Lie detector tests are unreliable
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
My opponent can argue for Baked Beanz. (though this is not the debate topic, so would likely lose the debate if did so)
All i ask is for an honest debate.
Errors that remain unacknowledged after being pointed out become construed as lies.
Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.
I may use other sources later on, if required.
The Travis Walton UFO incident was an alleged alien abduction of an American forestry worker, Travis Walton, by a UFO on November 5, 1975, while he was working in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests near Snowflake, Arizona. Walton reappeared after a five-day search. The Walton case received mainstream publicity and remains one of the best-known alien abduction stories. Skeptics consider it a hoax. Walton wrote a book about his purported abduction in 1978 called The Walton Experience, which was adapted into the 1993 film Fire in the Sky
According to Walton, on November 5, 1975 he was working with a timber stand improvement crew in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest near Snowflake, Arizona. While riding in a truck with six of his coworkers, they encountered a saucer-shaped object hovering over the ground approximately 110 feet away, making a high-pitched buzz. Walton claims that after he left the truck and approached the object, a beam of light suddenly appeared from the craft and knocked him unconscious. The other six men were frightened and supposedly drove away. Walton claimed that he awoke in a hospital-like room, being observed by three short, bald creatures. He claimed that he fought with them until a human wearing a helmet led Walton to another room, where he blacked out as three other humans put a clear plastic mask over his face. Walton has claimed he remembers nothing else until he found himself walking along a highway, with the flying saucer departing above him.
UFOlogist Jim Ledwith said, “For five days, the authorities thought he’d been murdered by his co-workers, and then he was returned. All of the co-workers who were there, who saw the spacecraft, they all took polygraph tests, and they all passed, except for one, and that one was inconclusive.”
Science and skepticism writer Michael Shermer criticized Walton's claims, saying, "I think the polygraph is not a reliable determiner of truth. I think Travis Walton was not abducted by aliens.
A polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector test, is a device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.
There are, however, no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate liars from truth tellers. Polygraph examiners also prefer to use their own individual scoring method, as opposed to computerized techniques, as they may more easily defend their own evaluations.
However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.
The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are inaccurate, may be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.
In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience
In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection".
In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."
"polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community"
(a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and
(b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions.
Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies"
there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance, significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.
The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was "unreliable, unscientific and biased"
"The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".
Daytime talk shows, such as Maury Povich, Jeremy Kyle and Steve Wilkos, frequently use polygraphs to detect deception in social matters such as cheating, child abuse and theft.
The show is based on confrontations in which guests attempt to resolve issues with others that are significant in their lives, with such issues often related to family relationships, romantic relationships, sex, drugs and alcohol, among other issues. Alongside Kyle, the programme additionally featured psychotherapist Graham Stanier, who assisted the guests both during and after the show's broadcast, along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.
along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.
a judge described the programme as "human bear-baiting" during a prosecution of guests that had a violent altercation on the programme.
On 15 May 2019, the programme was officially cancelled after the death of a guest, whose appearance had been filmed the week before but not aired.
to the point that they are rarely cited as a source of legal evidence in countries such as the United States, and its use on the show has been criticised.
At one point to prove the legitimacy of the "lie detector" test Jeremy Kyle performed a live on stage test with the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a llama?" to which he replied yes, which was identified as a lie.
"Kyle regularly claims the lie detector is 96 per cent accurate,
whereas a 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated it to be 61 per cent. Or not much better than chance."
"The lie detector is designed to indicate whether someone is being deceptive. Practitioners claim its results have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed."
On 9 May 2019, Hampshire Police found a man dead at an address in Portsmouth. He was confirmed to be 63-year-old Steve Dymond and the police said "the death is not being treated as suspicious". Dymond had been a guest on an episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show that had been filmed a week before his death and had not yet been aired. He took part in the show's polygraph test, which determined he was being unfaithful to his partner after he had initially denied doing so. The death was suspected to be a suicide
I want to thank Steven for this debate. I have two debates with him and he will probably see the same criticism of his techniques on both, which I’m sure will test his patience. I appreciate him allowing me the privilege of debating him. I hope this can be fun, and I want him to know my criticism of his technique is not just to win the debate, but to also help him become a better debater, and hopefully this has some impact on his offline life as well.
