azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

In fact, my state doesn't have the death penalty, but it has one of the highest murder rates in the country. So I guess your statement was wrongHardly. Weak inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything. Oh wait! You're going to post some B.S. website statistic that will some how "prove" that I'm wrong. Well keep these things in mind if you are going to do something stupid like that, the statistic has to take these into accountability: border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size. These are the minimum amount of things that have to be accounted for in order for me to know you aren't blowing smoke out your ears.)OK, download this paper, which shows that there is no certain deterrent effect caused by the death penaltyWell, if your profile is correct, your an atheist. You don't believe in absolutes. So stop allowing all this B.S. to spill out you mouth when you think morality is relative; because it's really stinking up the place.Do you really think that an atheist can't believe in absolutes? I believe in absolute morality, what's so shocking about that?I mean death would do a better job of separating them from those close to them. Not necessarily. If you're dead, you can't acknowledge eternal separation from your loved ones. But if you are alive, you can.  then the death penalty shouldn't matter to you since you can't say life has any intrinsic value (remember, you believe in relativity).Wrong. Your psychic powers need work.After all, when he dies, he'll simply cease to exist. Therefore is just the past, and therefore; will never have existed Wrong again. When you die, you do not become non-existent. You become without consciousness (or so we can assume). This is different from non-existence, UNLESS you are a solipsist, which I hope you're not, because it's impossible to debate with them.remember, existence is what's in your mind according to atheismYou've confused atheism with solipsism. Atheism does not have anything to say about relatives or absolutes, it is merely a disbelief in God.Now I've just killed off any "moral" and "physical" argument you might have. Good luckHardly, you didn't even know that an atheist can believe in absolutes. Now let's not have any more brash statements, and continue this formally.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"Hardly. Weak inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything."Of course it doesn't. I was merely using it as an example to show you that you can't just say a statement as fact without taking a minimum amount of statistics into accountability (border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size). My state just happens to have illegal immigration and a large population. But your previous statement didn't take any of these statistics into accountability. "OK, download this paper, which shows that there is no certain deterrent effect caused by the death penalty."Well according to your own paper, it says that you can't prove that the death penalty increases the murder rate. (HA! I used your own paper against you.) Though to be fair, it also says you can't prove it's a deterrent. Which is why I hate your paper. It proves nothing. It's just a fence sitter that doesn't back your opinion, nor does it back mine. It just remains neutral, proving nothing."Do you really think that an atheist can't believe in absolutes? I believe in absolute morality, what's so shocking about that?"What's so shocking about that? What standard do you use as a foundation to back your absolute morality? I bet your answer is as shocking as your belief. The problem with atheism is you have no standard with which to back an absolute. "Wrong. Your psychic powers need work."Wrong? How am I wrong? You didn't even say how I was wrong. Oh right, I forgot you believe in relativity. So I suppose just because you believe I'm wrong, I must be wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need work."Wrong again. When you die, you do not become non-existent. You become without consciousness (or so we can assume). This is different from non-existence, UNLESS you are a solipsist, which I hope you're not, because it's impossible to debate with them.""You've confused atheism with solipsism. Atheism does not have anything to say about relatives or absolutes, it is merely a disbelief in God."Ah yes, I did confuse atheism with solipsism. Sorry about that. But I only confused them because my college professor did to. The way he was teaching me about atheism made it seem like solipsism and atheism go hand in hand. And my college professor said atheists can't believe in absolutes because they don't have a standard by which to back them with. That's why on the first day of my science class, he made it clear by telling the class that there are no absolute truths (to which he got really pissed off at me when I asked him if that was an absolute truth LOL). That's also why I find it shocking that you believe in absolute morality."Hardly, you didn't even know that an atheist can believe in absolutes. Now let's not have any more brash statements, and continue this formally."All right, sorry for the brash statements, but atheists can't believe in absolutes. They don't have a standard by which to back them with.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Of course it doesn't. I was merely using it as an example to show you that you can't just say a statement as fact without taking a minimum amount of statistics into accountability (border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size). My state just happens to have illegal immigration and a large population. But your previous statement didn't take any of these statistics into accountability.Which is why I then linked you a 56 page paper.Well according to your own paper, it says that you can't prove that the death penalty increases the murder rate. I didn't claim it did. I just said it didn't stop murder.