azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

As fun as that narrative was it was extremely dishonest.Being a sociopath doesn't inherently mean you're a monster, roughly 1 in 100 people are one. Sociopathy is a mental disorder that prevents a person from feeling any extreme emotions, good or bad. It isn't a "disconnection to truth" its a mental disability.Is Ted Bundy an evil person? Yes, of course. But your lack of empathy prevents you from recognizing why. And seeing as this point has gone utterly ignore, I can see that you AGREE with it as you have failed to dispute it: justice DOESN'T WORK OUT OF COLD BLOOD. We don't have laws to get revenge for victims we have them to keep people safe, if a person is policy custody they no longer pose a threat so there is no inherent need to have them killed.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Psychopaths do know what they do is wrong, they simply don't care. They realise that another person is being hurt, they don't can't feel it is wrong.They know what they do is wrong, they just don't feel any wrong. They merely don't care.If a psychopath is so devoid of emotion, then they are merely worthless and aren't to be considered as people. Emotions is what makes someone human. You can't empathise with something that has no emotion, psychopaths have no emotions, you can't feel any pity for them.The thing is, keeping a worthless "person" alive just wastes prison resources and valuable money.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

First of all: there is a huge difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. The literal definition of psychopathy is that you don't know, or cannot control what you are doing. A sociopath does know what they are doing, and yet because of their mental disorder they don't feel any particular remorse or fear of the consequences because of it.I'm not saying that psycho and sociopaths that murder shouldn't be brought to justice - but yet again you have utterly ignored everything I have been saying. This is because you cannot respond to the arguments legitimately so you have decided instead to ignore it and go on with your narrative.Murderers, although horrible people, are people. Your argument is blatantly made to try to see them as something different. You have ignored and failed to respond to my points, that isn't how you debate. There is no way to make murder into a good thing, killing a person is killing no matter who it is. Prisons were made to keep bad people locked away, there is no way to argue that keeping a bad person in prison is a waste of resources because that is the only thing they are used for.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

A psychopath is the same as a sociopath. Go visit Robert Hare.I have just answered your question. Someone devoid of any emotions is worthless. Only someone who has emotions is of value.How can something devoid of any emotions be of any worth?How can it be wrong to kill someone devoid of emotions?Do you get my point?
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

Robert Hare on psychopathy and Sociopathy:"There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in the popular science book entitled Snakes in Suits that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases the two terms may be used with different meanings that reflect the user's views on the origins and determinants of the disorder. Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[86] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.[166][167]:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy In other words, no.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Robert Hare has used the term "psychopath" in the business sense as well as the criminal sense.He has also use the term sociopath in the exact same way.All Robert Hare has said is which term most people tend to prefer depending on the circumstances.Robert Hare has described a sociopath as being someone whose morality is different from most people, but he also describes psychopaths this way to.They are interchangeable.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

I just quoted Robert Hare saying you are wrong.Deny that if you want, but the man you referenced says you are wrong.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

The man tells me I'm right.Robert Hare describes a sociopath as being someone who is different from other people.But he also describes a sociopath as being someone who feels no emotions nor compassion.Point proven to the punch!
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

You didn't even bother to read the quote, written by him, that I provided you, did you?My god you make having a discussion difficult. It's like talking to someone who doesn't bother paying attention to anything anyone else says.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

I did read his quotes.Wikipedia says that Robert Hare describes sociopaths as being merely different to other people in moral values.But he also has another way of describing them which Wikipedia didn't include. Wikipedia may be correct in it's facts, but it doesn't mean that it includes every fact about any given subject under the sun.I have read up on Robert Hare a little bit and he describes sociopaths as being people who are both different to other people in their consciences. as well as being without emotions and manipulative.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

A psychopath is the same as a sociopath.No it isn't, at all. They are two distinctly different mental illnesses.How can it be wrong to kill someone devoid of emotions?It's wrong to kill anyone, regardless. You are going into this argument as if a sociopath or a psychopath aren't human (and have stated so bluntly), this is nothing more than a lie. Sociopathy is a MENTAL DISORDER, now, is it bad if a sociopath kills a person? Yes, of course it is, but the fact that they have less emotions is not justification for capital punishment at all. The argument for psychopathy goes even further - they have no control (that is why they are put in mental institutions.)Do you get my point?No, because your point is based on flawed logic and half-truths.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

