A world without deception is better than a world with deception

As my opponent has primary burden of proof, I will focus on refuting his arguments while showing that deception serves a net benefit. Also, thank you Pro, for your warning about a possible forfeited round. That being said, I hope you will still be able to post.RefutationsCrime “When a criminal takes part in public life, and appears to be a typical citizen, they are misleading others.” My opponent acts like this is a bad thing, and says that more openness will lower the amount of repeat offenders, which is currently at 61% (1). However, this is simply not the case. America currently has openness with criminal records, and this is the reason for such large numbers of repeat offenders. Employers are able to access criminal records, and are often wary about hiring ex-felons. Because of this, in America, the unemployment rate for felons is 75% (2). These ex-felons have no pathway out of crime, and are often forced back into a criminal lifestyle in order to provide for themselves and their families. If felons were able to go on living their lives like typical citizens, then their unemployment rate would drop significantly. They would be able to more easily get jobs and they would be able to support themselves without returning to crime, thus lowering the number of repeat offenders (1). I would also like to question how this would take effect in a public life. If they are misleading others by acting normal when they are not typical, how would it be made clear that they are not normal? Would they have to wear signs saying “criminal” everywhere they went? And if deviating from the social norm is misleading, then wouldn’t everyone have to include everything about themselves that wasn’t normal? This hardly seems practical, as no person is exactly “normal.” “Organized crime would vanish.” Organized crime tends to handle itself in an organized way, so it would not necessarily vanish as a result of the arrests that take place. Vittorio Amuso, the boss of the Lucchese crime family, was arrested in 1992 (3), but he remained the head of the Lucchese family for at least 15 years (4). While he was arrested, there were three veteran capos that formed a ruling committee to run day-to-day operations (5). Organized crime would not necessarily be ended because of a lack of deception. Fraud “The famous example of bottled water.” People do not drink bottled water because of the name on the label. People drink bottled water because of convenience. People are constantly moving, and bottled water is simply more convenient to take with oneself than tap water (6). Also, I fail to see how names like Dasani Purified Water, Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water, and Aquafina Purified Drinking Water are misleading. Having different brand names for the same product (like Dasani, Arrowhead, and Aquafina) is simply a way of companies differentiating themselves. Removing fraud would not force bottled water companies to change their names, leaving this point invalid. “Clean Coal” Clean coal is not referring to a product. It is simply referring to an attempt to make coal cleaner. Pro has also described the reasoning for mountaintop removal inaccurately. The reason mountaintop removal is necessary is because people need more energy. This is not as a result of the process for mining coal, it is simply because consumers need more energy. While more mountaintops are being removed, on balance, each ton of coal is cleaner. This is not deception. It is only trying to make the process for coal burning cleaner by lowering emissions levels. Corruption “Corruption is greatly aided by deception.” My opponent claims that if we could simply ask a politician whether or not they have engaged in acts of corruption, they would be forced to expose themselves. This is true. However, there are more negative effects to being able to ask anyone anything (especially politicians) than there are positives. Complete government transparency is a bad thing To be completely transparent would often mean that the government would be putting national security at risk. Let’s consider a hypothetical. Let’s say that North Korea is close to creating a nuclear missile capable of destroying America. The CIA finds out about this, and reports to the president. They decide to secretly send operatives to dispose of the missile, and they decide to keep the existence of the missile a secret. The existence of the missile was kept secret to prevent widespread panic among the citizenry, and the mission to dispose of the missile was kept secret to ensure success. However, if people could simply ask the question to an official who knows about the plan, “Is something funky going on?” then the plan would be exposed, and America would be at a greater danger and there would be more widespread panic. If the plan were carried out secretly, then there would be no panic and no threat to America. If anything can be asked to any member of government, it produces a net cost, rather than benefit. Case for ConCritical Thinking When a person does not know what is and isn't true all of the time, it becomes necessary to critically analyze the evidence surrounding themselves. Take, for example, Pro's own argument about corruption. He stated that being able to ask politicians if they were corrupt would save time. However, he failed to acknowledge the loss of critical thinking present. When one cannot simply ask the politicians if they are corrupt or not, the individual has to examine evidence and come up with a case for why the politician is likely corrupt. This also applies to everyday lies. When one is just talking to others and it is unknown whether or not the statements are the truth, the person has to examine the other person's body language, manner of speaking, past habits, etc. in order to determine validity. In a world with deception, this practice of critical thinking would become so commonplace that it is subconsciously ingrained into a person's way of thinking. This constant practice produces smarter individuals, as without critical thinking ability, or with less critical thinking ability, people become passive receptors of information, rather than free, rational thinkers. Better and Stronger Relationships Let's face it. Lies keep people happy. How many people would still be friends if every time someone had an issue with the other, the grievance was aired? Take, for example, a friend who has large amounts of pimples on her face (we'll call her Olga). As omission is a form of deception, in a world without, a person would be forced to say "Olga, your face looks disgusting" every day. This would crush Olga's self esteem. However, if Olga's friends didn't have to say something along the lines of that, or were even able to say, "I didn't even notice your pimples," or "Your face looks stunning today," then Olga could feel good about herself. This could be extended to most types of relationships. Consider for a moment a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. The girlfriend might ask one day, "Do I look pretty?" As anyone in a relationship knows, this is a loaded question. If the girlfriend actually looks fine, then it is no big deal. However, if the girlfriend looks bad, and the boyfriend is honest about it, this can lead to huge fights and sometimes break ups. The point is, small lies are often harmless, and even keep people happy. Why not let people be happy? Sources: http://geekpolitics.com... http://www.modbee.com... http://news.google.com... http://www.lacndb.com... http://nymag.com... https://sites.google.com...