CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should we have lie detector use in public debates?
We should use technology to help us deter politicians from lying. When a statement is flagged as a potential lie they could be given a chance to clarify.
I propose that we use brainstorming trial & error & find the best way. This would make honest politicians more popular & visa versa. Watching debates would be more entertaining & educational.
Possible Use
Solution #1: Politicians could be connected to lie detectors whenever they speak in public.
#2: or in public debates.
#3: They could periodically report to a facility with a lie detector & answer questions.
Thanks GuitarGuy11. I would like to run for office some day. I would totally do use a lie detector during debates, and once a week, or month. Also I would promise not to use stupid 30 second TV commercials, and only use sites like this as a way to explain my beliefs...
And every act they do in an official capacity should be made part of an audio/video archive. We should make our officials as accountable as our most advanced technology allows as I see it.
If you don't like it, dont run for public office. Transparency Transparency Transparency
Lots of politicians are corrupted and they lie. And it's stupid and we believe them. So, we should have a lie detector(s) on the politician to find out if they are lying or not.
Find one politician who would vote for that to implement it. What makes you think they would subject themselves to a lie detector if they can't even accept video footage of their own contradictions and lies. Getting a politician to implement that is like asking a human to breathe methane, you can't survive the changes.
I'm not really against it, but no politician is going to pass any sort of law that would make them submit to such a test. It's not in their best interest. Also sociopaths and pathological lyers can pass lie detectors, I would think politicians have some experience when i comes to lying.
How can we make running for public office less attractive to liars? Got any ideas? My thinking is that accountability measures are the way to go. We can hardly discuss the practical without also discussing the impractical. And how many of the greatest ideas are at first dismissed as absurd. You ever notice that virtually no politicians actively post on public forums such as usenet, google groups, yahoo groups, createdebate or the like?
Sure liars don't want to put themselves in front of direct public scrutiny. But who deserves more blame for societal problems, lying politicians or honest people who don't get involved in politics? I think I will create that debate.
Political debates in the Tri-State could soon look a lot like the Fox show "The Moment of Truth." Republicans in the 9th congressional district suggested Democratic representative Baron Hill and his Republican challenger Mike Sodrel be hooked up to lie detectors for a debate.
It would be too easy to game, either by training or hacking the machine.
with proper training you can have a good amount of control over most of your emotions, and even make yourself believe or rather not disbelieve something. "Chaos magic" or suspension of disbelief would just be implemented.
Those who know belief as a tool, and trained to use it as such will be able to manipulate the data the machine would pick up.
Having some sort of bio-feedback would be cool, but I doubt it could truly be effective as a lie detector amongst those who would know the ins and outs of the machine or at least have experience with it. Bio-feedback is used in brain-computer interfaces so that people can better control the computer by their thoughts/emotions alone, the lie detector would basically be the same thing. Using cat-scanners would be expensive and likely difficult to implement, and theres a chance those could be worked around in the same way as bio-feedback might be.
Also, FMRI's offer promising results. The goal isn't to catch every lie, but if we caught 1/2 of them, that would be way more than we are catching now, wouldn't it? How can you be against using lie detectors on our politicians :) (I wanted that to sound as a smile, "I hate politicians sort of way", not rudely) I don't think they have the right to lie to us? They are public servants.
Theres also a chance of false positives for lies as well.
When ever a politician makes a promise you just have to recognize if such a promise can realistically be made, they often times over-exaggerate their ability so that they seem confident and so their message remains simple. Politics embellish more than outright lie. They also seem to rely more on their reasoning and beliefs than data when stating "facts". Such process will lead to untruths, and its part of the political game. A lie detector wouldn't change that.
Transparency in government is indeed a must, but public debates are about a poltician's opinions(which are often wrong), not so much fact. Transparency will come about from government departments publishing their internal docs and studies, not from politicians doing better research to support their opinions(although it would be nice if they did).
Perfection should not be the enemy of improvement. There are problems with light bulbs. They go out. They burn out. They get dirty. They break. They do not produce perfect sunlight that lights up your whole town. They take energy. But we still use them, because they improve our lives. Their are problems with lie detectors. They are not 100% accurate, but what is 100% accurate?