2.
This debate is long. Like ridiculously long. It is 30,000 characters and 5 rounds. 2 weeks between each round. I like being allowed 2 weeks to take my time to post an argument. The problem with this debate is mostly the fact it might not get read because of it’s length and the fact this can be a boring topic to most people. I am going to combat this by attempting to be entertaining. This is what I do, because in order to win the votes of judges, we should also win their readership. People have limited time, and only so much dedicated to reading. I put this here so I can point people to it in other debates. This debate has a 30,000 character allowance so it is the perfect place holder for a few of my philosophies on how to debate on this format. I put this here, to encourage potential voters to read on. I promise the debate will not be boring. Well, I promise I will try my best to keep the topic fun and interesting.
3.
There is more than one form of plagiarism. It is true that somebody can have a lot of citations to the same exact wikipedia page and yet true they plagiarized. Plagiarism can be on purpose or accidental, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed. Mostly for my opponent’s own good. Even unintentional plagiarism deserves a loss of conduct, because it needs to be discouraged. It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.
My opponent has plagiarized his arguments, and I can see why he has done it. He chooses to debate about 30 topics at a time, and formulating an argument can be quite time intensive and the mental energy used can be a bit draining. I would advise him to focus on just one debate at a time, until he has enough knowledge to easily debate many subjects simultaneously.
He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others. Sometimes he uses his own words and other times he gives a direct quotation and then merely paraphrases the content he had just stolen. For examples
Cited quote
“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”
Here is Pro’s quote
“according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective”
Or another examples
Pro’s quote
“The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies”
Sources quote
“The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
Pro’s paraphrasing doesn’t even seem to make sense other than forcing us to reread the same exact information twice. This is known as paraphrasing plagiarism, and his stitching together of quotes from other writers is known as stitching plagiarism. https://www.grammar.com/what_types_of_plagiarism_exist
4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating his own arguments. It’s fine not to have original arguments, but he makes no effort to use his own voice to make those arguments. Please award me conduct points at the very least tht should be his punishment. 5. Define what is reliable in a way that benefits me. Reliable is what is useful. Also that the resolution should be interpreted to mean all lie detectors. My opponent has given a wide latitude in how to interpret the resolution. Here is what he says in the description of the debate.
That is a pretty fair standard set by him. I think my interpretation of the debate resolution should be what judges use to determine what the debate is about. I also say my interpretation is fair and that the debate will be honest. At least on my end, I am not plagiarizing.
The resolution “Lie Detector Tests are Unreliable” has a major assumption in the title. As worded this refers to all lie detector tests. The polygraph invented over 100 years ago and is still used by police forces currently can be very “unreliable”, but if I prove a new lie detector test that uses different metrics to determine how likely somebody is to lie is “reliable”, than I should win the debate based on this resolution, that uses the term “lie detector test”. A more general term than polygraph.
The main word we need to focus on in the resolution though is the word “reliable”. My opponent could have used many words there, one word being accurate, but he chose not to debate the accuracy of the test. My opponent wanted to debate the reliability of the test.
According to my dictionary reliable means “To be able to do what is needed” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reliable
What is needed is a kind of general term that I guess the debate may revolve around, but I think the situation would determine what is needed from a lie detection test. Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth, and what is needed is not so much the results of the test, but for the test to strike fear into a person who is holding back information necessary to move an investigation forward. Whether the person is a witness who is scared to speak the truth or a suspect on the verge of confessing but just needs a little prodding.
I ask the judges, that when they look at the word reliable, they think about the usefulness of lie detector tests more than the accuracy of the tests. The tests could be very inaccurate and yet be reliable at the tasks it is actually needed for.
7. Lie detector tests are better than 50/50 according to my opponent’s own concessions. My opponent cites a source that claims polygraphs are slightly higher than 50%. However he also cites a source that says the correct accuracy of the polygraph is 61%. SO which is it? I think without him arguing for one over the other we should assume the 61% number is the more accurate one, as it is at least specific and the definition of “slightly” can be very ambiguous. Slightly can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people and the difference can be statistically significant. This is only assuming we accept his 61% number we see that he cites below. Pro rephrases (plagiarizes) a quote he cited this way ;
“However a 1997 study of 421 psychologists found the percentage to be closer to 61% accurate”
The citation is a big pain in the ass for me because wikipedia lists it as this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/07/itv.television But the claim of 61% is not found in the article cited. I did track down a 1997 study on polygraphs that sent out surveys to 421 psychologists. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it appears to be just a survey sent out to psychologists to ask their opinion on the accuracy of polygraph tests.
