azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Against Death Penalty

ts just flat out wrong,wrong that people can bear to know that they are the reason that someones husband,baby brother died because they think that the punishment for killing should be killing what doe4s that fix,nothing
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Pro Death Penalty

If people know that the death penalty is a punishment, then maybe they shouldnt have committed the crime. If they comit a crime, knowing that it will result in their death, then they might deserve the death penalty- you could say that they chose that ending.
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Against Death Penalty

many people do bad crimes but i think this i wayy do for even if you do the worst thing ever
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Pro Death Penalty

even tho that some people go to jail and learn, but some dont and they never learn unless you put them to a death penalty. so that is why i disagree
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Pro Death Penalty

The crimes you do to get death penalty are brutal, and mostly murder. since the government has put the death penalty this way, there will be equal consequences from what the people have done.
Debate: Should the death penalty be used as punishment for specific crimes?
Side: Against Death Penalty

Nah, the consequences are not equal, not all killers are being killed (including the government)death penalty rather produce equal brutality. We can't lessen injustice if all of us became the suspect. Death penalty just advances unforgiveness, hatred, unempathic , merciless and violent society. You maybe just thinking that its right because you taste the pleasure of being protected while others are being killed.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

It should be used more often.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Go hypocrisy!
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

How is that hypocrisy?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Your right a Pro-life person in favor of more death is not Hypocritical at all.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I'm pro-justice, which means doing what is right regardless of whether it involves life or death, which in the case of abortion is always pro-life and in the case of criminality always pro-punishment, which can be death. We have had this discussion multiple times already. It is not hypocrisy.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It is Hypocrisy but i don't expect the hypocrite to see it.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Your accusation of hypocrisy only works if the pro-life view maintained that all life is sacred and should be preserved. However, the pro-life view does not say that. It says that all INNOCENT life is sacred and should be preserved. That's where the anti-abortion view stems from, that it is immoral to arbitrarily kill an innocent human being for whatever reason.The death-penalty isn't about killing an innocent person. It is about punishing a criminal guilty of the highest crimes. It is about making society safe and removing the elements that endanger it. This is consistent reasoning and there's no hypocrisy in it. Pro-life is about protecting the innocent, the death penalty is about justice and retribution.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

A fetus isn't a human it's part of a pregnant women.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

How is that relevant to the current discussion?This is about the pro-life view's compatibility with the pro-death penalty view. And the pro-life view entails that it is immoral to kill innocent people for whatever reason. That entails the unborn. Now, whether the unborn are people or not is irrelevant and will not change the general pro-life view that it is wrong to kill innocents. This tread isn't about abortions. If you want to debate the status of the fetus, then make a new debate.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Ofcourse children are always part of their mothers'
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It is hypocrisy to say that you are 'pro-life', when you are also 'pro-death'. To distinguish between innocent and guilty is not a 'pro-life' standpoint.The point is that 'pro-life' does not mean that people are 'for life', as the name suggests. It means that people are against abortions. Labels are dumb.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Yes, pro-life is exactly about establishing that it is always wrong to kill innocents people and that since the unborn are without guilt and are people - then it is always wrong to kill them. Just because some pro-lifers make asinine arguments - that doesn't mean that they represent the greater movement or that their arguments deserve attention while ours don't.I merely give the case to my particular brand of pro-life, which I share with many others. The general syllogism follows like this:1. Killing an innocent human being is always wrong.2. The unborn are innocent human beings.Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to kill the unborn.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The general syllogism follows like this:1. Killing an innocent human being is always wrong.2. The unborn are innocent human beings.Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to kill the unborn.Problem with that is that fetuses are not humans.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Again with the red herring:Problem with that is that fetuses are not humans.This is irrelevant to the current discussion. This is about pro-life views and their compatibility with pro-death penalty views.You, at the moment, are not arguing about the compatibility between pro-life and pro-death penalty. Instead, you are arguing about the validity of the pro-life view which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The truth value of an idea has no bearing on whether that idea is logically and normatively compatible with another idea.Again, if you wish to discuss the validity of the pro-life view, make a new debate thread about it.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

