Lying is wrong, Straw Men are for Farms.

I cannot believe how full of hatred my opponent is. My overall case is that I did not lie in the debate in question, and that lying is morally acceptable. The two are completely different things, and I don't see why my opponent is using one to substantiate the other. I think straw men are indeed very useful on farms, but again, I'm absolutely certain I didn't run such a case in that debate. Besides which, the two aforementioned issues are so broad in scope I don't think it's reasonable to debate all three. CONTENTION 1: I did not lie I'm guessing my opponent is going to argue the toss about the following statements from my last round: a) "My opponent said in the last round that God is a possibility" - I quote from my opponent's last round: "Saying there is evidence of God is subjective. God is a possibility, not a definite." b) "My opponent cannot have read his own source and be telling the truth!" - This is based on my opponent's source for monotheism, Wikipedia, which does in fact say that Hinduism admits several Gods. c) My source for Zachariah 13 not being about Zachariah 13 - Actually it's about the whole opening part of Zachariah. d) "Isa. 2:1-3 and Psalm 69 disproving me. That's a downright lie and I've proved it already" - And this is true. I gave paragraphs worth of analysis to Psalm 69 in the earlier rounds, which my opponent did not respond to. I also gave a paragraph of analysis to Isiah 2 in round three. e) "Zachariah 13 is a long chapter, some of it is messianic and some isn't." - This will naturally depend on one's subjective understanding of the chapter. I was only reciting majority opinion, and my opponent never came back to it. Meanwhile my opponent lied until the cows come home. In the final round he stated: a) "Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian apologetic" - not only an ad hominem attack, with atrocious grammar, but also a downright lie without any correlating evidence. b) "I Have shown a multitude of similarities throughout this debate, Pro discredits none" - again a lie, I discredited the myths of Krishna, Zeus, Jupiter, various other Pagan religions, Aztec religion, Mithraism and Syrian religion. Pro only showed one single similarity that I did not rebut. c) "With factual evidence I confirm that Hinduism is a even older Monotheistic religion than Judaism hereby discrediting his claim" - factual evidence cited does not support my opponent's conclusion. He did not extend any of his arguments in the last round, only recited old ones verbatim without regard to my extensive rebuttals and pushed a few entirely new cases which barely fitted with his case overall. The poor structure of his case alone would have caused it to crumble if he did not lie to keep it upright. CONTENTION 2: Lying is morally acceptable If lying were not morally acceptable, it would be wrong to lie in any situation. This is simply untrue under normative ethics. Take a few scenarios. I live in Nazi Germany and am sheltering some Jews in my house. Hitler rocks up and asks me whether I am hiding Jews in my house. Is it now alright to lie? Take another scenario. It's the day before my brother's birthday, and I go out to buy him a surprise present. As I return my brother asks me what is in my shopping bag. In this case most people would say something other than the present, so as to not spoil the surprise. Is that alright? Take another scenario. A child is at home and a stranger calls: "Are you alone at home?" - the child says no because they are aware of stranger danger. Is that alright? There are four normative ethical frameworks. Utilitarianism accepts lying because it can be used for the greater good. Moral Rights accepts lying because lying can allow the protection of certain moral rights. Justice accepts lying because sometimes telling the truth to somebody would be unfair. Virtue ethics accepts lying as it is a social norm. Wikipedia classifies normative ethics into Consequentialism (wherein theorists such as Machiavelli have argued lying is absolutely morally alright), Deontology (wherein theorists such as Kant have argued lying may be necessary to protect rights) and Virtue ethics. This debate is really 2 debates in one. I think my opponent should split it into two to make voter's decisions on each issue clear. By procedural issues aside, I have negated both topics. Thus the motion falls.