You say: "When ever a politician makes a promise you just have to recognize if such a promise can realistically be made". Why? Because you say so? You don't like change? You don't want change? That is not an argument: just stating that we should not do it, and that we are stuck, and we can't improve things.
Re: "Politics embellish more than outright lie". What? You have data on this? What are you talking about?
In 1938, British Prime Chamberlain met with German Chancellor Hitler to find a diplomatic way to avoid war. Adolf Hitler assured Chamberlain that war could be avoided if Czechoslovakia would agree to redraw its border. Chamberlain agreed and announced to the British Parliament that Hitler, "Means what he says." Hitler took the opposite action. It is one of humanity's most shocking lies.
Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relationships with Monica Lowinski.
Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, lied about his efforts to cover up his misdeeds regarding the Watergate scandal. The truth was disclosed and he ultimately had to resign to avoid impeachment.
George W. Bush said that, "We have discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
George HW Bush said: "Read my lips. No new taxes."
Obama said he would close Guantanamo... Do I need to go on?
Lie detectors would introduce new problems and those who are use to them can pass them.
They simply don't improve upon our knowledge of if someone is lying or not when that person has experience with them.
Lie detectors wouldn't have to be perfect, they would just actually have to fulfill their intended function to the point where it is highly unlikely to have a false positive (a chance of a false positive of 10-40% is rather high, too high for any real practical application). At its worst its about equivalent to flipping a coin to tell if someone lied or not.
? Na, I'm just stating most people don't seem to use common sense when a politician makes promises. If people were to use common sense, polygraphs and similar "lie detectors"(if they worked as they are hyped to) wouldn't fulfill much of a function and if they did they would just tell us if the politician believed in his own promise's future success, not of his intentions.
Politics is embellishment, its all about image is it not? Data for the position is found in the daily activity of all politicians, I doubt an empirical study has actually been done on it. Logic and a knowledge of the field should be enough to lead one to the conclusion. Lying would likely result in being caught, and reprimanded by voters for it well embellishing results in being voted for, more incentive for one over the other so on and so forth. Often times when people speak of a politician "lying" they are actually referring to having their idealistic vision of them which was built by their embellishments during their campaigns come crashing down, as any rational person could predict. Embellishing isn't necessarily lying and often isn't, rather what people mean is that they were deceived by appeals to emotions and fancy language to believe in an idealistic vision which was always doomed to disappoint them.
Hitler's and bush's lie were war tactics, bill's and Nixon's attempts to save face, etc a lie detector isn't really needed to recognize the possibility or likelihood that their not being truthful, which is really all the lie detector gives you, a possible likelihood that their lying. Also the examples you gave didn't take place during public debates, except perhaps obama's in which case his claim may very well not of been a lie at the time, it always seemed like one of those unrealistic promises which was doomed to be unfullfilled.
Re: “Lie detectors would introduce new problems and those who are use to them can pass them.”
You didn’t give any examples of “new problems” resulting from lie detectors in politics. Just stating that they would result in “new problems” might make you feel good, but to smart people who really want to find solutions to our problems, it is not convincing until you give actual examples. But even if you give examples of potential problems, that does not help you. I could come up of thousands of stupid ways of using lie detectors in politics. But I am not proposing that we use lie detectors in stupid ways. I am proposing that we find SOME way to use them to decrease the amount of deception in politics and government.
It is true, that you get a point for the post, on this website for saying that it would cause more problems. But if this website had a way for evaluating the validity of your claim, I believe it should get a low score, because you did not provide any examples. Really you have not shown any evidence that there would be “new problems”
What bad would result from using lie detectors in politics? Sure, if you used them stupidly, then some bad could happen. But that is not what you are saying. I am saying that we should use them, somehow. And you are saying no we shouldn’t. If I want to say that we should find a way to use lie detectors in politics, and you want to say, no we shouldn’t the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no way that they could be used to cause more good than harm.
It is impossible for them to ever be used in a way that does more good than harm? Wow! You are smart to be so confident that is completely impossible, that there is no way that they could ever be used to benefit society.
Re: “They simply don't improve upon our knowledge of if someone is lying or not when that person has experience with them.”
Yes they do. That is why they are used in the secret service.