It doesn’t test the accuracy of the tests so much as it tests the opinions of 421 random psychologists who aren’t trained in the physiology of the test. Psychology is also not a very science based career. No doubt it is useful and good for a lot of people, but it is by no means science based. This is why you used to have psychologists giving women orgasms to cure them of “hysteria”. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hysteria-and-the-strange-history-vibrators Or psychologists classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder as late as 1976. Psychology is not a science. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html , it is no more qualified to judge an instrument of science than any random person on the street.
My opponent offered the just above 50% number. Again I can’t just click on the source provided to see how the number is derived. I have to follow a kinda road of sources to get to the original source. Which is an opinion a Judge Thomas based on his readings of several polygraph studies. Studies that are contradictory with a range of some claiming 85% accuracy and some claiming coin flip accuracy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.ZO.html . The supreme court ruling seems to be based less off of whether the test is accurate though and more on whether there was a scientific consensus on it’s accuracy. The supreme court ruling occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, and it seems to be old news. It seems silly to think lie detection methods have not improved in a quarter of a century.
It’s funny that the state is against things like an alford plea which allows a person to proclaim their innocence while pleading guilty until it benefits them. The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-alford-plea-guilty-but-innocent
The same thing happened with polygraph tests. The prosecutors had no problem using polygraphs when it helped them lock somebody up. The Alford plea was not the only time the despicable people attracted to that occupation were hypocritical. The same prosecutors who argued polygraphs were legit to lock people up went to trial against a man who was found with illegal drugs in his system. The gentleman claimed to be unaware of the fact he ingested drugs, arguing a mindset defense. However since the polygraph was now being used against prosecutors these unethical people that used them prior bitched that the polygraph was a pseudo science. Here is a few quotes from the dissenting judge in the case my opponent cited with the 50% number.
“There are a host of studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to 90%.20 While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%.21 Moreover, to the extent that the polygraph errs, studies have repeatedly shown that the polygraph is more likely to find innocent people guilty than vice versa.22 Thus, exculpatory polygraphs–like the one in this case–are likely to be more reliable than inculpatory ones.”
That’s right. Before the polygraph was a tool more useful for the prosecution, but now that proof existed that the polygraph was better used as exculpatory evidence, prosecutors randomly decided to oppose it. The next quote we can see more context for why polygraphs can be useful and why the prosecution who was more concerned with winning than the truth, wanted it ruled as unconstitutional.
“ in this case the results of the polygraph test, taken just three days after the urinalysis, constitute independent factual evidence that is not otherwise available and that strongly supports his defense of “innocent ingestion.” Just as flight or other evidence of “consciousness of guilt” may sometimes be relevant, on some occasions evidence of “consciousness of innocence” may also be relevant to the central issue at trial. Both the answers to the questions propounded by the examiner, and the physical manifestations produced by those utterances, were probative of an innocent state of mind shortly after he ingested the drugs. In Dean Wigmore’s view, both “conduct” and “utterances” may constitute factual evidence of a “consciousness of innocence.”
My opponent’s 50% number should be disregarded as the opinion of a judge who made a decision in this case and not as evidence against the accuracy of polygraphs.
8. explain what false positive and what false negatives are. 9. My opponent’s information is based on old fashioned polygraph tests. Lie detection has came a long way, and just like it would be unfair to call medicine unreliable because of quack doctors it would be wrong to imply lie detection is bad just because a bad machine. One of many methods of lie detection. 10. show some tests we consider very reliable (example breast cancer screening) have false positives and false negatives. 11. Show that a test with a lot of inaccuracies can be useful at helping detectives look at certain things more closely 12. The fear factor of lie detectors can help with national security 13. The tests can be used to elicet confessions and information due to fear factor
singularity wrote....I am actually about to be banned so it has cut my time to argue short. This is a very rough incomplete draft I have up, and I will exand on my arguments when my ban is over. The one point I did not get to, but I want my opponent to see is coming is some new lie detector tests that utilize artificial intelligence to track eye movement and that seem accurate at detecting lies, as well as some other machines on the cutting edge of lie detection. Please excuse the look and feel of the rough draft below.