(HA! I used your own paper against you.)Well done.Though to be fair, it also says you can't prove it's a deterrent. Which proves your point wrong. It proves nothing. It proves that you were wrong in saying "An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place." That comment implies that you see the death penalty as a deterrent.It's just a fence sitter that doesn't back your opinion, nor does it back mine. It just remains neutral, proving nothing.It's not neutral, it's uncertain. Which matches my opinion. I didn't say that the death penalty increases or decreases murder, simply that it doesn't prevent it. If you study some of the graphs in the paper, you'll find that this is true. In fact, the ONLY certainty is that it doesn't prevent murder, we just don't know whether it deters it or not.What standard do you use as a foundation to back your absolute morality?Moral rationalism my friend, moral rationalism.Wrong? How am I wrong? You didn't even say how I was wrong.I didn't need to, all you need to do is to make a simple logical inference. I'll help. If you say I'm X, and I say you're wrong, then you're wrong because I'm not X. I shouldn't have to explain that.And my college professor said atheists can't believe in absolutes because they don't have a standard by which to back them with.The next time you see him, call him an enormous ignoramus. All right, sorry for the brash statements, but atheists can't believe in absolutes. They don't have a standard by which to back them with.Again, I refer you to moral rationalism.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"Which is why I then linked you a 56 page paper."After the fact."I didn't claim it did. I just said it didn't stop murder."Neither does life in prison. Just ask truthteller. He actually went to prison. It just makes you more bitter inside, turning you into a more violent killer when you get out."Moral rationalism my friend, moral rationalism."Are your beliefs known via inference or not? If so, then it can't hold on it's own (Here is one reason why it can't hold on it's own). If not, then you are actually a rationalist ethical intuitionist. And if that is the case, we have a problem. Because then you still need some sort of foundational truth in which you can back your absolutes. "I didn't need to, all you need to do is to make a simple logical inference. I'll help. If you say I'm X, and I say you're wrong, then you're wrong because I'm not X. I shouldn't have to explain that."Yes you do because you have to prove you are not X. By your logic, I can say black is white and if you disagree with me, then you are wrong."The next time you see him, call him an enormous ignoramus."LOL, sounds like a plan. But didn't you hear your professor talk like this in college? I thought they all tried to get the point across day one that "there are no absolute truths".
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Neither does life in prison.Probably not. Which means that arguing on grounds of prevention/deterrence is futile.Neither does life in prison. Just ask truthteller. He actually went to prison. It just makes you more bitter inside, turning you into a more violent killer when you get out.Which is why I'm having a personal debate with myself. Because the more I think, the more I realize how morally abhorrent solitary confinement is. And it wouldn't surprise me if what you say is true. But then, if we take death and solitary confinement as being equally, or similarly abhorrent, then what punishment could we possibly instill?Are your beliefs known via inference or not? If so, then it can't hold on it's own Yes. Now, I did skim your paper, but I didn't read everything. So if I say anything erroneous, correct me. I believe the paper's main contention to conceptual rationalism is how to deal with psychopath's lack of motivation. To which I must say, I don't know. Normally I would say that there is a lack of sincerity when a psychopath discusses his requirements. But I see the empirical flaws with that. Kantian morality is the latest moral theory I subscribe to, but I am not overly convinced by any school of moral objectivism. It is just something I instinctively believe. I'm sorry I can't offer a more enlightening debate on the foundations of our morality, but right now I am debating myself more than anyone else.Yes you do because you have to prove you are not X. By your logic, I can say black is white and if you disagree with me, then you are wrong.I can't prove a negative to you.But didn't you hear your professor talk like this in college? I thought they all tried to get the point across day one that "there are no absolute truths".Alas, I am only 14. The most stimulating education I have received is how to put a condom on a banana.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"Which is why I'm having a personal debate with myself. Because the more I think, the more I realize how morally abhorrent solitary confinement is. And it wouldn't surprise me if what you say is true. But then, if we take death and solitary confinement as being equally, or similarly abhorrent, then what punishment could we possibly instill?"Well, I'm assuming the one with the most lasting effects (death penalty)."Kantian morality is the latest moral theory I subscribe to, but I am not overly convinced by any school of moral objectivism. It is just something I instinctively believe. I'm sorry I can't offer a more enlightening debate on the foundations of our morality, but right now I am debating myself more than anyone else."I suppose finding out what you really believe is one of the hardest things you can do. So to relieve the pressure, I won't press this matter further. But I suggest you at least give Christianity a try before dismissing it altogether. "I can't prove a negative to you."But it's fun to try."Alas, I am only 14. The most stimulating education I have received is how to put a condom on a banana."I see. Trust me, when you get to college, the education becomes less stimulating and just pisses you off ;)
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

