azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

(Note: I would have hit "clarify," as I don't disagree with most of what you said I'm just fixing one aspect of it for you, but clarifications don't always show up in the activity feed as often as disputes or supports)All definitions of "punishement" I found went more or less along these lines:1: the act of punishing2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retributionb : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment That was from MW but the top 5 search results for "punishment definition" all yielded almost the exact same description.So, is there anything in there that states (or even implies) that the offender must live through his punishment? Or that rehabilitating or helping the offender is the primary (or alternate) purpose of punishment? No? I thought not. So I reject your first sentence because that's not what punishment is; its retribution, not rehabilitation.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Why do you punish your dogs? Is it to cause them physical pain for not following your rules that it can't understand? How could it ethically deserve such treatment? It has no way of avoiding it. People with common sense punish their dogs to show them the difference between what is and is not acceptable. Do good dogs shit in the house? No they don't. Punishing a dog is making it better. Do good kids act up in public places? No they don't. Punishment makes them better also. What is the purpose of a government? Good governments don't provide things to us to hurt us, but to make our lives better. The United States is good to me, because it gives me opportunity to make my life better. Government is in place (at least from a democratic POV) for the people. We are not here to serve the government, so killing people to make an example isn't even parallel to democratic ideas. A good democratic government makes its citizens lives better. If nations worked on rehabillitating murderers the technology and understanding of the subject would become better and better over time, which means that they would have done a good thing for all of humanity. What would a government gain by not punishing as a means of rehabillitating? My first sentence was not a definition of punishment, but another way of saying what we use it for. Punishment doesn't have to have that reason, but for the sake of countries and their citizens it is the most appropriate.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

If your first sentence was a definition of "punishment" or a saying for what we use it for, either way it's wrong. That's my only point. Punishment, as a concept, encompasses killing the offender.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Haha you can't even make another point!? Look how bad you are! It's wrong? Haha you took a definition from a book and I gave you a thought out, logical understanding of what punishment is used for and it's place in government and I'm wrong? The question is should the death penalty be allowed as a form of punishment. I said no and gave an argument as to why. You dismissed what I said on the basis that my explanation of punishment isn't a dictionary definition? What came first? Language or dictionaries? Language. So people used the method of punishment to teach people for thousands of years and eventually the idea was voiced in the english language. For reference they put it in a dictionary. What I said and the definition are pretty much the same thing, I just expanded on the idea. YOU FUCKING SUCK AT DEBATING BRO. Punishment as a concept DOES encompass killing as a possible form of punishment. I gave an explanation of why that particular form of punishment doesn't have a place in government. Specifically democratic government. You don't have a point dude, because you fucking suck. My first sentence is not wrong. It is a conclusion that i gave sufficient arguments to follow to. it wasn't an assertion, but thats what you treated it as. You don't actually debate points, you take a great argument and try (in vain) to find contradictions in it because you can't get me in one yourself. You said "Learn to finish your debates or get the fuck off my site." I shoved your point down your cock sucking throat and you have nothing. Absolutely nothing? I wasnt even online when you wrote your latest rebut and you couldnt even take a second and think of an actually good point or counterargument? Why don't you get the fuck off of this site, take a couple classes on logic and forensics, and then actually pose a challenge. Slut.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