Eye-tracking offers several benefits over the polygraph: lower cost, 1/5th of the time to conduct, subjects do not need to be "hooked up" to anything, and it does not require qualified polygraph examiners to give the test.
Researchers have turned to looking for other ways to track deception. The most promising fields are fMRI and EEG. EEG and fMRI both look to the central nervous system to compare time and topography of activity in the brain for lie detection. While a polygraph detects changes in activity in the peripheral nervous system, fMRI has the potential to catch the lie at the 'source'. To better understand why fMRI, lie detection is the future of lie detection one must first understand how it works.
The legal system specifically would require many more studies on the negative false rate to decide if the absence of deception proves innocence.
While fMRI studies on deception have claimed detection accuracy as high as 90% many have problems with implementing this style of detection.
While these studies are promising,
the lack of extensive research on the populations that would be most affected by fMRIs being admitted into the legal system is a huge drawback.
singularity wrote.....2.This debate is long. Like ridiculously long. It is 30,000 characters and 5 rounds. 2 weeks between each round. I like being allowed 2 weeks to take my time to post an argument. The problem with this debate is mostly the fact it might not get read because of it’s length and the fact this can be a boring topic to most people. I am going to combat this by attempting to be entertaining. This is what I do, because in order to win the votes of judges, we should also win their readership. People have limited time, and only so much dedicated to reading. I put this here so I can point people to it in other debates. This debate has a 30,000 character allowance so it is the perfect place holder for a few of my philosophies on how to debate on this format. I put this here, to encourage potential voters to read on. I promise the debate will not be boring. Well, I promise I will try my best to keep the topic fun and interesting.
singularity wrote.....3.There is more than one form of plagiarism. It is true that somebody can have a lot of citations to the same exact wikipedia page and yet true they plagiarized. Plagiarism can be on purpose or accidental, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed. Mostly for my opponent’s own good. Even unintentional plagiarism deserves a loss of conduct, because it needs to be discouraged. It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.
singularity wrote....It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.
Submitting someone's work as their own.
Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism).
re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources.
Using quotations but not citing the source.
Interweaving various sources together in the work without citing.
Citing some, but not all, passages that should be cited.
Melding together cited and uncited sections of the piece.
Providing proper citations, but failing to change the structure and wording of the borrowed ideas enough (close paraphrasing).
Inaccurately citing a source.
Relying too heavily on other people's work, failing to bring original thought into the text.
singularity wrote....He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others.
singularity wrote...He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others. Sometimes he uses his own words and other times he gives a direct quotation and then merely paraphrases the content he had just stolen. For examplesCited quote“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”Here is Pro’s quote“according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective”
However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.
Now, according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective, and the only "lie" is the claim that polygraph tests are 90% reliable.
the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.
singularity wrote....“The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies”Sources quote“The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
singularity wrote...Pro’s paraphrasing doesn’t even seem to make sense other than forcing us to reread the same exact information twice. This is known as paraphrasing plagiarism, and his stitching together of quotes from other writers is known as stitching plagiarism. https://www.grammar.com/what_types_of_plagiarism_exist4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating
Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.I may use other sources later on, if required.
singularity wrote...4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating
singularity wrote...My opponent wanted to debate the reliability of the test.According to my dictionary reliable means “To be able to do what is needed” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reliable
singularity wrote...What is needed is a kind of general term that I guess the debate may revolve around, but I think the situation would determine what is needed from a lie detection test. Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth, and what is needed is not so much the results of the test, but for the test to strike fear into a person who is holding back information necessary to move an investigation forward.
