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

I will begin with my defense and then my refutations. D1. Yes Bush did know there were no WMDs in Iraq just look at my source. The CIA confirmed that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq (1). Bush knew, through the CIA, that Hussein had no connection with al Qaeda or 9/11 (2). The United States is not interested in promoting democracy in the middle east as I explained above. Iraq was not a threat (2). Bush's lies gave Congress a reason to authorize military action in Iraq. Without this authorization there would have been no War in Iraq. His lies are what led directly to the War. Congress would not have authorized military action therefore, Bush could not have sent soldiers into Iraq. Therefore, without the lies there is no war and none of the death the War caused. People therefore, would be happier because the death would not have happened. It may save some grief but, there still would be grief. Without the war there would be no grief therefore, the world would have less grief and would be happier. The world would be happier. D2. The Catholic Church Alright, here is a better source. http://www.guardian.co.uk... They did lie. They set aside all scientific information pointing to the opposite conclusion that Condoms were effective and spread disinformation. They knew according to science condoms worked and lied about all scientific evidence saying the exact opposite. Science proved condoms are effective. The CC decided to read this science, set it aside, and state the opposite. The Catholic Church's lies have made the world a less happy place. If they could not lie then they would have to say the truth, Condoms work. The world would be happier because less people would contract AIDs. As for my opponents stance with the witchcraft. There was no knowledge at the time these people were not witches. There was knowledge that condoms work. They are two completely different scenarios. D3. Health Dropped. My opponent therefore agrees tat lying causes the three above said things. Since it does so the world would be better with less depression, less damaged relationships, and less shattered self-esteem. Lying causes this therefore, a world without lying means less of this. Rebuttals: R1. Protection Yes, I would want to know what people think about me. It would not crush my self-esteem, I still would debate to gain experience, and I would not develop depression and anxiety. (If this was true I already would have developed these symptoms said). I am who I am. My position is completely logical, I prefer to know what someone truly thinks about me rather than a facade. Furthermore, my opponent never provides why they have the person has to say these things. Lying is defined as "a deliberate spoken untruth". If they do not speak the mean things, then there is no lying as one of the aspects of a lie is that it is spoken. R2. Self-protection I have one simple question. When the gun murder turns to go to your wife. Call the police, stab the person in the back with a kitchen knife. There are options. And you also have the other option of not saying anything, deliberately not saying something is different than lying as you are withholding the truth not stating something inaccurate. This situation is highly unlikely in any case. Crime is not all that present in the United States. Now for another contention: C1. The Criminal Justice System I define justice in the Aristotelian sense: Justice is everyone receiving what they deserve. Criminals deserve to be sent to jail. A world where no one can lie promotes justice as the Criminal Justice system will basically work by a police officer or prosecutor asking the defendant "did you commit x?" X being the crime they may have committed. If they answer yes they did it and are sent to jail. If they answer no they did not do it and go free. Justice promotes happiness because people will be safer as criminals are arrested and almost immediately sent to jail if guilty. (It also promotes speed in the system). Justice leads to safety. People are happier when they are safer. Furthermore, when criminals see how easy it is to be convicted of a crime they will be less likely to commit the crime. This means less crime. Less crime means more safety. More safety means happiness. So the scenario my opponent presents in his second contention would over time be less likely to happen as the crime rates diminish. As time grows on, there would be less need for the criminal justice system as there would be less crime. Conclusion: This entire debate deals completely with hypothetical. In my hypothetical world, there is less death, less disease, less suffering, and less crime for the overall population. Are these bad things? No, they are very good things in fact. Furthermore, my opponent claims my first two contentions are invalid because the resolution says "right now." Here is the resolution. "Resolved: A world where no one can lie, is better than the world we live in right now." No where it do the two words "right now" appear. Therefore, past events can be used to support a claim. The resolution just deals with the world. It does not specify a particular time period. I have shown that Bush and the Catholic Church intended to lie. Their lies have caused death and suffering for thousands of people. This death and suffering around the word was a direct result of lying. A world without lying is a world with less death and suffering. Therefore, it is a happier world as overall there is less death and suffering. I have given superior reasons 1) http://whitehouser.com... 2) http://www.americanprogress.org...