azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

The problem with whatisright's comment is that the executioner with the needle may have killed 6 to 1000 people but should not be put to death.That's one problem. I pointed out another. If he thinks that anyone who kills others would need to be put to death by lethal injection, then we may as well kill anyone who has been to war and should be put to death, regardless of the fact that they were protecting our country.There is no error with my comment.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

If he thinks that anyone who kills others would need to be put to death by lethal injection, then we may as well kill anyone who has been to war and should be put to death, regardless of the fact that they were protecting our country.The problem with his statement is the same problem with yours, context. You can't forget that wars have two sides and people in the middle. Often times they are all fighting. Sometimes they aren't fighting at all. Not all war vets have killed people. For the times that a vet did, I won't say it was cruel or inhumane, even if he used a brick. I'll say thanks.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

My bad. I obviously meant the ones who had killed.For the times that a vet did, I won't say it was cruel or inhumane, even if he used a brick.Whether it was inhumane or not, is not for you to say. If the killing was done without compassion then it is inhumane. If you are compassionate when you kill someone, then you are inhumane, thus the act is inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Whether it was inhumane or not, is not for you to say. If the killing was done without compassion then it is inhumane. If you are compassionate when you kill someone, then you are inhumane, thus the act is inhumane.Not for me to say, but for you to say.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Not for me to say, but for you to say.It's not me who's saying it. The facts speak for themselves.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

do not be stupid. you know what I mean. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Telling someone to not be stupid, is a fruitless endeavor. But yes I knew what you meant and the fact of the matter is, there is no difference in taking the life of someone who kills for fun and taking the life for someone who has killed people protected their country. It's all inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

there is a difference in taking a life of someone that kills for fun because so they will not do it. again
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Baseless assertion.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

so your telling me that even if hitler lived you would not want him at the death sentence.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

I'd kill him myself if I had the chance to.The act would still be inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

so after all we been though. After 2013 years of people killing each other. You still think it inhumane. Even before 2013 years ago people were killing each other. Even when humans was first born. People were killing each other. You still think it inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

I think you are just trying to deflect the negative connotation of "inhumane" and are associating it with what you think is right or wrong. And it doesn't matter how many people have done it or for how long people have done, that will not make it any less inhumane or any more humane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

is it inanimal to kill. what do you think on that. please say
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

is it inanimal to kill.what do you think on that.What do I think of that? I think that it's cute they you are trying to invent a word. :)
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

come on you know what I mean answer it. or please don't debate with me again.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Define "inanimal".
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I do not have time for this. I got to go to work inlike a hour here give my friend 10 mints I think he is done with his shower. he will argue with you.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

lol.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

so what are we arguing about here. give me a minute to read
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

will yes it is human for you to kill someone. why would it be not.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

You haven't explained why it would be. So you can't conclude that it is humane. Yourewastingyourtimemakingthosebaselessassertions.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

will just because I kill you doesn't make me any less human than before. it always been natural for us to kill someone or kill something
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Humane does not mean human.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

why it is human to kill a human. is because we do it all the time. the world has not changed.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Justa troll...
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

troll? what does that mean. please just be smart about this.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

i cunt b smurt abut theese ef ur not. o.@ u appur 2 thnk that humane and human mean the same thing and yet I told u that it doesn't, but you still continue to respond with the same misconception in mind.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I am not taking about humane I am taking about human. please human
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I am being smart about this please keep typeing like that. yr te oe tkng tis as a jke
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

You can clearly see how "humane" is spelled, but you keep misspelling it. You are trying to act is if you actually have bad grammar and don't know how words are spelled.And you just completely ignore my responses and just submit some bullsht.Surry u lewk lke a troll 2me. o.@
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

I was never talking about humane. so if I did I miss spelled it because of you. And your ignoring my responses.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

You're such a cute troll.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I don't really understand how it is inhumane to spare the lives of future victims. Or to bring closure and a sense of justice to the families of past victims. It can't be inhumane to put terrible criminals to death, they gave up their human status. (minus the falsely accused of course)
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

The lethal injection executioner has killed people. I assume you mean murder?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

You presume not only a legitimate legal system, but the infallibility of such a system. Even where a legitimate legal system is in place there is still the potential for error and the possibility of executing an innocent person.Additionally, what exactly makes it right to kill another person as a penalty for them killing someone? I would contend that the assumption implicit in your conclusion is itself unfounded, if not outright incorrect.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

The argument for the fallibility of of the system is probably the best argument against the death penalty. It's valid to want to keep 10 guilty men alive if it keeps you from executing 1 innocent man.The reasoning behind the idea that it is right to take the life of a murderer comes from a particular view of rights. The murderer does not value life, when he acts on this lack of value, he forfeits his own right to life. He needs to be removed from society. Locking him away would remove him, but it also cost money. Since he doesn't value human life, and has acted in a way to surrender his own right to life, death is a valid option. This view of rights holds the death penalty as legitimate for certain crimes, but it also requires the system to be correct.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