Now the next report suggests that the only way lie detector tests may actually be useful, is due to the fact that the person being questioned, may actually believe there is no point in lying, and may provide an "admission"."The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".
singularity wrote.....Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth,
In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."
singularity wrote...7. Lie detector tests are better than 50/50 according to my opponent’s own concessions. My opponent cites a source that claims polygraphs are slightly higher than 50%. However he also cites a source that says the correct accuracy of the polygraph is 61%. SO which is it?
singularity wrote....The citation is a big pain in the ass for me because wikipedia lists it as this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/07/itv.television But the claim of 61% is not found in the article cited. I did track down a 1997 study on polygraphs that sent out surveys to 421 psychologists. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it appears to be just a survey sent out to psychologists to ask their opinion on the accuracy of polygraph tests.
singularity wrote...My opponent offered the just above 50% number. Again I can’t just click on the source provided to see how the number is derived. I have to follow a kinda road of sources to get to the original source. Which is an opinion a Judge Thomas based on his readings of several polygraph studies. Studies that are contradictory with a range of some claiming 85% accuracy and some claiming coin flip accuracy.
Though, a more recent 2002 study did suggest that Polygraphy has a higher than 50% success rate, but still well below 100%In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection".
singularity wrote...The supreme court ruling seems to be based less off of whether the test is accurate though and more on whether there was a scientific consensus on it’s accuracy.
singularity wrote...The supreme court ruling occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, and it seems to be old news. It seems silly to think lie detection methods have not improved in a quarter of a century.
singularity wrote....“There are a host of studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to 90%.20 While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%.
singularity wrote....The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea.
In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Henry Alford had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder in 1963. Evidence in the case included testimony from witnesses that Alford had said, after the victim's death, that he had killed the individual. Court testimony showed that Alford and the victim had argued at the victim's house. Alford left the house, and afterwards the victim received a fatal gunshot wound when he opened the door responding to a knock.
Alford was faced with the possibility of capital punishment if convicted by a jury trial. The death penalty was the default sentence by North Carolina law at the time, if two requisites in the case were satisfied: the defendant had to have pleaded not guilty, and the jury did not instead recommend a life sentence.
singularity wrote....The same thing happened with polygraph tests.
Singularity wrote...The Alford plea was not the only time the despicable people attracted to that occupation were hypocritical. The same prosecutors who argued polygraphs were legit to lock people up went to trial against a man who was found with illegal drugs in his system. The gentleman claimed to be unaware of the fact he ingested drugs, arguing a mindset defense. However since the polygraph was now being used against prosecutors these unethical people that used them prior bitched that the polygraph was a pseudo science. Here is a few quotes from the dissenting judge in the case my opponent cited with the 50% number.
The principal charge against the respondent in this case was that he had knowingly used methamphetamine. His principal defense was “innocent ingestion”; even if the urinalysis test conducted on April 7, 1992, correctly indicated that he did ingest the substance, he claims to have been unaware of that fact. The results of the lie detector test conducted three days later, if accurate, constitute factual evidence that his physical condition at that time was consistent with the theory of his defense and inconsistent with the theory of the prosecution. The results were also relevant because they tended to confirm the credibility of his testimony. Under Rule 707, even if the results of the polygraph test were more reliable than the results of the urinalysis, the weaker evidence is admissible and the stronger evidence is inadmissible.
Pro drops my arguments that reliability should be defined as
“To be able to do what is needed"He is has allowed a wide interpretation of the debate resolution when he states that his opponent could argue for "baked beanz", he is fine with my interpretation and doesn't actually seem to object to it in his arguments, which makes me confused as to why he seems to be arguing against accuracy, when the debate is not about accuracy but reliability (usefulness).
I've argued that the lie detector test can extract real confessions. My opponent has dropped this argument. I argued that the lie detector test can be used as another eyewitness when it comes to helping a defendant out with his version of events. It is too in accurate to be used by the prosecution, it is prejudices the jury a bit too much in the prosecution's favor but is fine to be treated almost like an eyewitness for the defense.
Plagiarism
I point out that my opponent is basically copy and pasting arguments from others and using a type of copy and paste plagiarism. Then for some reason he comes out and wastes half his character space and the judges times listing a bunch of forms of plagiarism I never accused him of.
Look copy and pasting that much is fine when you are offering a critique of the statements made, but his whole argument was copy and pasted quotes mixed with very very close paraphrases of the quotes prior to posting them. This form of plagiarism is known as stitching together and the paraphrasing crosses a line.
Pro says “My opponent appears to think that knowledge and skills are something you are just born with, and we do not learn from others, and those that we do learn from do not require mentioning, as we should pass the knowledge over as "our" own, as this is what voters are wanting to see.”
