azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing"Your argument here is completely convoluted, and you just contradicted yourself over the course of just two sentences! How could it possibly be true that "capital punishment is what is keeping America alive" if basically (in your opinion) "no state really enforces it"??If anything, this kind of "argument" is an argument for abolishing the death penalty, since it isn't used uniformly across the entire country. It certainly doesn't seem like the portions of the USA that don't have a death penalty are "dying".
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Most other first-world countries don't have the death penalty, but have lower rates of crime, just pointing that out. (I'm for it for moral reasons, against for practical, in case you were wondering.)
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Most of these countries like mine choose to outlaw death penalty did so out of moral convictiction, cant you see the irony/double standard of of killing a killer? unlike what some think here, prison is no picnic,or hotel for that matter,unless you share your home with violent offenders that is!
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I don't think it is wrong to kill a killer because, to put it simply, they started it. Everyone has a chance to be a good, contributing member of society, and if they fail so tremendously in that as to take an innocent life, I don't think they deserve their life. Furthermore, their death can be useful as a crime deterrent. The reason it seldom works in the united states is because we are all very divided on the issue, and can't seem to make effective legislation to ensure it's effectiveness. Also, regarding prisons, there are places in the United States in which people are living in such dire slums that a prison sentence would be an improvement. Because of this, often times people simply don't care who they harm because they have no fear of the justice system.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I agree with you again veronica. If we didn't have the simple threat of death for murder, then people would commit that crime more often. I thought that we should of hanged Sadam Husein high in the court yard of the white house then let the Middle East have him to drag his head thru the streets on a pole!!! Just my personal opinion~! C
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The rest of your "argument" here is merely vengeance disguised as "justice".
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime? If we kill people who commit crimes, do you think that they will commit them again? No, because its impossible. Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime?"You're making a HUGE assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty. We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already!"Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero."You've successfully completely contradicted yourself over the course of just one sentence! Furthermore:"Capital Punishment Doesn’t Deter Crime – It’s a fact"http://www.moraldilemma.observationdeck.org/?p=88 "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."Former Attorney General Janet Reno-No support whatsoever is found for the argument that the certainty or speed of the death penalty provides an effective deterrent to murder. Not a single reputable study has yet to demonstrate the death penalty to be a more effective deterrent to murder than alternative legal sanctions."[Capital punishment] violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand." Thurgood Marshall, former US Supreme Court Associate Justice-Capital punishment is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. When the govt. metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life & human dignity. In a civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society.-There has been a recent drop in the broad use of the death penalty, as indicated by a 60% drop in death sentences, a 45% decline in executions, a smaller death row, and a decreasing level of public support. In public opinion polls, there is a clear upward trend in support for life-without-parole sentences as a substitute for the death penalty. States without the death penalty have fared BETTER in reducing their murder rates than states with the death penalty. The death penalty concentrates millions of dollars on a few people with almost no control over the outcome. There are MUCH better ways to spend the public's tax dollars than on court cases trying to execute people.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

"We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already"- then give me their names."You've successfully completely contradicted yourself"- how?In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard. The American government goes to great lengths to ensure protection for its law-abiding citizens. According to a 2008 uniform crime report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there was an average of 17999.5 murders and non-negligent manslaughter instances per year in the United States between 1998 and 2008. In addition to this, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that an average of 70.4 executions a year occurred between 1998 and 2008. Assuming that there is an individual killer for each murder, this data shows that, averagely, just 0.39% of murders are matched with the execution of the people who commit them. The low number of executions and the very high number of murders demonstrates the difficulty for the U.S. court system to execute an innocent person.The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty. They were the ones who wrote the Eighth Amendment, therefore it cannot contradict their views. Isn't it cruel to society if we give killers a chance to freedom?Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime. Execution by the government is the best form of opposition to murder. Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates. There are other laws that can be attributed to more murder, such as gun laws. Britain, which has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, has an intentional homicide rate that is less than half that of the U.S.. It is, therefore, accurate to say that reform is needed in other laws, not in laws for execution.The death penalty has been used as a scapegoat for many people who are against executions. Louisiana, a state with the death penalty and the highest murder rate in the country, has almost no gun control. The National Rifle Association reports that there is no permit needed in order to purchase handguns, rifles or shotguns in Louisiana. In Britain, the maximum sentence for just carrying an imitation gun, such as an airsoft or pellet gun, is one year in prison. In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation, not stop the executions of murderers which probably has no effect on crime rate.If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives. A sociologist once said that "the actual monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice" referring to capital punishment.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Jeffrey Mark Deskovic was never put to death, so I don't know how that is an example of someone who was wrongfully executed.Ryan Matthew- he wasn't wrongfully executed either.Northwestern University School of Law- Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed."have been exonerated and freed before their executions"- once again, no issue of wrongful executions. "litigation of wrongful convictions"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions."it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions.1987 Stanford Law Review study- "found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death"- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE. This doesn't prove that people were wrongfully executed."Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed"- a sign is not going to prove anything."He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row"- none were proved to be wrongfully executed.It seems like you are trying to show that since innocent people have been placed in jail for very long amounts of time and that people have been exonerated on death row, it must somehow mean there have been innocent people who were killed. I don't understand why you think this because Deskovic, for example, was never killed. When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked. The justice system succeeded in saving the innocent. This proves that the safeguards in place for saving the life of a convict on death row work. It hasn't been proven that these safeguard do not work."...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed."- not proven, but speculated. Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution. It is extremely rare for someone with a large amount of evidence against them to even get to death row. Also, since DNA technology could only increase in efficiency in the future, the chance of wrongful execution could only decrease."...says who??"- if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established. Obviously, none of them chose to end it, it continued."There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent!"- like I said before, it may have a low deterrent effect, but it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again. That is deterrence."At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??"- it has never been proved that that has occurred.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed.""1987 Stanford Law Review study- 'found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death'- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE."Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed, and some of them in recent years have been lucky enough to have been exonerated. If you don't want to believe that this has happened in the past (and that it's all just something that has happened recently), then so be it...continue to put your head in the sand & see if I care."When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked"...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!"Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution."Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break..."if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established."LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment. I appreciate it!"it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again"...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period."it has never been proved that that has occurred"...in your own closed mind that is...ugh...
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

"Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. "- i thought it sounded kind of like that when I was typing it out because I had to constantly tell you that your information didn't mean anything. If you go through all of the cases that were shown by researchers, none of them prove that the person involved was wrongfully executed. They may show that there is some evidence to suggest that they may have been killed while innocent, but there is no evidence that proves they were completely innocent."The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed"- like I just explained, that is not a fact."...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!"- why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future? If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?"Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break..."- are you kidding me? You don't have to be a "Supreme Court expert" to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution. How is that so difficult to understand?"LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment."- i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred. They would have made sure to ban capital punishment, instead of allow its continued practice, if they were against it."...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period."- but because of changed laws, there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life."...in your own closed mind that is...ugh..."- how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"that is not a fact."Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even."why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future?"Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure..."If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?"Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!"You don't have to be a 'Supreme Court expert' to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution."Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty. The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups. It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good."i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred."Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote. So, I guess we should go back to doing all that now, eh?? Please, you have yet to cite a single quote from ANY of the Founders about the death penalty. In fact, I'll bet that you don't even know or care how they felt on the issue, period."there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life"...or been executed, period."how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?"Ugh...we're done here buddy...move along...I'm not responding to you on this issue anymore...there's no point to it...
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

If the death penalty deters murder (as you claim) then why does Europe have a lower murder rate even though they've outlawed the death penalty?
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Europe has alot of other leagal variables you're not taking into account. variables that we in the U.S. don't have and therefore have to use the death penalty.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

One of the main issues with how differently Europe and the US handle this sort of thing.Racial and cultural norms are far more varied here than it is in Europe and even among several different racial demographics, we can see that there are still cultural differences that exist in these demographics, that just do not exist in the same level in Europe, as they do here in the US.Though this also stands to recognize that comparing the two in such a way, is somewhat of a fallacy. Especially given how different the culture between them is.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

They have a lower murder rate probably because the criminals know they can go back and violate their victims again since the EU's laws are so lax regarding the sentencing of violent offenders. Having the criminals know their victims are unarmed, thanks entirely to those of this world that put the lives, freedoms and liberties of criminals way before those that are moral and law abiding, is of course a hand up to the criminal themselves. So it just goes hand in hand that the EU's choice to favor the criminal, not sentencing them and giving them easy prey, is just a bonus for them to spend the rest of their lives, if they somehow manage to actually do something so heinous as to be put in prison, being pampered by the gracious tax payers.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Look violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty, period.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

That is a very generalized statement to make. Please give some evidence to support your claim.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty"Countries that don't have the death penalty have LOWER crime rates. Also, within the USA, murder rates are consistently lower in states that don't have capital punishment.The USA has the fifth highest murder rate in the world:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders India is number one, and they still have capital punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Have you considered the possibility that these other countries got rid of the death penalty because of their lower crime rate? It seems that you're assuming the correlation between crime rate and countries with capital punishment is that the death penalty encourages crime.
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

I would say yes, but I don't want Garry to come by and accuse me of being a crazy animal murderer again.
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

I'm going to send him a link for this debate!
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

As should humans. (We are animals also.)Only animals specifically bred for that purpose, as there are animals bred for food.When it comes to humans then only those who qualify for it, for example criminals who may not be in general population till they die. And through cloning. Then there are the volunteers, for "harmless" experiments, whose effort will of course be compensated.
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: No

humans are not animal's and dont say that we evolved from monkeys because we did notYah Fools
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

dont say that we evolved from monkeys because we did nothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution And there's a long list of references and further reading down there.
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: No

evolution is fake God made you retard learn it. Also Wikipedia is sooooooooo wrong random people put stuff in there and the creator does not even careYah Fools
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

god is fake evolution made you retard learn it. do you have any proof that the artilce is wrong besides your mythology book.?
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: No

no because you got brain washed by the computer but certainly you don't realize that
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

because you got brain washed by the computer but certainly you don't realize thatsays a person brainwashed by Christianity.noof course you don't have proof
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

srom is my brother he explained it to you but you ignored like selfish fool OH i forget you are fools lol
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: No

srom is my brotherso thats why your so brainwashed.he explained it to you but you ignored like selfish fool OH i forget you are fools lolhe explains things just about as good as you which is quite bad.
Debate: Should animals be used for scientific experimentation?
Side: Yes

my parents taught us about the truth and we choose to believe and srom did brainwash me I choose to follow Jesus unlike you