No it isn't, at all. They are two distinctly different mental illnesses.The last person to offer the last rebuttal is the winner in a debate. Offer one. Don't say "I just did".It's wrong to kill anyone, regardless. You are going into this argument as if a sociopath or a psychopath aren't human (and have stated so bluntly), this is nothing more than a lie. Sociopathy is a MENTAL DISORDER, now, is it bad if a sociopath kills a person? Yes, of course it is, but the fact that they have less emotions is not justification for capital punishment at all. The argument for psychopathy goes even further - they have no control (that is why they are put in mental institutions.)You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you.In order to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value.I have asked you these questions and you haven't yet answered them.No, because your point is based on flawed logic and half-truths.I'll say it again. Re-read what I had said.You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you.In order to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value.I have asked you these questions and you haven't yet answered them.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

The last person to offer the last rebuttal is the winner in a debate. Offer one. Don't say "I just didThis is pretty hypocritical considering you repeated your point about how they are the same thing. For which you didn't provide a warrant as to why (I did). This in and of itself is a reason to ignore your argument here completely, you said something, but you didn't provide any reasoning for it.You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you.The actual questions you asked me were the same question rephrased. You asked if it is wrong to kill someone without or having very limited emotions, simply put yes it is. to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions.Well seeing as you have just acknowledged that it is a fact that killing people is wrong (when you said "based on the fact"), then the only question we need to ask is whether or not psychopaths are people.Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value.Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

This is pretty hypocritical considering you repeated your point about how they are the same thing. For which you didn't provide a warrant as to why (I did). This in and of itself is a reason to ignore your argument here completely, you said something, but you didn't provide any reasoning for it.I only repeated what I had said because you had ignored me. You had ignored me a two or three times and haven't offered a proper rebuttal to settle the claims and the scores.The actual questions you asked me were the same question rephrased. You asked if it is wrong to kill someone without or having very limited emotions, simply put yes it is.Saying that killing people with very limited emotions doesn't tell me why murder is wrong, what makes a person have value, nor does it tell me what constitutes a person.Of course you have told me that not having emotions doesn't mean that you aren't a person, but what makes someone a person then, if emotions don't make the person?Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder.Of course being a vigilante is wrong. But killing someone lawfully by the death penalty isn't going to make any laws flouted, is it?Only people who commit murder should be eliminated.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

I only repeated what I had said because you had ignored me. You had ignored me a two or three times and haven't offered a proper rebuttal to settle the claims and the scores.And again you have failed to provide a warrant for your claim.Of course being a vigilante is wrong. But killing someone lawfully by the death penalty isn't going to make any laws flouted, is it?It doesn't make a difference who is doing the killing because the outcome is the same, either way you're killing a person.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

It doesn't make a difference who is doing the killing because the outcome is the same, either way you're killing a person.In your opinion why do you feel it's wrong to kill?It's wrong to kill a person because you are destroying someone who has value.Why does a psychopath have any value?You aren't making sense.What do you mean by "you are killing a person"?How?
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

You keep repeating yourself, I already answered all of those questions.What do you mean by "you are killing a person"?They are no longer alive thanks to the punishment they were given.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

You keep repeating yourself, I already answered all of those questionsWhat gives a person value?Oh, I guess it's because a person is a person!Thanks!
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

Again, you are doing nothing more than repeat yourself. This argument has become circular and it is because you have failed to dispute my points. Come up with a (new) response or admit you have lost this point.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Again, you are doing nothing more than repeat yourself. This argument has become circular and it is because you have failed to dispute my points. Come up with a (new) response or admit you have lost this pointI have just repeated myself, of course I have.You have failed to answer the question.What gives a person any value?It is YOU who has lost the entire argument.You have no provided any evidence for your assertion other than claim that you somehow have the general population on your side.Let me spell it out for you.I will ask again, WHAT GIVES A HUMAN BEING VALUE IN YOUR BOOK.PROVE TO ME THAT MURDERERS HAVE ANY VALUE.IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

You have failed to answer the question. What gives a person any value?Actually I have, you just either didn't like or didn't read my answer: "Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder."It is YOU who has lost the entire argument.You haven't answered my points past repeating your already disputed assertions. That isn't how you debate, so no.You have no provided any evidence for your assertion other than claim that you somehow have the general population on your side.Nor did I make the assertion that I did. An assertion that has been made though (by you) is that the death penalty is good. This is an affirmative claim, meaning that without any evidence or reasoning to back it up then it isn't a valid position. You have provided no evidence to back it up and your only positions are that people in prisons are expensive and we should kill every psychopath and sociopath because you believe they can have no value as people.WHAT GIVES A HUMAN BEING VALUE IN YOUR BOOK. PROVE TO ME THAT MURDERERS HAVE ANY VALUE. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.I already answered your questions, and you have done nothing more than spout bullshit rhetoric. Your only position is that you seem to think I need to prove that people have value for us not to kill them. This is plainly false, and is shitty logic. So here, "let me spell it out for you":1: You are making an affirmative claim here, the burden of proof is on you.2: Your position this entire debate has been "sociopaths and psychopaths don't have value as people"3: This position is based on the faulty presumption that they are the same thing4: Additionally, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to WHY we need to kill these people5: Reiterating burden of proof, it is YOUR job to prove that there is a reason to kill these people, it is NOT my job to prove that they don't need to be until that is sufficiently done.6: Use your fucking brain, please it is embarrassing to you
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Still waiting for Cartman to reply..Good job, blizzardbird, nice speech!snicker
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