The argument for the fallibility of of the system [...] 1 innocent man.I agree entirely; that was why I made it. ;)The murderer does not value life, when he acts on this lack of value, he forfeits his own right to life. & Since he doesn't value human life, and has acted in a way to surrender his own right to life, death is a valid option.I contend that that forfeiture is an assumption, and one which is inconsistently applied. For instance, if it were true that one forfeits the rights they violate then those who have committed assault or battery should have no right to the physical safety of their person. Yet most legal systems expressly secure those rights for the incarcerated. He needs to be removed from society. Locking him away would remove him, but it also cost money.More accurately, society ought to be protected from violent offenders. This being the baseline, incarceration does serve that objective which renders execution more a matter of financial expediency or emotional gratification; neither of the latter seems an adequate basis from which to derive an argument for the humaneness of execution. This view of rights holds the death penalty as legitimate for certain crimes, but it also requires the system to be correct.Most views of rights presented in defense of the death penalty rely upon the false supposition of infallibility; it is not an especially unique flaw with this particular rights argument.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

if it were true that one forfeits the rights they violate then those who have committed assault or battery should have no right to the physical safety of their personIncarceration is a general forfeiture of rights in general resulting from the lack of value of some rights in particular. Most views of rights presented in defense of the death penalty rely upon the false supposition of infallibilityThis may be true, however I think it's odd that as our means of collecting and analyzing evidence becomes less fallible (DNA), opponents of the death penalty use this reduced fallibility to argue even harder against it.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Incarceration is a general forfeiture of rights in general resulting from the lack of value of some rights in particular.You are sidestepping the issue. Your argument was that by killing one loses the right life. If that logic were true then the right violated would be the right lost. An assaulter does not imprison a person, and so the appropriate response by the logic innate to your argument would not be imprisonment but a reciprocal assault.This may be true, however I think it's odd that as our means of collecting and analyzing evidence becomes less fallible (DNA), opponents of the death penalty use this reduced fallibility to argue even harder against it.I am not entirely certain what your point is here. The system will always be fallible; it is a human construction. That it becomes less fallible is not the same as saying it is infallible and that an innocent person may not still be sentenced to death. DNA is not required for conviction and sentencing, nor is it always a guarantor of guilt, so while there may be clear cases there will always be those with room for error. Financial expediency. I remain curious as to your thoughts on this as the primary basis for justifying execution.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I don't see why it wouldn't be human. Using the topic of prisoners getting lethal injection; if they are a threat to society, lethal injection is more quick and painless than hanging, decapitation, or electrical shock (electric chair). It is also less of a mess.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Yeah its humane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I'm going to agree that it is humane by comparison. Though the other side makes a valid point about mental anguish, I think the anguish would be greater if they thought they were going to feel a great deal of pain.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

It's painless, it ends it there and then, if you're going through so much pain that you feel you have to (unless it's mentality problem), then it's the quickest way to have it. Humane? I think it's more of mercy killing.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Killing anybody is inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Killing anything is inhumane.Even killing a head of lettuce?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

You can't kill lettuce.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

You can't kill lettuce.Lettuce is an organism, of course you can kill it.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

But lettuce does not think. You can not take the life away from something that can't live a life. Living is an action and actions are controlled by thought processes.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

In mentioning the ability to think you are referencing sapience. So I can assume your argument is that to kill anything with sapience, or to end that sapience is inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Your assumption is correct.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Plants work every day to reach the nutrients they need to survive. Some plants even have simplistic communication methods. It sounds like taking a life isn't what you are concerned about, but rather taking a life that you see as similar. I guess lethal injection for a comatose patient would be ok?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Plants work every day to reach the nutrients they need to survive. What they do is no different than what gravity does. It's just part of the natural processes of the universe. Plants have no free will/ choice in the matter. They don't "work".I guess lethal injection for a comatose patient would be ok?No. There's still a chance that the patient will come out of the coma and continue their life.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

A vine is creeping across the lawn toward the post. I remove the post. The vine retreats. That may not mean consciousness, but it is definitely more than gravity.Me arguing against you for lethal injection is gonna have me hugging trees pretty soon.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Here's a different route: Is it inhumane to kill a torturer who is about to torture?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Yes it is. He was just doing his Job. You could have knocked him out with a brick or something and then saved the person who he was about to torture. If you accidentally kill him then well...accidents happen. But purposefully killing someone would be inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I would much rather see justice done methodically than as an emotional response. If it is his job, or he was coerced into his situation, or some other crazy circumstance then maybe he shouldn't be killed at all. Let alone with a brick to the head. However, if he is a sadistic psycho then there is no room for him here. Send him on his way with a nice sterilized needle.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

However, if he is a sadistic psycho then there is no room for him here. Send him on his way with a nice sterilized needle.His condition can be fixed with psychological treatment.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Some people don't have anything technically wrong with them, they are just bad. The chances of the brain dead patient waking up is more than curing many sadists.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Some people don't have anything technically wrong with them, they are just bad.You don't know that. The chances of the brain dead patient waking up is more than curing many sadists.Says what data?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