Re: “Lie detectors wouldn't have to be perfect, they would just actually have to fulfill their intended function to the point where it is highly unlikely to have a false positive (a chance of a false positive of 10-40% is rather high, too high for any real practical application).”
Why? How do you define highly unlikely to have a false positive? Sure, if you want to set this up like a court of law, where we are sending someone to the electric chair, but the goal is to come up with some sort of system to use them in politics where they do more good than harm. That is the only possible way to evaluate a proposal for political process modification: does it do more good than harm. And yes I can think of many situations where this could do more good than harm. I think the problem is we are seeing two different world. You are looking at the worst example of my idea, which is obviously bad. I am looking at the best example of my idea, which is obviously good. I will consded the point that there are many ways that this could be done that are bad. Maybe the most common example that comes to mind is bad. But that example is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is a process, not a specific proposal. I am talking about a process where we use trial and error, imagination, and experimentation and brainstorm all the different ways that we could use technology to help keep our politicians honest. Perhaps the best method would be to have a politician report once a month for 10 minutes or even half an hour. In my mind retired judges are supposed to be impartial. They could pre-screen the questions and make sure that they are relevant, not just voyeuristic into the politicians personal life, and they would only pass on questions that really mattered. There are all sorts of things you could do to prevent false positives. When you think they are not telling the truth, you tell them… you let them further refine their explanation until the polygraph indicates that they are telling the truth.
You would of course present the evidence in an honest way. You keep bringing up the specter of a false positive: that we accuse a politician of lying when they are really telling the truth. But this is a straw man argument. No one says that something someone says is a lie, experts give their opinion on a confidence interval… but no requital expert would ever say they are more than 99% or potentially even 90% confident that someone is lying. Again your argument is a straw man argument. In your world, a politician is telling the truth, but this accuses them of lying. In the real world some people assume that everything a politician says is a lie, and so how is this any different? It is not. This is just bringing in more ways of trying to evaluate the truthfulness of something politicians say.
Re: “? Na, I'm just stating most people don't seem to use common sense when a politician makes promises. If people were to use common sense, polygraphs and similar "lie detectors"(if they worked as they are hyped to) wouldn't fulfill much of a function and if they did they would just tell us if the politician believed in his own promise's future success, not of his intentions.”
Why do we have to chose? Why can’t we use both? You act as though we could not use our brains, or other methods, if we used some sort of technology to assist us. We could still use our brains, and deductive and inductive reasoning, but this would just be more data for us to consider.
Re: “Politics is embellishment, its all about image is it not? Data for the position is found in the daily activity of all politicians, I doubt an empirical study has actually been done on it. Logic and a knowledge of the field should be enough to lead one to the conclusion.”
Why would more information hurt. You say we can use logic to keep politicians from lying to us. Really? How is that working out?
Re: “Lying would likely result in being caught, and reprimanded by voters for it well embellishing results in being voted for, more incentive for one over the other so on and so forth.”
Dude. Are you drunk high or just stupid? You are not making any sense. Re-read what you wrote, and trying righting it again, because the above sentence is not the English language.
Re: “Often times when people speak of a politician "lying" they are actually referring to having their idealistic vision of them which was built by their embellishments during their campaigns come crashing down, as any rational person could predict.”
When I am talking about politicians “lying” I am talking about politicians “lying”.
Re: “Embellishing isn't necessarily lying and often isn't”
Dude, you are really starting to piss me off. The stuff you are saying is so stupid. Embellishments are lies. Why do you want politicians to be able to “lie” to us? Why do you want politicians to be able to “embellish” to us? What is the difference? What makes you write all this stuff? Are you a politician? Why are you so opposed to this idea?
Re: “what people mean is that they were deceived by appeals to emotions and fancy language to believe in an idealistic vision which was always doomed to disappoint them.”
Again, what I am talking about is actual lies.
Re: “Hitler's and bush's lie were war tactics”
That doesn’t matter. Why in the hell would you think that matters? Just because a lie is also a war tactic doesn’t change anything? Why would you say this? Are you trying to win the argument by just being the last person talking? Why should politicians have the right to lie to us?
Re: “bill's and Nixon's attempts to save face, etc a lie detector isn't really needed to recognize the possibility or likelihood that their not being truthful”
Just because they are “not needed” does not mean that we shouldn’t use them. It is not needed for me to have a car, to get to work, but it sure helps.
