azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door. I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community."What, and you can't educate you family on how to responsibly own and use a gun? Well, you already admitted you can't with your "holding their guns in shaking hand, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through the door" statement. What you are trying to do is eliminate responsible gun ownership by trying to force a one way opinion. I mean after all, if you "claim" you could "educate" your family about what threat is real and what is not, then logically you could educate them about responsible gun ownership. And it's this type of fear mongering that keeps people in a state of paranoia, holding their anti-gun pamphlets in shaking hands just waiting to arrest whoever holds a gun. Remember, an argument works both ways."tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought. with technological advances in not only investigation but in evidence collection and preservation (DNA is a huge one) more and more could be proven innocent, which makes no difference if they are already dead at the states hand."Yeah, tell that to the innocent people who have been murdered by a criminal! There have been more than 1000X the amount of innocent people killed by murderers as compared two your two dozen statistic. So it doesn't add up. If someone came into your house while you were at work, shot your kids, then raped your wife and then brutally cut her up into pieces while she was still alive, I think you would want him to have the death penalty, and not just 10 years and then parole. And yes, a similar case happened in my state.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

As a former law enforcement officer, who has had many guns in the home, i can and have educated my family about the safety of firearms. I also can say from personal experience that the majority of people I have dealt with who have guns in their homes are untrained, uneducated, and are more apt to cause accidental deaths or commit unlawful assaults with those same guns. as for my family we choose not to be the type of people that would shoot just because we can. of course arguments work both ways...this is a debate forum. as for the innocent people who have been murdered by criminals, of course the statistics show more people having been the victim. this is due to not only to multiple people killed by one person, but also the numerous unsolved cases each year. and if you re read my post, the two dozen are the ones who are still in prison, but have come off death row, the number of people who have been released from prison totally is at least 140. i have not and do not condone violent behavior and agree 100% that there should be punishment, but not the death penalty. proof has been given that mistakes have been made, and as i have stated in my argument, you cannot undo this mistake. as humans we commit errors, if you were picked up on the street because you vaguely resembled an attacker would you still hold onto the argument that its ok because there are many more victims than offenders proven innocent? studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent (which is one half of the reason for it's use) and murder rates are actually higher in states that have the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout). My opinions are based on relevant facts that are readily available to anyone willing to do a little research and my personal experience, they are not based on skewed judgements based on the fear that is put into the general public by the media focusing on stories such as the one you quoted. I have a hard time believing that anyone who committed such a heinous crime was allowed to walk free after 10 years, but i am not a judge. by committing to the idea that someone deserves to die, you are committing to the revenge side of human nature, not the idea of punishment for crimes committed.Again I want to reiterate that I am not in favor of an anarchist society where there is no consequences for committing crimes, my point is that society is better served by life imprisonment than the death penalty.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

The problem with your website statistic is there are too many variables that aren't accounted for. For example, due to the border control problems, of course Texas would have more murders. But that doesn't mean it's the fault of the death penalty. And I can say from my personal experience that all of the people I've met who've owned guns are both responsible and less apt to cause accidental deaths or commit unlawful assaults with those same guns (to be fair though, all the people I've met are hunters, which, on a totally unrelated point; is a plus for Hunters' Education); so yeah, as an officer, I expect you to meet a lot of schmucks. "I have a hard time believing that anyone who committed such a heinous crime was allowed to walk free after 10 years, but i am not a judge."You want to hear something worse? A guy who killed a parrot was sentenced to two life sentences. See the problem is, if you kill a human, eh it's bad; but if you kill an animal, OOOOOOHHHHHHH NO YOU DIDN'T! It's the end of the world! PETA will chop your head off. BIG problem with judges these days.Well, it's not necessarily revenge as much as it is the fact that the crime of murder is so bad, that death is the only punishment worthy of such a horrible crime (even then, too lenient if you ask me). I wish the death penalty were allowed in my state, but we can carry concealed weapons in my state so it keeps down on the amount of murders (another thing that wasn't accounted for in your website statistic).And no, society is not better served by life imprisonment than the death penalty because society then learns that consequences aren't very severe for committing an act of murder. I mean after all, have you seen our prisons? Cable TV, both heating and air conditioning. Quality food, and a Gym in which you can work out. Ways to make money, and tons of leisure time. Yeah, that's showing them.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

because killing is wrongThe fact that there are bad and evil people means that killing is not wrong. It means that in certain situations it is necessary to kill, if possible.By not killing those who deserve it you are condoning their actions. Essentially showing everyone that it is okay to do it.[assuming you are a good guy] If someone (a bad guy) tried to kill you and the only way for staying alive is you killing your attacker, would you not kill him to save yourself from death? You'd be stupid if you didn't.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