There are people who are bad people. It's not that they are ill, it may be that they were raised to be that way, but they have no desire to change. That would make them incurable.What data? Gosh let me just go write a thesis for this stupid argument. I don't have any, neither do you. This is an opinion about the nature of lethal injection. Shall we go ask all the folks that had it done to them if they were in pain or scared? Timothy McVeigh was smiling. You haven't even used the provided definition correctly, what would we do with data?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Hah. I knew you were just bullshitting.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Having an opinion prior to looking at the data is not the same as bullshitting. Otherwise that's all anyone is doing here, including you.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Nope. I'm simply using the definition of the word and it's not a word that can be rightfully used in an opinionated way. Just like you can't use "burrito" in an opinionated way.You can call a T.V. remote a burrito, but that does not make it a burrito.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

"humane methods of killing"This is an example provided by the Oxford English dictionary in the entry at the top of the page. You are saying that killing is inherently inhumane. That is not the implication of the dictionary entry. I provided the definition at the top, you haven't provided one at all.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Owh. I ded nut c tht particular definition. Well this debate is dumb then! Of course it's a humane way to kill someone. The title is badly worded.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

The death penalty was halted in 1972 after the Supreme Court ruling in Ferman V Georgia found the death penalty to be cruel and unusual which violates the 8th Amendment. This decision was reversed four years later in Greg V Georgia when they came up with lethal injection. It may be an appeal to authority, but I'll take the Supreme Court as a valid authority. Since they found it to be humane enough, so will I.Data. Have you got any?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Fabrication.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

FabricationOh, well that was an easy enough evasion. I know my answer now every time you say...anything. "fabrication"
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Evasion? You have no source sir. You are the one who is evading.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Fabrication .
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

The evidence for your folly is clearly there.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

All that Supreme Court stuff is accurate. You could have countered with various States that have banned it, but instead you just said I was lying.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Shows how much I kur abut this argooment.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

These are assertions, and regardless of whether or not your opponent has made assertions of their own, you still have not validated them. Perhaps debaters should not generally have to provide evidence of their assertions (I do disagree), but at the point where you expressly reference chance or probability you are implying a knowledge of data rather than mere opinion. You have spoken less from opinion and more from an asserted knowledge; it is entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to substantiate that claim to knowledge. If you have actually done the research to substantiate your views and are not in fact bullshitting your argument, then citing that data is hardly comparable to writing a thesis. With respect to your assertions and fallacies. You seem to be of the opinion that murderers are all "sadistic psychopaths", whereas not all are diagnosable as either sadistic or antisocial (note: psychopathy and sociopathy have both been consolidated in the DSM under antisocial personality disorder). By conflating the homicidal with the sadistic and psychopathic, you imply that they are mutually interchangeable terms which they are not. You also imply that sadists and antisocial personalities should categorically be put down as they have no place in society; was that your intention?The idea that the homicidally violent are incurable, even if currently founded, is not an inherent truth. Curability is contingent upon knowledge, and the phenomenon of homicidal violence is a relatively poorly understood field (as are human psychology and mental disorder generally). Finally, people are not just simply "bad" without reason. Human behavior is a consequence of biological disposition and environmental exposure. To penalize a person with death for actions perpetrated as a consequence of factors outside their control is arguably inhumane. Further, the absence of a diagnosable condition does not mean an individual is not ill. Illness is itself is a label identifying dysfunctional aberration of the human body and mind; homicidal violence is certainly such a form of dysfunctional aberration.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Some people are just bad. There are whole cultures that find it necessary to stone a family member for getting raped. These people aren't ill. Since it is ingrained in them, they wouldn't want to change. I know this is a bad example for a possible crime over here, but it illustrates how someone can be wrong in the worst way without being ill.I'm not of the opinion that murderers are "all sadistic psychopaths", but some of them are. If it is true that the homicidally violent are not currently curable, then it is inherently true until a cure is produced.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Some people are just bad.This remains an assertion. Arguing that some cultures stone rape victims to death is a poor example, not only because it conflates de facto social punishment with individual criminality but also because it does not actually substantiate your claim. Illness is a term which, in its proper application, indicates a state of non-health or dysfunction. Certainly, an argument might readily be advanced that the aforementioned cultural practice is symptomatic of a social illness. However, it does not prove that the culture or people are inherently bad. I'm not of the opinion that murderers are "all sadistic psychopaths", but some of them are. I am quite glad to hear it, and the primary reason I made the distinction is because I consider myself a mental health and illness advocate. The implication of that is that I oblige myself to identify inaccurate and potentially misleading statements about particular disorders. It was less an argument, and more an observation. We need not discuss it further I suspect.If it is true that the homicidally violent are not currently curable, then it is inherently true until a cure is produced.That is a fairly substantial "if" to begin with, and while the conclusion drawn from that supposition is fair I would qualify it. However, this argument attempts to justify execution of the homicidally violent on the basis that they may not currently be curable. The problematic uncertainty of the premise aside, this is effectively an argument that due to our own relatively undeveloped knowledge of the human mind and behavior it is right to execute those in our society whom we cannot help. Perhaps this is true, but I do not think you have provided the analysis to warrant that conclusion.