If you kill people you should die too. But only in that case. It's not right to kill someone who hasn't actually killed anyone. If it was a crime other than murder they should just be jailed.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Yes the death penalty is good for society. Why should someone have to suffer in prison for the rest of their life? People who commit bad crimes shouldn't be allowed to suffer in prison for the rest of their life. Just give those who do bad crimes lethal injections.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Thanks for your concern, you don't think that will help the inmate don't you?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

As controversial as this topic is here is something else to consider. I live in a country where the justice system is corrupted and rapists and murderers walk scott free without even facing imprisonment, and they continue to terrorise people daily. Regular citizens live like prisoners in their own homes and that is clearly not the way society is meant too be. Perhaps a death penalty will be more effective in such a country, it is succesfully implemented in others, and these horrible people need to have some fear, something stopping them, they have no damn right to do what they do.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Kill anyone convicted of hurting children, violent rape, mass murder and treason.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

In some countries no, not at all. Government could kill someone for now reason but in America I do, I mean I think it might be demoralizing but after it goes through the legislative system I think it's pretty fair.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I am a deep, caring hearted woman first off. I do believe in the death Penalty, eye for and eye. I've seen docs about a man killing a child and gets the death penalty, then I also seen on a doc that someone killed a grown woman and raped her, and get life in behind bars. To me if that I was my daughter or something, I would want the dude dead. It shouldn't be picked on the crime, I do believe in eye for eye.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Yes you're a deep caring hearted women to children but you should'nt base on your emotion and affection. Condolensce but If the kid is already dead then their dead. We should care to the people who our alive than those who are dead. We should focus more on disciplining the inmate instead of making another mess and don't base on Eye for an eye , it's just reacting to evil by doing evil, there's no good at that. there are no morals, you're just doing what you want , you're just basing with your emotion and not on the right thing. Dispute me if I'm wrong.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Imagine how tortured and twisted serial killers et.c's minds are, the constant cycle of suffering that they must be going through. And we don't even let them end it for themselves.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Nope, the most humane solution to people with mental illness is sending them to a mental hospital, while the rehabiliator is lecuring them the inmate must be locked from head to fingers
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Many believe that the possibility of winding up on death row is a powerful argument against committing a capital crime (i.e., murder. The last execution in the US for a crime other than homicide, in this case, robbery, occurred in 1964). If indeed the death penalty is a significantly stronger deterrent than the usual alternative, life in prison, then a case could be made that the existence of the death penalty is likely to save more lives than it takes, and that the lives saved are likely to be those of innocent people.A variation of this argument is that, regardless of how effectively the death penalty might deter potential murderers in general, it is 100% effective in deterring executed murderers from repeating their crimes.If there is good reason to believe that a particular convicted murderer might kill again, given the chance, then the alternative to execution would be a long, perhaps lifetime, prison sentence, to protect the general public. For such people, costly prisons are needed, and it is necessary to have prison guards whose working lives are spent in proximity to very dangerous individuals. In effect, for each killer so sentenced, we are sentencing prison guards as well. If not needed for such work, these guards might serve society in other useful and less onerous occupations.In primitive societies lacking formal mechanisms for apprehending and punishing criminals, it is common for families, or broader kinship groups, to try to avenge the killing of members. This is generally undesirable as it can lead to endless cycles of killing. An important function of a criminal justice system is to head off such reactions. But, in the case of particularly horrific murders, the families of the victims sometimes feel that anything short of death would be grossly inadequate punishment. So the death penalty might be considered as satisfying the need for justice, or, in some cases, vengeance, on the part of people who lose loved ones to brutal killers.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Yes! Murderers should get the death penalty! They don't know how precious life really is!
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