If it is irrelevant quit bringing it up.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I didn't bring it up, you did... and I told you that it's a non-sequitur. You ignored that and told me once again that a fetus isn't a human - to which I once again I pointed out that your current line of argumentation is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.There is no inherent inconsistency between pro-life and pro-death penalty no matter how much you want there to be. This is my last post here. You can have the last word if you want.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I didn't bring it up, you didYou where the one who kept saying fetuses are humans.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

No, 'Pro-life', as we commonly use it, says shit all about innocent lives and all of that crap. It's only regarding abortions. The specific arguments that pro-livers use to justify this may use innocent lives, but very specifically, 'Pro-Life' is nothing more than a position against abortions.I'm not saying that Pro-livers wouldn't generally agree with you, or that I disagree with you about innocent lives. I'm just against you defining 'Pro-life' as you wish.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

No, rather they are pro-innocent and a con-murderers
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Why is abortion unjust and retributive murder just? Why is the just response to crime always punishment? Seems to me "justice" could be an easy stand in for personal preference.Also, if you are going to define the issue of the death penalty in terms of the action (punishment) rather than the result (life/death) then in order to be fair I should think you would need to define the issue of abortion similarly (i.e. as either pro-abortion or anti-abortion). You cannot have it both ways and maintain your credibility.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Why is abortion unjust and retributive murder just? It's in the title: retribution. Abortions aren't performed to teach anybody a lesson or to equalize circumstances. A fetus hasn't done anything to be punished for.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It's in the title: retribution. Abortions aren't performed to teach anybody a lesson or to equalize circumstances. A fetus hasn't done anything to be punished for.Retribution has very little to do with teaching a lesson (please note the high rates of recidivism and low efficacy of deterrence punishment has), and thus serves primarily to attempt to satisfy the personal feelings of others. Very rarely does punishment even begin to "equalize circumstances" and it is a self-satisfying practice at best. Retributive justice systems are a contradiction in terms, and it is well-documented that a non-retributive approach actually cuts crime. The question revolves around whether justice is defined as being primarily for the individual or for the society, and in my opinion the law is a social entity and serves a greater function. In the particular case of legally sanctioned murder, I think it becomes further pertinent to consider the ramifications of state sanctioned and conducted homicide. If we value human life how can a state knowingly and deliberately take that life? How does that not violate its own principles and ethics? The only difference between the convicted criminal and the fetus (other than the scientific fact that the fetus may not even be viable to live) is that one has done wrong, however if we claim as a society to truly value human life then it should be unconscionable to take any human life regardless of the circumstances.Furthermore, abortion is not about punishment. It is about female empowerment to have control over their bodies and lives, and especially so when the pregnancy is a consequence of non-consenting sex or endangers the life of the mother. There is a right to self-preservation and autonomy that is too over-looked.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Everyone's so eager to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy these days, as if that had any bearing on the truth of a single belief. Even granting that failure to practice what you preach is an essential character flaw (ignoring that fact that it's pretty much universal and that calling attention to character flaws in place of an argument, no matter how significant, is literally the definition of ad hominem), it's impossible to know whether someone is a hypocrite without intimate knowledge of the bases of their belief. You can't just look at two opinions and say "that's contradictory." An infantryman could be a vegan and you wouldn't know whether he was a hypocrite unless it was certain that, for example, his vegetarianism was an expression of extreme pacifism and not just a health concern, and his participation in aggressive military action was disregard of that. And even then, you and he could quibble about what constitutes hypocrisy for ages and ages.Failure to practice what you preach is dependent on what it is you're actually preaching, and the vast majority of people's opinions can't be boiled down to "THIS AND ONLY THIS FOR ALWAYS" no matter how much you'd like to belittle them.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind -Mahatma Gandhiyour demand for blood does not outweigh other people's right to live.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

