azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

So if killing someone is always the same thingI never claimed it was.by that principal if a woman were to kill a man who was trying to rape her in self-defence would also be considered a horrific act.Going to go ahead and just remind you that I never claimed the initial point, so that comparison doesn't work.Definition of murderthe unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by anotherIndeed, which is why the death penalty is not murder. Never said it was.As it would be a lawful execution it wouldn't make him a murderer. It would make him a deliverer of justice.It would make him the deliverer of a punishment, but I hardly see how it is justice. It rights no wrongs, it provides no good, it is simply basic, animalistic retributionism. I would like him to get hanged which would be a very unpleasant experience, or perhaps even burnt to death.And that's why you start heading down the direction of those you decry.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

I was addressing MK in that argument, I was never claiming that you had claimed that. However he did say that.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

See, THIS is why I shouldn't respond to people based on the Waterfall.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Definition of murderthe unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by anotherPremeditatedKilling an attacker in self-defense isn't premeditated. False analogy, end of story.Who said anything about painless? I would like him to get hanged which would be a very unpleasant experience, or perhaps even burnt to death.Unfortunately for you, those forms of corporal punishment and the death penalty aren't legal in the US, so it's not going to happen. People who are put to death are killed quietly and painlessly now.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Killing an attacker in self-defense isn't premeditated. False analogy, end of story.Well it is still strange that you consider killing a horrible person is equal to killing an innocent person. And people tell me I view things too "black and white".Unfortunately for you, those forms of corporal punishment and the death penalty aren't legal in the US, so it's not going to happen. People who are put to death are killed quietly and painlessly now.The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?Because society should strive to be better than those we punish and decry.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Killing unprovoked is not morally equal to killing someone as a punishment for killing. The one good thing about America is that it hasn't been overrun by yogurt-knitters like you to the point it has abolished the death penalty. It is because of your kind that I weep for British justice.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Killing unprovoked is not morally equal to killing someone as a punishment for killing.Can you please point to where I have said it was? I likened them, but I never claimed they were "morally equal".The one good thing about America is that it hasn't been overrun by yogurt-knitters like you to the point it has abolished the death penalty.There's another shot. Think I'll switch to mix drinks to fit the season. Maybe a Mai-Tai...It is because of your kind that I weep for British justice.And what is your stance on countries that lack the death penalty but have more successful justice systems than either of our countries?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Can you please point to where I have said it was? I likened them, but I never claimed they were "morally equal".Well, you said that if we did kill him we wouldn't be better than he is. Which does suggest they are morally equal acts.There's another shot. Sweetheart you need to stop using me to justify your drink problem.Maybe a Mai-TaiEeew I had a sip of my brother's once when he had one and it tasted vile. And what is your stance on countries that lack the death penalty but have more successful justice systems than either of our countries?There is no successful justice in allowing those who kill to live.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The debate wasn't about what is likely to happen, but what should happen. Why should people be killed painlessly when they did not afford their victims that luxury?I would agree with that if I thought anyone should be put to death. But also, who's going to do the killing? You can't have a death penalty without putting the blood on somebody's hands.Unless we use Dexter. He can do it.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

We could use psychopaths who aren't criminals themselves to do it.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Haha honestly that sounds like a whole new can of worms to open. Interesting idea in theory. Who knows, in practice. :p
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The other user stated that prisoners get all of these amenities, including "three square meals". All I was pointing out there is that the food they receive isn't a luxury and it's healthy. It's part of the complete package of being in prison.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Well what ever they have in jail food, cell etc... like I said before is a dam site more than their victims so in those terms its a holiday resort! and far more than they deserve! and im speaking about British jails and what I know and I've experienced in jail, its not hard time its just wasting time, nothing hard about it!
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Your anecdotal evidence of a British jail has almost nothing to do with an American maximum security jail for a mass murderer/terrorist.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

well aware of that thank you! but I can only speak retrospective cant I??
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Of course. Plus you knew you'd get out eventually. This is a life sentence we're talking about for him. No promise of leaving one day. Maximum security, minimal human contact, until he dies. Better punishment for the crime than a painless injection that puts him to sleep before it kills him.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

better punishment in your view, but not in my view, he still gets to breath air and see sunlight far more than he deserves! regardless of the environment he's detained in.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I mean at the end of the day, if you committed a terrible crime, would you prefer a quick and painless death or spending the rest of your life in confinement? I think the majority of people would agree that a quick and painless death is preferred. I know I would choose that.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