We have to pay to keep these f*ers alive. I don't feel good knowing my tax dollars are taking care of murders and rapists. The county next to mine just cut the jail budget and had to let out a bunch of petty criminals. If we put all the really bad criminals to death there would be room to keep the petty criminals in jail.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The solution is not to kill the life of an imperfect person but to the extent of the prison or to transfer the criminal to another prison, not just the money that moves people to work, people can voluntarily assist the expansion of the prison if they know the benefits of doing so. We need to take care of criminals because they can not afford to pay for their own salary and they still receive their imprisonment penalty.They must be alive today because we are too moral to do violent things.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I would rather taxes be spent on a bullet than a home for someone for the rest of their life. Inhumane ways of execution are unnecessary, if you are going to execute someone, do it quickly. However, there are other ways of punishing people. I think it is in Norway, where they send people to a place that they must take care of, it is different to Papillon in some ways because they still have some connection to the outside world. However because of the efficiency of it the reoffending rate in England is much higher. Norway has the lowest reoffending rate. An interesting website on Norway's experiment is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/ article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html  There are alternatives to the death penalty, but to completely eliminate any chances of reoffending the death penalty is the best thing I know of. I think it is better than prison.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Death is the best deterrence. Imprisonment can be waited out, fines can be paid. Before one commits a crime, in the face of possible death they will seriously be forced to reconsider their actions. Unless one welcomes death.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

It's not about the inmate's death or the saved lives , it's about what we are doing ,we aren't humane, we aren't right, we are contradicting ourselves if we kill the prisoners we're violent.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I agree in the death penalty for extreme cases. Jeffrey Dahmer and David Westerfield both deserved the death penalty, in my opinion, so do most serial murderers. However, the problem comes in trying to codify which people deserve the death penalty. I don't think all murderers deserve the death penalty. Most people would agree that someone who kills someone in self defense doesn't deserve the death penalty, but there have been a couple of recent cases where someone killed someone in revenge for molesting their children. Here you have a case where someone is doing something most of us would applaud, but since there was no trial, you're really depending on the parent to use good judgement on how certain they are that they're getting the right person.What about someone who walks in on their spouse in bed with another person? Some people might call this justified, some wouldn't. I think ideas on this are shifting to the not-justified side, but the mere fact that attitudes are changing means that it's not cut-and-dried. Personally, I think crimes of passion like this should be punished, but I think the death penalty might be a little extreme.To summarize, I think the death penalty should be used, but only in extreme cases. I think we should err on the side of caution, and only use it when the evidence is solid, and the murder shows a level of social deviance that almost everyone would find abhorrent.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Can we kill someone because everyone's angry with him? It's not right, because morality is not based on emotions but what is right for everyone, even if we want someone to die, it's always wrong to kill someone, because they are human just like us and we should not kill each other
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Yes. I believe that people who have killed, raped, tortured, or have done any other extreme act of violence should get the death penalty. Whatever the offender did should have the same done to him/her. It may be savage and against a civilized society, but the evil people in this world should receive the consequences for their actions.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Yes. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to keep serial rapists and murderers alive on our tax dollars instead of bidding them adieu. The point is, life is not just inherently sacred, it has to earn its worth. When someone kills a bunch of people and rapes a buch of women, that's when their life is no longer sacred. And keeping them alive with my money, paying for their food, their bedding their drink, is repulsive to me.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Yes. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to keep serial rapists and murderers alive on our tax dollars instead of bidding them adieu.Avoidance of another mess. If killing is a mess why would we do the same?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I believe that people should only be put to death because of an inability to keep the general public safe from the individual. With today's system of prisons, we are able to do this and should put them in jail to suffer for the rest of their life. Death is also permanent. People have been found out to be innocent after the death penalty ha already been carried out....
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

The prisons are full :( They'll die eventually any way... so,
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

So why aren't you on the Yes! Kill for punishment! side? because technically you should be due to your opening statement.