There may come a time where I actually need to dissect this and address some of the relevant points you made (it's hard to sift them out through all the off-topic bullshit), but that time isn't now. It would be pointless for me to try to win any debate with you (or even make any points) when you have this obnoxious, easy-out strategy you have repeatedly used every time you get cornered. So I thought this might be an interesting opportunity for me to use your own arguments against you and see how you handle them. I'm interested to see how you would address your own arguments if they were being used against you and not by you. So, without further adu, here's what it's like to argue with you:Honestly I don't ever care about what I wrote I was just writing it to write it's just what I thought on the subject. Little shit. Really my debating skills are so far beyond yours it's not even funny. Ignorant fuck. If I wanted to I could put a little effort into this and completely destroy you. Whore. You clearly need to take courses in economics and cooking. Uneducated moron. You don't even debate the issues you just pussy out. Vagina. If I wanted to I could rebut every point you made so thoroughly you'd be ashamed to show your screen-name anywhere on the internet. Crack baby. But I don't want to cause honestly I don't every really care about this pointless debate. Hypocrite. You're so bad at debating I don't know why the fuck you decided to come to a debate site... what the hell were you thinking? Shithead. I don't even give a shit about the death penalty, I was just making a point. Stupid. Pick an actual topic you can actually defend and I will tear you a new asshole. Asswad. So yeah, I think that pretty much covers it. Gratuitous insults, shameless boasting without ever backing my boasts up, and pussying out of a debate on the ground that "I don't care;" that's what it's been like "debating" you, so far. I personally find it kind of irritating. Whats the point in engaging in a debate with someone if as soon as you make a valid refutation they chicken out and run away while at the same time telling you how much better than you they are? It's maddening. Once I see how you like a taste of your own medicine (and, indeed, how one is supposed to reply to a shitstorm of vulgarities and empty boasts) then I can get around to actually addressing your post, for what it's worth.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Challenge me then you fucking pussy......................................................................................................................................
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Interesting. When someone argues like you do it apparently makes them a "fucking pussy." Your words, not mine.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I must say I'm really looking forward to seeing how you turn this around into shaming me so completely I don't ever want to challenge another person, again. I want you to stop wacking yourself off, pull your hands out of your pants, and put your money where your mouth is, for once. Or is this going to be the third challenge I issue to you that you run away from? Time will tell.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Sure, it is important to help those who committed crimes and improve them, but not when he took the life of another human being life, life is a natural right, and murder should never be tolerated.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Murder should never be tolerated because it is a natural right? What gives us the right to live? Because we have the ability? We have the ability to do a lot of things, but don't have a right to do them. Like murder for instance.. Also, is life better than death? People make sure they have their God given rights so that they can do as they please, within reason. If we cannot experience death, how can we know that it isn't something we want? If it was something we all wanted you can pretty much guaruntee that it would be a "natural right", but since we don't know what happens after death who can say that they don't want it. People only fear death because it is an unknown experience. So what I'm saying is that the only reason you claim that people have a natural right to life is because it is the only mode of existence you know and you assume that it is the best and most important mode. What you say is a natural right is just a bias to what you know. Without life being a natural right your argument loses a lot of weight. I guess the question is why is life, objectively a natural right? Also, why shouldn't murder be tolerated? Death could be a paradise of eternal bliss and you wouldn't know that keeping people alive is actually not what they would want had they had a choice. Assuming that death is even negative at all is faulty, because you dont know what death is..
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Meh, I think you're discounting crimes of passion. A scorned wife who finds out her hubby has been cheating on her since their honeymoon and flips shit and stabs her man to death with a pair of scissors probably didn't take the time to consider the possible sentence before she did it. For a criminal planning out a murder I agree that the threat of death might do something to deter them, but there are a lot of crimes committed that are not premeditated like this, and in those cases a threat is pretty much worthless.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

No, I am not discounting crimes of passion, it is still murder, and it shouldn't be treated any less. The victim's life shouldn't be treated any less respect than a victim out of premeditated murder.All life should be treated equally under the law, and those who commit the act of violence. No violence should be tolerated, and dismissing murder of a crime of passion is tolerating violence.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

You misunderstand my point and/or I expressed myself poorly. You said that the death penalty is "The only way to deter murder," but in crimes of passion the criminals don't think about the possible consequences of their actions before they act, so the threat of the death penalty would do nothing to deter them from murdering someone. I do think it deters premeditated murders.I do not think the punishment should be any less severe for a crime of passion.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Ah yah crimes of passion. The reason we should ban guns. To easy to just shoot the cheater instead of thinking it through.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Then apparently it's also a reason to ban scissors, automobiles, bleach and the like; too easy to stab/run over/poison/etc the cheater instead of thinking it through.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

