously) to be valid. The official does not intend to deceive. Therefore it is not deception. Omission is only deception when it is intended to make someone think something that is not true. Everything the official said is true. The official did not intend for his words to make journalists or the public draw a false conclusion. I have shown complete government transparency to be, on balance, a good thing. Critical ThinkingPersonally, I have found that it is far better for my critical thinking skills to analyze scientific information than to try and figure out whether someone is lying or not. Maybe that's just me, though. Better and Stronger RelationshipsAre Olga's friends attempting to make her believe that her face is attractive by not saying it isn't? If they are, then that is deception. If they are not, it isn't. I disagree with this statement, and require supporting evidence of some sort. SummaryFor me to win, I am under no obligation to prove that a world without deception would be better in every way than a world with deception. Rather, I am merely obligated to prove that a world without deception would be, on balance, better. Most of my arguments have revolved round saving lives--potentially an uncountable number over the years--by, at the very least, making it easier to catch murderers and keep them from murdering again, and by probably even shutting down some dictators and tyrants. A lack of corruption would also help save lives, since lives can be lost due to ineffectiveness of a system rather than simply due to conscious, positive action. My opponent's counterarguments have focused on introducing the possibility of failure. But while there is certainly a possibility of failure, a partial success is better than no success at all. If we reduce these things, even if a rare few people manage, through sheer luck, to evade countermeasures, is that not better than doing nothing at all? . https://www.calwater.com... . http://plato.stanford.edu...