Re: “which is really all the lie detector gives you, a possible likelihood that their lying.”
No one disputes that? What made you point that out? Do you think anyone is disputing that?
Re: “Also the examples you gave didn't take place during public debates, except perhaps obama's in which case his claim may very well not of been a lie at the time, it always seemed like one of those unrealistic promises which was doomed to be unfullfilled.”
Did I say that the only way to do this would be during debates? I said politicians should be connected to lie detectors “when ever they speak in public” It is in the very first sentence of my article… Did you even read my post?
Examples are numerous: cost, false positives, freedom of speech issues, etc.
My opinion is that if current technology was better it might do some good, but not much. Not enough to justify the additional cost, the hurdles, etc.
Lie detectors, truth serums, etc are more self-fulling prophesies which operate on the belief of their effectiveness more so than on the science behind their methods. Well some people may indeed respond in measurable ways to lying due to guilt or shame resulting from their belief set about lying; Many people have little qualms about lying if it serves their purposes, and thus there wouldn't be a response on many lie detectors, however such people can be caught by a momentary nervousness that the lie detector might work right before they lie well on one. Those type of calm people are on the rise in western society, and their personality causes them to gravitate towards certain roles, particularity ones of wealth,fame or power. The SS finds the lie detector useful not because of the science behind the lie detector, but because of the fear of it. Its more of a psychological tool than anything.
The percentages of their effectiveness sited, if accurate or unless otherwise stated, are on a representative sample of society; People who are hooked up often to such machines are not the same as that sample, and due to the incentives such people have and their opportunities to learn about it and possibly practice evading a positive reading, the efficiency is lower. Also, politicians may be nervous during a public speech, which would make the cheapest and most implementable method of lie detection useless due to the need of a base line. At most it would make a public leader appear un-confident in such situations. The easiest ways to make a lie-detector useless would be to drink caffeine before hand, prick yourself with your fingernails every few mins behind the podium or in your pocket, etc
In order to do good, lie detectors would have to be very accurate, cheap, agreed to, etc. At this point in time, they are less effective than a coin-flip at determining if someone use to lie detection is lying, kinda expensive, and few politicians would be thrilled about it(leading to possible violations of their sovereignty over their own body, freedom of speech, etc).
A design process would be the best way to come to a conclusion, but from a design perspective lie detection is unreliable and due to its unreliability would constitute a redundant system in a un-critical system, resulting in greater costs and no real benefit.
How are requital experts opinions taken when they are 90% sure? is it not an accusation in the "public court". Such honest presentations are nothing more than a legal disclaimer. Further more, what about innocent in-till proven guilty? Are our politicians to be continually on the stand of a "public court", whenever they wish to make their opinion(not facts) known?
we could use both, but why implement a secondary, more expensive mechanism to give you the exact same information, false information, or less info, when the first one is fairly reliable in a relatively uncritical system. uncritical because most government actions requires multiple politicians to act together, and the likelihood that all of them are lying is low since each would likely gain more by exposing the others as liers. Improving the first system seems the better design decision.
Embellishing and lying are distinct, I refer you to a dictionary of your choosing.
Politicians as private people have the ability, and the right, to lie concerning their private affairs well not on trial, due to freedom of speech.
In public affairs, there should be enough sources with differing incentives and loud voices which make an effective lie impossible.
In general, although certainly not always, this seems to be the case. To make it the case more often, openness and transparency need to be improved. It is by improving transparency and openness that lies would become more and more ineffective in a cheap, reliable way.
Some war tactics may requires deception to be implemented, sadly such implementation may mean you deceive your own people. If such tactics are the "best" tactics, which amount to the loss of less life and so on, then lieing may be necessary and good. Government and the military should be set up so that it would be impossible to do such, or at least very very difficult; since such processes which would allow for deception on such a wide scale would have too much potential for abuse and America as a leading military power has little to no valid use for them.
Bills lie was about his private affairs, what significance does it have?
If Nixon's lie was about a different crime, like smoking cannabis, it wouldn't have much significance either.
The category of the lie, is indeed important.
I was mainly going by the debate topic, and skimmed the description to be honest.