No it's not. Again, I dare you to try and kill me with scissors. The guy who stabbed 20 ppl in a school in China is a perfect exampleTry sneaking bleach into my food without me noticing. Find a scenario where I'm standing in front of your carThis is not easy. Stop pretending. You wanna fight? Ill give you a car with scissors all around it that sprays bleech and ill take a gun. We'll see who wins.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The guy in China is apparently a moron. I know three places I could stab you with something as small as a box cutter and kill you within 30 seconds. It's just a matter of a simple understanding of human biology. Scissors would be overkill. I could probably sneak bleach into your food, but that's because I'm a savage chef; not everyone would be able to do that, so I take your point. As for finding a scenario where you're in front (or behind.... or nearby and exposed, really) my car, I'm amazed you think this would be an infrequent occurrence, particularly for two people who are theoretically dating. People in general walk in front/behind/around my car on a daily basis; my girlfriend even more so than most people. I'm not doubting a gun would be a more efficient way of killing someone (like a machete would be easier than a box cutter), so of course if you gave me a car with pointy objects on it spraying bleach and you had a gun you would probably win, just like if I had a machete and you had a box cutter I would probably win, but my point is if you want to ban or restrict something because it can be used to kill someone you have to make a very long list of things you want to ban and you cant just single out and stop at guns.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I don't think he'll be starring in any action films certainly but the point is, if he had a gun at least 10 or so of those are dead. Not everyone is as skilled as you with a box cutter, which is terrifying btw. Chances are very few people studied where too stab people. But everyone can point a gun. A car from an in park position is most likely not going to kill or even really injure you unless you stand and looked stunned at it. You're right. Many things can be a weapon, but few if any of those things would be ONLY a weapon. Guns serve no other purpose but too kill.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Perhaps. A gun is a more efficient weapon than a knife. Are guns where you draw the line? Anything as or more deadly than a gun should be illegal and anything less deadly is okay?It's not a matter of skill with a box cutter or studying where to stab people. Well, kinda; I work in the medical field and I've seen lots of horrifically wide and deep wounds (including gunshots) that people live through just fine and I've seen my fair share of small, inconsequential injuries that hit something important enough to kill you. Between that and studying human anatomy (because I was trying to get certified as an EMT and not because I was "studying where to stab people") I have a pretty good idea of what kind of lacerations it takes to kill someone, and I can tell you it's not much. Judging from the numerous incidents that some jackass unloads 2 clips at full auto into a crowd and manages to hit nobody (or something along those lines) it's clear anyone can point a gun, but not everyone can use a gun to hit their intended target. Kind of like everyone can hold a knife, but actually using one to kill someone is a little more tricky. And a unloaded gun with the safety on locked in a box under the bed is not likely to kill or even really injure you unless you stand and looked stunned at it. It requires a person behind it with the will and intent to pull the trigger and hurt you. Similarly, yes, a parked car won't do much to hurt you, but one with a person in it driving 60mph straight at you sure as hell will. Why do you reject all the other things guns can be used for? I mean come on, we don't debate like that. You can't just reject numerous alternative uses for a gun - hell, who am I kidding - those are the primary uses for a gun; gun owners use their guns to put food on the table far more often than they murder people, and the same goes for self-defense and entertainment. Murder is actually a relatively uncommon, alternative use for a gun compared to the things I listed, and you refuse to acknowledge those things even happen. What am I supposed to do with you?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

