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

This debate, my opponent has really only raised three objections to my model. First, he has claimed it would bring our society to a standstill. Second, he has claimed lying is impossible to prove. Third, he claimed that a set of middlemen would speak on behalf of the politicians. Let's examine whether any of those hold any weight. First, would there be endless prosecutions? I'd say no. My opponent's case here is twofold. On the one hand he gives the example of Sarah Palin, a very specific example of a governor spending needlessly large amounts of money on a complaint that, in that particular instance, had nothing to do with the motion today. If the charges against her had been lying, and the case were false, the case would not have made it to court. This is because, prima facie, there is no case to bring (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent also asks for a good reason why people wouldn't generally bother. I've given you a great reason - time and money required. My opponent thinks this money would be taxpayer money. Unfortunately, in every country I've ever heard of, you don't fund a civil case with taxpayer money. For a criminal procedure to be launched, you need a really big mound of evidence - unless a judge thinks you might have a case, you won't come before the court. Besides, courts will not try the same case twice, so the scope for attack on politicians is limited. It doesn't seem particularly feasible that immediately after the passing of this law, a few thousand people will bother to sue the president of the United States over a speech to Iraqi troops where he rounded a figure to the nearest trillion to make a point. I should add that in this example, if people believed and acted on the lie it would have a bad impact on the country not because Al Qaeda might get a minor strategic advantage, but because voters would have been misled, and that's always bad in a democracy. Secondly, is it impossible to prove? In this matter I think the debate has become my word against his. If my opponent believes a Obama can be convicted under the law then this in itself shows that this point fails. To succeed in a trial under my law, you have to prove two things. First, that the lie was in fact said (my opponent challenges this separately under his third argument). Second, that the lie was intended. Can intent be proven? Yes it can. We already prove intent in every single murder case. Why should we be unable to prove intent here? Thirdly, my opponent asserts the emergence of a sock puppet government (I do love the phrase) under my model. The case here has moved on over the last two speeches, and the question has now become "Can we prove that sock puppets will repeat information accurately? " Actually, yes we can. Lawyers do all the time. They need simply ask the politician - "If (name of sock puppet) had made a fallacious statement, surely you would have known about it, thus through the law of negligence you are liable under larztheloser's model? " There are probably other, better arguments, that smarter people than me will be able to think of. The point is it's entirely possible to prove this, thus if a politician would dare to use a sock puppet to get away with lying, he won't last long in office. This, by the way, is an unconnected issue to deliberative process privilege, which does not concern public pronouncements. Since we can prove that sock puppets are legitimate spokespeople for the politician, the politician can be charged and thus a sock puppet government would not emerge. I would now like to revisit my six points and tell you why they are still left standing at the end of the debate. First, lying being immoral. My opponent says that my law relies on the public interest clause, and thus is wrong. Two responses. First, it doesn't. Even if Churchill was convicted, he'd get re-elected afterward. If the punishment was something else, such as a fine, I'd say he'd gladly pay that small price for saving Europe from tyranny. My second response is that even if it did, what's so bad about that? The law was created with the idea that if the judge/jury thought the lie was bad enough, the politician could be forced to a by-election. Second, improving transparency. My opponent here cannot think of an original argument, so he falls back on his old sock-puppets. Which I rebutted just a few paragraphs ago. Third, the censorship of lying in commerce analogy. Con's response has been to say commerce is not censored already in a great many ways, so people have to assess the credibility of the company. Two responses here too. First, once a commercial lie is found out, the corporation collapses immediately. See Enron. However, a politician is immune until the next election period comes. That's why politicians need to have the immediate check on them, and that's why the status quo is not analogous. Second, even if it were analogous, people cannot assess the credibility of a politician if all they do is lie. Only after the lies all fall apart will the politician be found out, and by that time, it would already be too late. That's why this example of a double standard is perfectly valid. Fourth, the democracy principle. My opponent STILL ignores this point. As he has ignored it for the whole debate thus far, I think it would be unreasonable to start a whole new line of argumentation now. This point clearly falls to my side of the house. Fifth, voter apathy. Like on my second point, my opponent cannot think of any arguments here, so he falls back on those goddamn sock puppets. I need not remind you that this is a fallacious point. Sixth, non-democratic nations. My opponent believes that other countries will never convert to democracy through external pressure. If that were the case, then Greece would be the only democratic country in the world. My opponent does not engage with my analysis that it also makes these foreign nations more trusting and thus more likely to engage with us. My opponent falls back on the same tired and oft-rebutted old arguments, demonstrates his complete ignorance of half of my arguments, and argues using nothing but false analogies. I've offered a clear model, multiple principles and strong arguments backed by my dodging of all the practical issues. That's why the motion stands at the end of this debate.