here is the problem with your statement "bad and evil people, where it is necessary to kill if possible"..who decides who is bad/evil? who decides that it is necessary to kill? the obvious answer is the judge who hears the case based on the law of the land. The problem is that the judge is human and there are no black and white answers but instead a million shades of gray. "by not killing those who deserve it"....do rape victims deserve it? do children who are victims of molestation deserve it? do the victims of these murderers deserve it? of course not...and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problem.thank you for your assumption that im a good guy..i like to think i am.in your basic question you are bringing up basic human survival instincts, no one wants to die and one will do whatever is necessary to survive. but that is the absolute last resort with no other recourse, and all other options have been exhausted. this is not the case when talking about the death penalty, we are not talking about survival instinct then, we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

who decides who is bad/evil?Not who but what. Their actions. And why they did it.but instead a million shades of gray.Not always but mostly.and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problemThat means the law is flawed.If law is flawed you don't ban death penalty, you fix the law.we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.Retribution has punishment in its meaning.Locking people up for murder, rape, and else very bad is a waste of resources, unless they are put to forced labor so they could compensate for the wasted resources. There is no point just keeping someone, who may not be free, alive when they are totally useless to the rest. Because of their actions they should either be used as, basically, slaves, or be killed. It was them who made the wrong choices (not talking about small and simple things like stealing but very serious crimes) that led them to their state, they are responsible for their actions. They knew what they were doing when they did it.I myself would prefer forced labor over death penalty. Still, in some cases death penalty would be the right thing to do (no point keeping mentally insane murderers just locked up for their whole life, although there could be some ways to use them).
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

since we have to rely on our justice system to determine thisUnfortunately the justice system is flawed. I guess there will always be some flaws, but presently there are too many and too big ones. And things are moving (if they are moving) so slowly that nothing seems to be done about it.this is very untrue, by using this same logic you would let the needy starve, or freeze to death because they could not afford food or housing. these people, while having committed crimes, are still people.It isn't untrue and at the same time it also is not that simple. Why are they needy? What led them there? The needy could have "potential" among them.It is similar with criminals, although simpler.again the punishment is imprisonment, the punishment is not anything on top of that.According to current law.you seem to have the attitude that anyone who commits a crime has done so out of some inherent evil inside them.Not because they are inherently evil. Some might simply be stupid and ignorant, those are likely to correct themselves.while this may be true in a few cases there are also accidents and crimes committed out of necessity (not that it makes it right, but just different from the "evil" view)If it is done out of necessity then the government needs correcting. your view of using tax dollars is also skewed, you assume that the criminal has never paid any sort of taxes....ever. i can safely assume that the criminal has paid taxes and that the funds being used to incarcerate that person largely could be paid from that.Are you saying that all tax-paying people are paying for their own potential imprisonment? That sounds extremely idiotic and if it really is that way then things are far more messed up than I originally thought.According to that why are they imprisoned in the first place? If they have already payed for their crimes?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

"the justice system is flawed""the needy have potential.....it is similar with criminals""according to the current law""some might be stupid and ignorant"All of the points you are bringing up are supporting my position that the death penalty is wrong! You continue to dispute my argument but then say things to support it.I am not saying that tax payers have "pre paid" for their own imprisonment, here is an example of my point: i do not support the wars in iraq/afghanistan, if it were my choice of where to allocate the massive amount of money spent there (or even my tiny portion) I would rather see it spent on education and social services here in the u.s.. Unfortunately we do not have the choice as to what our tax dollars are spent for, it is all put into the pool and distributed by the government. The fact is that while opponents to practically all social programs dote on about "their tax dollars" when my point is valid that the criminal who is now sitting in prison HAS already paid into the system. (I know this is simplistic due to ongoing cost vs already paid taxes etc. but it goes to show the invalidity of the "tax dollar" argument) They may have never driven on a road that they helped pay for, they may have never called the fire department that they paid for, etc. so maybe they would have opted to have their portions placed into the prison system. (if that were and option)They are imprisoned because the law says that is the punishment for their crimes. They are "paying" for their crime with their imprisonment, they have "paid" into the system for their incarceration by paying taxes prior to incarceration.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

All of the points you are bringing up are supporting my position that the death penalty is wrong! You continue to dispute my argument but then say things to support it.If all (reasonable, I understand this is subjective but...) alternatives to death penalty fail, then what?They are "paying" for their crime with their imprisonment, they have "paid" into the system for their incarceration by paying taxes prior to incarceration.Just being locked up and doing nothing useful is pointless. They are separated from society by keeping them locked up where they just have a happy life, happy as in they don't really have to work for anything, everything is delivered to them. While, as you said, there are poor and needy who are in trouble with the most basic things. Are criminals more important then the poor and needy?Using tax money to pay for their living there is the same as renting a place in prison in advance, including food, clothes, and everything else.That money could be used on other things (the poor and needy, for one) if the prisoners were to themselves, while they are imprisoned, compensate for their being there. That's why it is wasting resources, because there is a more efficient way for it all to work. Everyone could benefit from it, even the criminals by gaining new skills and experience with the jobs they are doing, and they could use those later when they get out of prison, if they get out.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