If it was easy to game, I don't think they would still be using it
Just like we use numerous other things that don't work. Even judges have recognized their unreliability, which is why they are no longer admissible evidence.
Why do you keep ignoring my comment that we don't want the goal of perfection to stop improvement... I keep saying that it will help, and you keep saying it won't be perfect. The desire for perfection is not a valid reason to dispute this. Stop repeating yourself. I know it wouldn't be perforce, but how can you say that using lie detectors would not lead to less lying? And don't just tell me once again that they are not 100% accurate.
Your assertion that judges don't use them is just wrong? Why would you say something so wrong, when all you had to do is google lie detectors in court:
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),[47] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[48] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[49]
In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).
[edit]The American Polygraph Association
The American Polygraph Association (APA) is a non-profit United States organization, representing more than 3,200 experienced polygraph examiners in private business, law enforcement and government. The APA establishes standards of ethical practices, techniques, instrumentation and research, as well as provides advanced training and continuing education programs.[50]
[edit]Europe
In most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not generally used by police forces. Courts themselves do not order or pay for polygraph tests. In most cases, polygraph tests are voluntarily taken by a defendant in order to substantiate his or her claims.
The Federal Court of Justice of Germany has ruled that polygraph evidence is not admissible in court.[51]
[edit]Canada
In Canada, the polygraph is regularly used as a forensic tool in the investigation of criminal acts and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations. In the 1987 decision of R. v. Béland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court. This decision did not however affect the use of the polygraph in criminal investigations. The polygraph continues to be used as an investigative tool.
[edit]Australia
The High Court of Australia has not yet considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence. However, the New South Wales District Court rejected the use of the device in a criminal trial. In Raymond George Murray 1982 7A Crim R48 Sinclair DCJ refused to admit polygraph evidence tending to support the defence. The judge rejected the evidence because
The veracity of the accused and the weight to be given to his evidence, and other witnesses called in the trial, was a matter for the jury.
The polygraph "expert" sought to express an opinion as to ultimate facts in issue, which is peculiarly the province of the jury.
The test purported to be expert evidence by the witness who was not qualified as an expert, he was merely an operator and assessor of a polygraph. The scientific premise upon which his assessment was based had not been proved in any Court in Australia.
Devoid of any proved or accepted scientific basis, the evidence of the operator is hearsay which is inadmissible.
The Court cited, with approval, the Canadian case of Phillion v R 1978 1SCR 18.
Lie detector evidence is currently inadmissible in New South Wales courts under the Lie Detectors Act [52].
[edit]Israel
The High Court of Israel, in Civil Appeal 551/89 (Menora Insurance Vs. Jacob Sdovnik), ruled that as the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device, polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial. In other decisions, polygraph results were ruled inadmissible in criminal trials. However, some insurance companies attempt to include a clause in insurance contracts, in which the beneficiary agrees that polygraph results be admissible as evidence. In such cases, where the beneficiary has willingly agreed to such a clause, signed the contract, and taken the test, the courts will honor the contract, and take the polygraph results into consideration. Interestingly, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people who signed such contracts to refuse to take the test. Depending on whether or not the beneficiary signed an agreements clause, and whether the test was already taken or not, such a refusal usually has no ill effects; at worst, the court will simply order the person to take the test as agreed. At best, the court will cancel the clause and release the person from taking the test, or rule the evidence inadmissible.
[edit]India
Recently an Indian court adopted the brain electrical oscillations signature test as evidence to convict a woman, who was accused of murdering her fiance. It is the first time that the result of polygraph was used as evidence in court.[53] On May 5, 2010, The Supreme Court of India declared use of narcoanalysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests on suspects as illegal and as against constitution.[54] Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution-"No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Polygraph tests are still legal if the defendant requests one, however.
This is another one of my cringe worthy videos. I'm not a very natural speaker on these videos, and they come off sort of lame... oh well... I guess it explains the idea...
If you are going to ask politicians to consider this, then you have ask the media to do the same thing. The media has their own spin too and that is what the public ends up with....not necessarily the truth.
The stress of the situation would throw off almost all results making them all seem like lies.
The way polygraphs work is by monitoring your heart rate which spikes a little when you lie, if you are always nervous, either because the thing is hooked to you or because you are debating publicly, the results will be instantly seeming as if you're lying.