I understand where your coming from, but who's to say maximum security will bother him that much?? will he suffer enough in that time? you never no he may find it easy? of course we would choose the quick way out but this isn't his choice?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Who is to say how much suffering is enough? Maximum security prisons certainly are not comfortable, nor are they easy.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

but you don't know how he will respond to this? like I said he may find it easy, and if he does then is the punishment enough? your assuming you know how he will respond but you don't!
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/ http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000 You may doubt it, but it is VERY true. and its impossible to prove that the death penalty deters people because if they don't commit the crime because of that reason we wont ever know?? but I know from myself and speaking with other people, it would make me think twice before taking that extreme action knowing the potential outcome if caught!I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. When one is in the process of committing the crime, it is done so with the belief that they are not going to be caught. A bunch of people who aren't committing crimes talking about what they may or may not hypothetically think about doesn't prove anything.so there's more of a chance with this method than going to jail and having a nice cell, three square meals a day, outdoor time, TV time, it might not sound much but its a dam site more than any of his victims will ever have!What you have described is a minimum security prison. In other words, NOT what a murderer goes to, much less a terrorist.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Well what evidence do you have that this doesn't work? your so convinced it doesn't work, where's does your belief come from?? And the jail description is based on a British jail, been there done that, im speaking from experience.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Where is my evidence that what doesn't work? The death penalty as a deterrent, or the appeals system?And I can't speak for British jails, but the issue at hand is a United States case, and therefore the relevant penal system is the U.S. Prison system.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

"A recent study commissioned by the Nevada legislature found that the average death penalty case costs a half million dollars more than a case in which the death penalty is not sought." (source)And if we're talking about wasting jail cells, then we should relax the ridiculous war on drugs by legalizing recreational use of marijuana. In 2013, there were 1.5 million arrested for nonviolent drug charges. Seems like that's wasting a hell of a lot more jail cells than the ones being used for murderers.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

well at the point of conviction if it is beyond doubt that they committed the crime and the sentenced is passed as death than there should be no long drawn out appeal process, get it right at the first attempt and prevent this accumulative cost, and the drug issues is a much bigger problem, and I agree there needs to be reform on the punishment for these offences and the rehabilitation process.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

well at the point of conviction if it is beyond doubt that they committed the crime and the sentenced is passed as death than there should be no long drawn out appeal process, get it right at the first attempt and prevent this accumulative cost,So long as the United States Constitution exists, then they can appeal on the grounds of the nature of the penalty, whether you think that should be the case or not.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Im not familiar with US law, but that sounds stupid and opens yourself up to this long drawn out legal process??? it undermines the conviction in the first place, mistakes can be made in the first attempt and that's where the efforts should be made to prevent potential appeals.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Im not familiar with US law, but that sounds stupid and opens yourself up to this long drawn out legal process??How is it stupid to try to prevent innocent people from being put to death? That is the entire point of it. That does not undermine the conviction, it is accepting fallibility. mistakes can be made in the first attempt and that's where the efforts should be made to prevent potential appeals.If mistakes can be made, that is why you should ENSURE potential appeals.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Your missing my point, do your job properly in the first place! so the case is beyond doubt, then when a decision is made its made appropriately, if there is doubt then a decision cant be made, its not rocket science!! and your process as you say stops innocent people from getting convicted, funny enough it help guilty people get off aswell, so it undermines!
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

do your job properly in the first place! so the case is beyond doubtThe number of instances in which there is absolutely no doubt are so infinitesimally small. No justice system is infallible, and that alone is the reason appeals exist. and your process as you say stops innocent people from getting convicted, funny enough it help guilty people get off aswell, so it undermines!How do you believe that the appeals process gets guilty people off death row after they have already been convicted?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

The case of this bomber is pretty clear, he was caught red handed and there is no doubt! so its a simple process to me from here?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

For the first part, yes. For the second part, you still have that pesky Constitution, and so long as the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution exists, then there will always be grounds for an appeal based on the nature of the punishment. On the other hand, if he was in prison for life without parole, there would be little to no grounds for appeal unless some (clearly nonexistent) evidence came out exonerating him or calling into serious doubt his guilt.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Thanks for the clarification, this means he will breath air far longer than he deserves!
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I assure you, the air found in Maximum and SuperMax prisons in the United States is not the type that you want to be breathing.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

haha Ill take your word on that!...................................................
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

That's ridiculous. The 8th amendment does not say that you can appeal forever. Nothing about the 8th amendment makes it ok for this long drawn out appeal process. Something doesn't become uncruel and usual simply because you took time to decide on doing it.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a common foundation for appeals done during Death Penalty cases. I'm not saying it is justified, simply that it is what happens.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Well, that doesn't make it any less stupid. When did they use the 8th amendment to justify it?Edit: oops, I don't know why I am disputing you now.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I am confused as to the "they" you are questioning. Appeals are heard if there is any sort of legitimate issue at hand, or new evidence presented. With death penalty cases, whether or not the penalty is acceptable still remains very much at issue in this country, which means that referring to the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a constitutional foundation to make that argument, dramatically increasing the likelihood of an appeal being heard.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I am confused as to the "they" you are questioning.You are the only person I have ever heard who claimed the 8th amendment is the reason for appeals. Can you link to anyone else who says that?Appeals are heard if there is any sort of legitimate issue at hand, or new evidence presented.That is not true. Appeals occur even if there is no legitimate issue.With death penalty cases, whether or not the penalty is acceptable still remains very much at issue in this countryThat is quite illogical. That's like saying since there is anyone around who opposes gay marriage it is ok to deny it even with the gay marriage law being passed.which means that referring to the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause serves as a constitutional foundation to make that argumentNo, the punishment doesn't change. Those arguments are weak.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty "Eighth Amendment analysis requires that courts consider the evolving standards of decency to determine if a particular punishment constitutes a cruel or unusual punishment. When considering evolving standards of decency, courts both look for objective factors to show a change in community standards and also make independent evaluations about whether the statute in question is reasonable."That should be a pretty good example. That is not true. Appeals occur even if there is no legitimate issue.That is true, I should have clarified. Much discretion is allowed within the system, but appeals are essentially required to be heard if there is a legitimate issue at hand or new evidence presented. Beyond that, discretion is key.That is quite illogical. That's like saying since there is anyone around who opposes gay marriage it is ok to deny it even with the gay marriage law being passed.I am confused by the comparison. Could you please clarify?No, the punishment doesn't change. Those arguments are weak.You may find them weak, but they have served as a sufficient basis for countless appeals.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

