Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:27
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (14)
 No (10)

Debate Creator

myclob(437) pic

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.


1. Polygraph: (Accuracy at about 61%)

2. Timed Antagonistic Response Alethiometer:  (Accuracy around of 85%)

3. FMRI  (Accuracy of 85-90%)

4. Marijuana

5. Combining all of them.

6. Body Language of Lies

7. Voice Stress Analysis Lie Detector 


1. Direct reporting with computer software.

2. Voting knob used by polygraph experts with a computer averaging their score.


1. Altering the lighting. Less flattering light color & more shadows when they are lying.

2. Altering music. More ominous when they are lying.

3. Altering visuals. For instance the nose could grow or shrink on an image of the politician, on a screen behind the politician. 

Examples from Popular Culture

1. Johnny Carson Lie Detector Politician



Side Score: 16


Side Score: 11
2 points

Yeah we should. That would be awesome. All politicians are liers. It's ridiculous.

Side: yes
1 point

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...

Side: yes
1 point

WOW! What a cool concept! I think this would be great, but really difficult to administer!

Side: yes
1 point

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

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: Yes

Those devices should be mandatory. It will be amusing to watch the lie detectors react.

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: No
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

Since the politicians wouldn't like it. that's your argument!?

It may be that actually plugging them into lie detectors is impractical but making them more and more accountable is becoming more and more practical.

Oh how I wished that we could force them to engage in discussions like createdebate facilitates!

Side: yes
2 points

re: "Since the politicians wouldn't like it. that's your argument!?"

I've suggested this same idea in other places, and that's all I ever get... they say "We shouldn't do it because it wouldn't work 100% of the time".

Side: yes
Nautilus(628) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

Here are some politicians who would use it:;=1

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.

Side: Hook them up

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.

Side: No
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "It would be too easy to game, either by training or hacking the machine"

If it was easy to game, I don't think they would still be using it:

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.

Side: We should have lie detectors in debates
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Just because they use it doesn't mean its accurate.

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).

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

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...

Supporting Evidence: Another one of my cringe worthy videos (
Side: We should have lie detectors in debates
1 point

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.

Side: No

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.

Side: No