There are already restrictions on the type of knife you can carry. Here's where I draw the line. When every rational unbiased person as well as statistic tells me that a certain weapon is doing much greater damage then the small amount of good it's doing. I draw the line there. And for the record. Just because you know where to stab someone. Doesn't mean you'll be able to. It's a lot easier to avoid a knife than a bullet. Again yes cars can be used to mirder a person. But it's much more difficult. You didn't actually even make an argument on that point. No amount of a guys who want to catch their own meat. Or people who want to put holes in targets is worth all the bodies piled up on the freedom to do so. Think about the fucking selfishness of that. "I don't care that people are dying, I like to sports shoot". The only argument is for self defense. And the statistics show, you're not safer with a gun. So if you're not safer. It's not defense.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Just type something along the lines of "girlfriend boyfriend (or wife husband) cheating ran over car" into google and you'll get pages and pages of news reports of scored individuals deliberately chasing down and running over their significant others, sometimes maiming them, othertimes killing them. I'm not "pretending;" a car is a 2000lb + death machine and it's very easy to kill someone with a car. Bleach was a general term for inedible things, poison, or allergens that could be used to weaken or kill someone over time or instantly; if you do a corresponding search on google, you'll find plenty of cases where girlfriends poisoned boyfriends and wives poisoned husbands... oddly enough it doesn't happen much the other way around, but it still happens. I don't think I need to provide any support for my claim that people get stabbed with sharp objects on a regular basis. So yeah, all of these things can be used and have been used to kill people. This is easy.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

You can type in "monkey at ikea" and you'll get pages of google results. Doesn't mean it's happening a lot. Ok instead of addressing the lunacy of all these individually. Let me say, if you add up all of the deaths by these objects together it wouldn't be half of the gun murders. And they serve purposes outside of murder.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Hardly fair. The Idea Monkey is an internet personality, and a rather unique one. With all my examples you can find numerous examples of different people in different places at different times doing what I described, not one odd, unique, isolated incident. Let me say, if you add up all of the deaths by these objects together it wouldn't be half of the gun murders.Roughly 1820 + 37,200 + 41,800. I think you said gun murders were what, 10,000? And you call me paranoid. You're 4 times more likely to die from a car crossing the street than from a gun in any situation, and you're calling for bans and restrictions on guns, not cars.  And they serve purposes outside of murder.Guns do serve a purpose outside murder (including preventing murder), you just refuse to accept that fact. They provide entertainment, a means of providing food, and self-defense.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

The point is, you can find multiple pages on almost anything online. It does not make it prevalent. And don't try to avoid what my point is by being fake literal. I'd like to see where you got these #'s. because I'd be willing to bet that those numbers are deaths not murders. The gun death total is much higher. Gun murders is 10,000. Again. Nice try.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

if the evidence is concete And it so rarely is.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Who do you think should be responsible for carrying out the death penalty? Should it be the government?If so, I find it interesting that you would allow the government to take away the most valuable thing we own - and nothing more.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Okay, let's put it in this way. Government cannot stop killing because they are doing killing.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I think death penalties should be allowed for harsh offenses. But I think there should also be a minimum of 10 years that the person must serve before they are actually put to death. This way they suffer, have time to reflect on what they did. But it also allows for appeals, or new evidence to pop up, that may clear them of a crime they didn't commit. (This may not happen all the time, it does happen quite a bit)
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

we are spending an insane amount of money on bad people in prisons. who would rather use that money on prisons than on saving good peoples lives, feeding innocent hungry people, curing diseases, spreading access to healthcare, etc? you can save and improve thousands of good peoples lives for the amount of money that it takes to imprison 1 bad person for life.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I think we must need the death penalty.First, it has effort of crime prevention.A death penalty makes people scare and eliminate thinking of commiting a crme.Second, a life sentence needs a lot of money.Brutal criminals need many things to maintain their life.We should give them daily necessity by our tax.I think it's too begrudge to use our tax to them.Our tax should be used to more valuable thing.Third, they should not hope for same treatment.A death penalty isn't for everyone.It's only for brutal criminals like killers.And They already do a violation of human rights.So we don't need to protect their rights.They are worse than a brute.So we need a death penalty.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Crime prevention by doing violence? Sounds not right. We should'nt kill for vengeance, money and to scare people . We should never consider killing as justice, guilt exist at this action. Yes maybe they are brutal but we are no different to them if we do the same thing that they did to the victim. We violate our own human rights as of the government also kill innocent and intently take other people's lives.