If all other alternatives fail and the result is them simply spending their lives locked up and being worthless, while everything they need to keep them alive under good conditions are simply given to them without them compensating for it in any way (and using tax money that is necessary in other and far more important areas is not compensating for their being locked up; using money in areas where there will be no benefit for the society as a whole is negative and downright stupid) then death penalty should be the next step. This is what I see as "just" and right.What one sees as "ineffective, inhumane, and unjust" is subjective and a matter of interpretation. I view it all through practicality and efficiency.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

if we are giving deathn penalty nfor a crime then what is the difference between us and those criminals
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

The difference is the reason.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The death penalty is an absolute judiciary measure that succeeds in rectifying the grievances of the murder victim's family and peers, yet fails to undo an inevitable flaw of any judiciary system; human error. Without a truth-seeking function, which may or may not be administered in any given proceeding case, the system is error-bound. The odds of an error in judgment is a fixed possibility, meaning, there is always a chance that those sentenced to death may still be innocent and thus, wrongfully killed. True, the times that the State has wrongly killed a convict may not outweigh the times it hasn't, numerically, however, this rationalization can only yield a more authoritarian society. For every time the state wrongfully punishes someone with impunity, it leaves the rest of us equally susceptible to the scourge of error-bound agents of the state.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

nobody is in a position to judge PERFECTLY if someone is to die.Also, keeping people in prison for life IS NECESSARY precisely because it incurs a cost. If the state were to execute people, it would be cheaper and the validity of justice would NEVER BE QUESTIONED. Any law can be passed and ALL CITIZENS are DISPOSABLE.On the other hand, if the politicians have to explain why they have to spend billions of dollars keeping a whole population or 'criminals', it leaves the possibility that the laws are unjust and scrutiny can begin, which is impossible with mass graves.Even if there is no possibility of rehabilitation, having them alive is better than to execute them because he is a living example to the dangers of society; like remembering past mistakes.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The government should not be allowed to play god and decide who lives and who dies; it's not right because how is that ethical? Lethally inject a man or woman because they made a mistake? It's not right for men to murder, to rape, to cheat, and if the government kills them, they're no better than the very same people they're trying to get rid of.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The Death Penalty is a system of revenge. If the wrong person is executed, he cannot be brought back. So, the Death Penalty should be abolished.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

You send the wrong message.Capital Punishment is a Constitutional Right. Politically when a person describes the state action as Death Penalty they are making a statement of political Liberty as promotion to the attempt to represent justice. It is understandable that a person may move away from any obligations to Constitutional guidance to general welfare as we are opening the topic to a conviction which changes the state of judicial separation. The point is that a Death Penalty is something the criminal imposes on a victim of the crime murder. The witness account to a Capital Punishment though in general observation appears equal to the criminal’s death penalty. It in no uncertain terms equal by the liberty held by Constitutional Separation.So in saying no I do not agree with a Death Penalty I am still agreeing with the action of state to apply Capital Punishment. What is being refused is my verbal incrimination of states which hold this type separation in their judicial order.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles..
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: Yes!!

Why must religion and science always be compared to each other. No one asks a theologian to explain atomic theory (except when they are trying to prove that religion is false). In the same manner why do people insist on bringing religion into the realm of science?
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: Yes!!

Though I don't believe in any gods, I wish this point of view In the same manner why do people insist on bringing religion into the realm of science?, was more widespread. If religion was exclusive of science there wouldn't be much left for religion is, I feel, the reason why it's not widespread. Where "god(s)" has been an answer for unknowns historically (alcohol in wine, fertility, our creation, morals, etc, etc) it just isn't good enough, or the case anymore. Science has striven, in a way that religion cannot, to explain the things that gods were thought to be responsible for previously. Gods have been and are still being pushed out to the extremities. Because of that science is under attack from religion and pseudo-religion (perversely so with biological science) so much these days. If science had got it so wrong you'd think they'd leave well alone?
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: No!!

I agree mostly with your reasoning on why religion attacks science, but i don't think most people realize that this argument is showing up as supporting belief in god. Since it wasn't tagged, I think it is getting a lot of 'i wish we could all get along' points but giving them to the supporting position. This may be a problem with the site counting points for non-tagged arguments for one-side or the other.
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: Yes!!

It's just that so many people consider God and science to be opposite means of explaining the same thing. I don't think it's right to do so either.
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: YES!!

I have never understood why people cannot accept that religion and God exist simultaneously with science. Science explains how things happen, but religion seeks the explanation of why these things happen- something science will never be able to do.
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: No!!

You're assuming things happen for a reason. Could it not all be chance?
Debate: Do you believe in God?
Side: YES!!

Why do things happen by chance then? Why is there randomness in the world?