What negative consequences would arise if a guilty person would die?Precedent is a powerful thing.Guilt is ascribed to an actor who is believed to have caused an action in the past which society deems unacceptable. Morals change over time and place.The past - hereafter: history - is unknowable. There are as many interpretations of events, their causes and effects, as there are people to observe them: none none of these can be said to be without doubt 100% factual.Now, why should a person be killed because humans' faulty ability to understand history gives people to the belief that this person has committed an act that is (relatively) morally wrong and which, in fact, may not have even been caused by this person who is being killed?Finally: Is a society that kills killers any more or less morally blameworthy than the killer himself?
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Psychopathy is what causes murderers to commit murder.It is a well researched topic.Murderers have no value to society.Murderers have no value as people.Murderers therefore waste money.So killing murderers that would otherwise waste money is the right thing to do.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

Psychopathy? Hahaha. A fraction of murderers are said to be psychopaths: if, indeed, such a disorder (or evolutionary edge?) can be said to exist. Had you said sociopathy, you may have had a better (but still laughable) case.Some 2/3 of American murderers are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime (I can provide a source, but I'm too disinterested to go searching through my archives at the moment). Ergo, does alcohol cause murderers to commit murder?Indeed, I would say that the majority of murderers do not commit their crimes out of a lack of emotion, but out of too much emotion. Murder is, after all, the great crime of passion. For instance, the Norwegian Breivik has said that he committed his 77 murders because his was, as it were, overcome by emotion at the displacement of his race by the brown invaders from the east. Most murderers are intimately acquainted with their victims: only a small minority of murders are "stranger killings" (serial killers), and it is only those killers that could make your case for psychopathy.Murderers have no value as people.What gives a human value as a person? Does somebody have value by virtue of their not having committed murder, and thus murder instantaneously sets them aside as worthless (bearing the mark of Cain, as it were)?What if Thomas Edison had murdered somebody? Would he be of "no value to society" by virtue of his having committed a murder, disregarding the invention for which he was responsible and by which humanity is now in light?Each case must be considered on its own merit: one-size-fits-all justice may seem fair to the mentally inferior, but to deny that each case is individual, that each person is individual in their motives, desires, history, and worth, is to stereotype in the vile-most of ways: after all, a life is at stake (at least in your barbaric idea of a justice system).Murderers have no value to society.Murderers have no value as people.Murderers therefore waste money.This is non-sequitur. Is money all that matters to you?
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Psychopathy? Hahaha. A fraction of murderers are said to be psychopaths: if, indeed, such a disorder (or evolutionary edge?) can be said to exist. Had you said sociopathy, you may have had a better (but still laughable) case.Some 2/3 of American murderers are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime (I can provide a source, but I'm too disinterested to go searching through my archives at the moment). Ergo, does alcohol cause murderers to commit murder?Indeed, I would say that the majority of murderers do not commit their crimes out of a lack of emotion, but out of too much emotion. Murder is, after all, the great crime of passion. For instance, the Norwegian Breivik has said that he committed his 77 murders because his was, as it were, overcome by emotion at the displacement of his race by the brown invaders from the east. Most murderers are intimately acquainted with their victims: only a small minority of murders are "stranger killings" (serial killers), and it is only those killers that could make your case for psychopathy.Psychopaths like Anders Breivik was possibly doing both of the following by claiming to have noble motives:1: As a psychopath, Anders Breivik was manipulative and a liar and would often pretend to have noble intentions and concerns. Psychopaths live their lives pretending to have humane interest and they put on a mask of sincerity and loyalty. It is what they do. Anders Breivik was possibly saying this stuff to manipulate others as well as to evade accountability.2: As a psychopath, Anders Breivik had this inherent grandiose self belief, this belief that he was truly above and beyond. Psychopaths have such a strong belief of themselves and their inherent worth, they are incapable of having any doubts about themselves. Anders Breivik, like many other psychopaths, was also a narcissist. He believed himself to be of such value that he thought all his actions were just and noble and genuinely were the best one could commit. It wasn't that he was interested in the effects on his victims of course, it was more to do with himself.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

Oh, but Anders Behring Breivik is not a psychopath at all.
Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I Support it

Oh, but Anders Behring Breivik is not a psychopath at all.Of course Breivik would deny it.He's a lying psychopath after all.