That should be a pretty good example.But, that's not what appeals are doing. Appeals are solely determining if the conviction is correct, it doesn't reconsider the unusual punishment.Much discretion is allowed within the systemTranslation: doesn't have to be legitimate. Remember, you are using circular reasoning (although, not your fault). Sometimes, it is only legitimate because they decided it was ok to have the appeal, which is what makes it legitimate. There does not have to be any new evidence.I am confused by the comparison. Could you please clarify?Law says that it is ok to execute someone. Law says that it is ok to reevaluate if the execution is cruel and unusual. Law does not say that if some people believe that it should be reevaluated that we ignore first law. It would be like marriage licenses not being given out since there is an opposition to the law. I just picked something that I know has a lot of opposition.You may find them weak, but they have served as a sufficient basis for countless appeals.That doesn't make it stronger. Isn't that the ad populum fallacy?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I can't access the link in your first source, something isn't working, can you post it again but differently, I am interested in seeing that study.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

It was one of many studies listed here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Cool. I don't trust anything on there but the Texas numbers, though. For instance, if you look at California they include all of the costs associated with all of the BS appeals that the liberals added. They then use that to justify why it is too expensive to execute people. BUT, Texas has more expensive executions, and they actually execute people, so you know they are doing it the cheapest they can get away with.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Nonviolent drug charges include DUIs. We need more severe punishment for DUIs, not less.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I fully agree with you. Nothing worse than driving under the influence (well except for texting and driving, but I won't get into that). The numbers are staggering though. In 2010, out of over 13 million arrests nation-wide, over 750,000 were for "marijuana possession". Were some of these perpetrators driving under the influence? Most likely yes, but I hardly believe a large number of them were.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Were some of these perpetrators driving under the influence? Most likely yes, but I hardly believe a large number of them were.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18847565 "For illicit drugs, abuse of cannabis with or without alcohol is a major concern for the EU. In fact, three million Europeans use cannabis daily and 80% of them drive after use. A number of French studies since 1999 have underlined the high prevalence of cannabis found in the blood of injured or killed drivers."That is what happens with legalized marijuana. Any substance that impairs mental state should be heavily regulated to reduce chances for DUIs. This includes alcohol which only regulates DUIs after the fact.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Except that marijuana is only legal in the Netherlands in Europe. If you want DUIs to decrease, use education about the dangers of driving under the influence, not prohibition of the underlying cause. Marijuana is currently illegal, but people still smoke it. At least with alcohol, there are TV ads and classes in high school that aim to teach people not to drive drunk. I have yet to see an ad about driving high, probably because of its illegality.Also, how does the DUI incidence of European countries tie into incarceration rates for possession in America? Same drug, but different cultures and different overall issues.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Except that marijuana is only legal in the Netherlands in Europe.In many European countries, it is no longer a criminal offense but a civilian infraction like a parking ticket.If you want DUIs to decrease, use education about the dangers of driving under the influence, not prohibition of the underlying cause.Of course there are better ways to reduce DUIs than prohibition and severe punishments. In a similar debate, I responded to you with a suggestion to regulate all psychoactive substances, including alcohol. The problem comes from regulation of alcohol or cigarettes. Both have giant lobbies. The marijuana lobby does not exist yet.Also, how does the DUI incidence of European countries tie into incarceration rates for possession in America?(I am guessing you were referencing the failed War on Drugs and the racial elements involved. Leave that for another debate.)I was citing the 80% of DUIs being marijuana related. The general sentiment is that alcohol = impaired, marijuana = not as bad (= buzzed). The amount of deaths needed to incite the public into action near the level of the don't drink and drive movement will be pretty high (barely had an effect). By then, it will be legalized in all 50 states and there will be a marijuana lobby.It is not as simple as legalizing it or not.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Right, and tying back into this debate, I think that once pot is legalized in America, we will deal with the issues of education and regulation. But more importantly to this debate, those would-be criminals will no longer be a strain on the prison system, freeing up room for more serious offenders like Tsarnaev.(Obviously a drug offender and the Boston bomber wouldn't be locked up at the same facility)