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

Oh, it's on! Pro attacked my refutation in a couple of ways. First, he pointed out that I only provided one piece of evidence. He is correct. However, one counter-example to the resolution is all that is necessary to refute the resolution. The resolution is all-encompassing. It says that people should ALWAYS be honest with others REGARDLESS of what the outcome is. If there is just one situation in which a person should not be honest with others, then it is false to say that people should always be honest with others regardless of the situation. Second, he claimed that my scenario is not historically accurate. I'm not sure whether the scenario is historically accurate in all its details, but that's irrelevant. The resolution makes a moral claim. Moral claims are always hypothetical. "If you are in such and such situation, then you should do this and such." Whether such and such situation has ever occurred is not relevant to whether the moral claim is true. So if there is a hypothetical situation in which you ought to lie, then it is false to say that people should always be honest with others regardless of the outcome. Moral imperatives would be useless if they could only apply to situations that have actually happened. The reason is because new situations arise in which morality must play a part. For example, it didn't used to be the case that we could destroy whole cities with one bomb. Now we can. That raises the question of whether we should. It doesn't need to be the case that somebody has ever been in a situation in which dropping the bomb was an issue before there are moral imperatives that apply to such situations. How could one answer questions like, "What should I do in such and such situation?" if the answer to such a question depends on such and such situation actually having happened in the past? What if there's a possibility that the situation could happen in the future? Don't we need to answer the moral question before it happens or even in case it happens? Morality MUST be able to apply to future hypothetical situations because otherwise there is no answer to questions like, "What should I do in such and such situation?" Morality is always forward looking. It dictates what you ought to do. The incumbency of morality comes before the act. Morality tells you ahead of time what you should do. It doesn't simply condemn you or acquit you after the fact. So it's irrelevant whether my nazi scenario actually happened in the past. We can still ask the question, "What should I do if I'm hiding innocent people from murderers, and the murderers ask me if I'm hiding the people?" The answer is that you should lie to the murderers. So it is false to say that people should always be honest with others regardless of what the outcome is. But my scenario is not entirely non-historical. There were, in fact, people who hid Jews in their homes during the Holocaust. Ann Frank's family comes immediately to mind. The nazis did, in fact, ask their hosts if they were hiding any Jews, and their hosts did, in fact, lie about it as they should have. Of course the Franks were eventually discovered, but the scenario I gave was realistic. There were people hiding Jews, and they did sometimes find themselves in situations where they had to choose between lying or risking discovery. I should point out that Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. He must prove the resolution is true. So far, he hasn't done that. He has listed a few circumstances under which people ought to tell the truth, but he has not substantiated the claim that people should ALWAYS tell the truth regardless of the outcome. I doesn't follow that just because girls ought to be honest with guys about their lack of interest that therefore all people should be honest in every situation. Pro needs more substantiation to carry his burden of proof.