A World Without Lies

That's a nicely structured argument. I appreciate the organisational skills of Con and shall be taking advantage of this to address the argument section-by-section.The Employment SituationIf person A cannot do the job as well as person B, my opponent seems to find fault with person B getting the job. Never does Con explain why A deserves the job more than B.They seem to insinuate that mercy, or sympathy is required for their utopia to function. This utopia is just as unrealistic as the utopia of a world without lies but, unlike a world without lies, Con's world is a world full of retards leading the capable, the weak dominating the strong and the clumsy doing athletics whilst the socially awkward carry out politics. It is a complete shambles and makes absolutely no sense. Why on Earth must you prioritise the guy less capable of getting the job just because the other is more capable of getting another one? That is like turning down a hot babe at a club for the old granny sitting on the bench across the road from it, waiting for her bus just because she is less likely to be able to get hit on by another guy. there is absolutely no sense to it and it is a very self-destructive society that my opponent is proposing (not to mention, dysfunctional).My opponent attempts to make this out to be Utilitarianism but it sure as hell is not Utilitarianism to prevent the people most capable of a doing a job to not do it. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the majority of humanity to put the best runner on the tracks, the sharpest statisticians calculating risks and analysing progress and the most efficient nurses on duty to care for the sick? I think this is far better for humanity than putting mentally disabled workers in roles while you had the option to put someone who can do the job far better for others that require the service, or good, that the job supplies.The Human Selection IssueMy opponent seems to be appealing to morality and emotions during this entire argument. The way I understood it is that if the weak die off and the world becomes less populated with them, this is a 'net evil'. This is irrelevant to the debate because in a world without lies, the lie of morality and the illusion of empathy would no longer be of significance. In a world without lies there is only logic and all that matters is what is most logical and efficient and to kill the weak off makes the relative weakness of our species, compared to the other species the world, increase. Thus, it is a net benefit to humanity, and in round one 'good' was defined as 'beneficial to humanity'.Social ImpactsMy opponent goes on to state that the only way for people of different viewpoints to get along is by them lying to each other about the viewpoints, to a degree, in order to 'gel', as he puts it. This is simply not required in a world without lies because everyone will have the same viewpoint; the true one.In conclusion, a world without lies is more beneficial than detrimental to the human race as a whole and is, therefore, more morally correct than incorrect according to the definition supplied in round one of this debate.Sources relevant to this round of debate:Natural selection(1) Basic overview: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(2) Detailed history: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...Utilitarianism(1) Basic overview: http://www.csus.edu...(2) Detailed history: http://plato.stanford.edu...Mental retardation(1) http://www.nlm.nih.gov...Definitions relevant to this round of debate:Efficiency - The state or quality of working in a well-organized and competent way.Viewpoint - A person’s opinion, particular attitude or way of considering a matter.True - In accordance with fact or reality.Fictional belief - A belief or statement which is false, but is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.