The problem is not crediting people you learned from, and you know that. The problem is stitching together your argument. Nobody is requiring unique ideals, only that these ideals are presented in your writer’s voice. Accept the conduct point loss and deal with it.
My opponent accuses me of paraphrasing when I quote him. He somehow thinks using portions of another’s writing to critique is paraphrasing, and it isn’t. Paraphrasing is when you reword a phrase. Paraphrasing is not when you highlight portions of what an opponent says. Not to be mean byt this is why I don’t even want to take debates on this site seriously any more. Most people engaging in them are inable to take the time to learn what a simple commonly used word like paraphrasing means, and they derail debates with random things like my opponent did, because he forget he was supposed to be defending the resolution and nothing else.
Supreme court
pro says
“So, using no citation. Directly quoting no one. My opponent suggests he has great knowledge on the 1998 supreme court ruling, though still concludes that there "is" a lack of scientific consensus on it's accuracy.”
This is ridiculous. I reference things stated by the dissenting judge in the trial. I do have great knowledge of the ruling because I read the opinion of every single judge who weighed in on the trial
Conspiracy theory
I actually think he goes off topic from the debate about the conspiracy theorist angle, as a form of ad hominem attack. It doesn’t seem to support his position or undermine mine for him to point out that he disagrees with my opinion on the Alford Plea. Although I can’t help but to laugh at why he thinks I am wrong. For example I stated that the Alford plea was so a person could plead guilty while maintaining their innocence making it easier for the prosecution to get plea deals when they don’t feel like going to trial. I allege Alford pleas only came to pass, because it benefits the prosecution, and he attempts to somehow prove me wrong by stating this
“And in the case of Alford, there was a lot of evidence against him. And he his reasoning for pleading guilty was because the evidence against him was so strong, that continuing to plead innocent would see him receive the death penalty, so he changed his plea to escape the death penalty”
For some reason he thinks this disproves the Alford plea was created to help the prosecution, because it also helps a specific defendant. This is moronic to think stating that, somehow disproves my assertion.
Now this is used to branch off into the following assertions
“My opponent continues with his conspiracy theories, and says the same thing happened with polygraph tests. But he is going to have to provide more evidence for this.”
and
“My opponent says that the case with Scheffer was another case of an innocent person being sent to prison. However his link does not state this. This is purely my opponent adding his own belief, and mixing his own words with what his link says”
First of all yes, I used my words and the links words because I was using critical thinking skills instead of just copy and pasting things I agree with, LOL that this is viewed as an insult.
This is entirely off topic. It doesn’t matter if Scheffer was innocent or guilty. What matters is whether polygraphs should be able to be used by the defense as a type of eyewitness, and that is what I argued, and my opponent never provided a rebuttal for that assertion.
Conclusion
Look my opponent went off topic, and plagiarized. My definition of reliable was accepted and yet my opponent is still arguing for “accuracy” instead of reliability. I acknowledged some of the same problems with lie detectors, that using them in court was bad for prosecutors because of the inaccuracy and prejudicial factor. The same way I think bite mark analysis should not be used by prosecutors unless it is to eliminate a suspect. It serves the interest of justice to allow defendants the ability to use a lie detector tests.
He also seems to be overly focused on the polygraph. There are lots of lie detection tests, when I ask my mom if I am adopted and she says no, I then conduct a test to test her lie by getting a DNA test. He seems to even just throw his hands up because instead of disproving new forms of lie detection, he says that there is not enough evidence, but he is obligated to disprove reliability.
I want the judges to keep in mind that this debate is about reliability not accuracy, and that reliability should be judged by whether a lie detection test helps to get confessions from time to time on cases that would otherwise go unsolved, whether it can be reliable as acting as another witness for defendants who are on trial with their life on the line. This debate is actually easy to judge. Vote con
fifty percent ff
> 50% forfeit by both participants.
However, that said, Pro offered the best arguments of r1, while Con's r1 erroneously charged pro with plagiarism, [Pro cited all his quoted sources, which is not plagiarism] and Con made a weak attempt to demonstrate that a 61% capability was "reliable," which was unsupported by credible sourcing, and is common knowledge to still be a scientifically unreliable percentage. Pro successfully defended his r1, and could have saved the win by merely extending the argument to r5 and make a brief closing statement.
Completely agree with you