People should always be honest with others regardless of what the outcome

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I hope you have a comfortable place to sit while we regale you with arguments, counter arguments, stories, parables, analogies, etc. May you be both edified and amused! Most of all, may you vote! My opponent's entire argument takes the form of an argument from analogy except that in an unexpected twist, it turns out that the analogy he argues from is something that supposedly actually happened. But the analogy breaks down for a couple of reasons. First, because he begins the analogy by saying this boy (who we later find out is actually Pro) had what he called a "silly crush." Well anybody who has had a crush, then been crushed emotionally because of it, knows good and well that there is nothing silly about crushes. Crushes are very serious things. Second, Pro admits that teenagers really can experience real love in spite of the fact that some people deny it. Well, if that is the case, then it undermines Pro's original statement that his crush was "silly." So Pro's whole argument is mired in contradiction. Of course, I am just joking. Nothing I've said so far really undermine's Pro's case. But let's get serious... Now, let me just go ahead and say that I completely sympathize with Pro. Being lied to in the context of relationships just sucks. Many girls pretend as if they're lying is justified by the fact that they are trying to protect the poor boy from having his feelings hurt. Since their motives appear to be altruistic, they console themselves with their pretended selflessness. But in reality, the reason they lie is to protect themselves from the awkwardness of confrontation. If they were truly being altruistic, they would tell the truth. Lying to a guy about why you're not interested in him, or why you don't want to go out with him, or whether he's number one in your life, just ads insult to injury. It doesn't help him. It makes him feel worse. It comes across as condescending. Nine times out of ten, it is perfectly obvious when a guy is being lied to. And even when it's not obvious, it usually becomes obvious later on. And even in the cases where it never becomes obvious, it leaves the poor chap at a disadvantage. He lacks the advantage of truth to guide his future decisions in life. He lacks the advantage of honest experience which, in ideal cases, contributes to maturation. So I fully agree with Pro that in cases like these, honesty is the best policy. However, that is not enough to establish the resolve. The resolve is not that people should usually be honest with most people in most circumstances. Rather, the resolve is that people should ALWAYS be honest with others no matter WHAT the circumstances are. Given the resolve, all it takes to refute it is to come up with a set of circumstances under which a person should NOT be honest. All it takes is one example to refute the resolve. And it seems to me that it should be easy to do. After all, there is such a thing as a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma is a situation in which two moral imperatives both come into play, but they cannot both be adhered to. So if there is a scenario in which the moral imperative to tell the truth comes up again another moral imperatives, and that other moral imperative wins out, then that is a situation in which the right thing to do is to lie. Here is the scenario: You are living in Nazi Germany, and there is a family of Jews living with you, including a mother, a father, and two young children. They have been your friends for many years. The Nazis are going door to door asking if anybody is hiding any Jews. Since there are so many houses and so little time, they are just taking people's word for it and moving on. They come to your door and ask, "Are there any Jews in your home?" If you tell the truth--that there are, in fact, Jews in your home--then they will be taken out in the street and shot in the head. However, if you lie and say that there are no Jews in your home, the Nazis will be on their way with no harm done. In a case like this, there are two moral imperatives that come into play: 1. You should tell the truth. 2. You should be loyal to your friends and not betray them to their deaths. Both of these moral imperatives at least have prima facie force. However, in this case, it is impossible to obey both of them. The only way to solve a moral dilemma is to choose the greater of two goods (or the lesser of two evils). The greater good in this case is to save innocent life. The lesser evil is to lie. Therefore, you should not tell the truth in this situation. You should not be honest. And since it is because of the outcome that you should not be honest, the resolve for this debate has been refuted. The outcome of being dishonest is saving the innocent lives of your friends. The outcome of being honest is the murder of your friends. I think this argument from analogy completely destroys Pro's point of view. I hope that my argument is so compelling that my opponent will just go ahead and concede. After all, if he is persuaded that I am right, but he digs in his heals and pretends to believe I am wrong, well that would be dishonest. So I encourage Pro to only continue debating with me if he honestly thinks that it's better to betray the Jews to their slaughter than it is to tell a lie to the Nazis. Besides that, a concession would be considered good conduct. So even though Pro will have lost this debate, he will still have gotten some points out of it. It is in his best interest, therefore, to concede. He shouldn't forfeit by not responding at all, though, because he could lose conduct points in that case. Forfeiting by letting the clock run out is never a good idea. And now I turn it back over to Pro.