This is my first flip flop. I was first anti death penalty, but if the evidence is concete, dealth penalty should be permitted via the decision of the victim or victim's family. The only way to deter murder is with death.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The only way to deter murder is with death.If the death penalty were an adequate deterrent then we would not have murder. Deterrence is a convenient social myth that lacks actual credibility. And if your concern is deterrence, then what difference does the victim's family's opinion make?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Wrong, very few people are executed from murder charges. Deterrence would be established with death row being 100% execution rate given concrete evidence.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

First degree murder involves planning, and generally when someone goes to the effort of planning to commit a murder they do not anticipate getting caught so the death sentence does not factor in their considerations. So long as the chance of being caught is not considered to be 100% then the death penalty is not a guarantee and thus not a successful deterrent. I also do not think that there is any way to actually bring the actual execution rate to 100%, particularly in a "timely" manner, without violating due process. There are reasons that some execution sentences are not carried out.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

It is impossible to suggest that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter some or all first degree murder. Actually, if a state doesn't have the death penalty, it definitely factors into the planning because he knows that even if he gets caught, he has a win win situation due to the fact he can kill while preserving his own life either in prison or free man.The violation of due process wouldn't be violated any more than it is now. Police and courts are so hung up on prosecution rates rather than truth and justice, which then distorts real justice.Excuetion would only be violent offenders.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It is impossible to suggest that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter some or all first degree murder.While I maintain that most individuals who will commit murder will remain undeterred, I am willing to concede that there may be some who factor that added risk into their calculations and are consequentially deterred. However, I would argue that a life in prison is not an insignificant deterrent itself (considering some actually prefer the death penalty) as far as deterrence is possible and that a 100% execution rate only barely raises the chances of deterring someone. I do not think the meager gains of such a policy practice can outweigh the risks of a wrongful execution (which is a documented occurrence). The violation of due process wouldn't be violated any more than it is now. Existing dysfunction and injustice does not in any way make additional dysfunction or injustice permissible or right. You cannot simply add another wrong and dismiss its ramifications by saying the system already commits wrongs.Excuetion would only be violent offenders.Except for when it would be against the wrongfully convicted, and with a 100% execution rate there would be no recourse. Furthermore, execution serves only to satisfy personal emotions and focusing upon a twisted individual sense of justice rather than the larger social value of life is misguided. If the state and society claims to value human life, then the guilt or innocence of that life should not matter. The state and society should refuse to steep to unethical behavior and should actually champion its value of life rather than degrade it.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Psychopaths are the only people that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter, and there are very few. It is more about the respect of someone's life, and the death penalty is that, so it stands that the death and misery they caused would easily be justifiable for death. The death penalty is not about only deterrence, but also to say that life will be protected and murder will not be tolerated. Life in prison is an tolerance of murder. It is basically saying it is okay that you killed, so the burden of your life is in the hands of others to supportThe death penalty is not an act of injustice or additional dysfunction, it is about protecting life from the act of unwarranted aggression.Not only is the wrongfully convicted miniscule in murder cases, but many of those wrongfully convicted cases really a byproduct of overzealous prosecutors, who are looking for catch phrases for future political office based on their conviction rate. Preserving the life of murderers is not valuing life, it is tolerating murder. Life is only a one time deal, and one taking someone's life is disgusting and perserve. Taking the life of an murderer is not unethical, it is moral, the right to life is a natural right, and anyone who defies this right must be punished. Some people can't be fixed.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It is more about the respect of someone's life, and the death penalty is that ... The death penalty is not about only deterrence, but also to say that life will be protected and murder will not be tolerated.Death by execution is inherently disrespectful of life. You claim that life is protected, but the life taken by the murderer is already gone. You cannot protect against what has already happened, and killing someone else does not bring someone back to life (nor does it prevent them from killing any more than a life sentence). If you go back to deterrence then please actually refute my point about the merits versus risks/costs of a 100% execution rate. Furthermore, saying that a life sentence in prison is toleration of murder is a massive stretch of the imagination; tolerating murder would be not responding to it at all. A life sentence is a response, and it is also one which affirms life uniformly. And sure it is at a cost to the taxpayer, but whether or not we execute someone should not be dependent upon the relative financial cost.Not only is the wrongfully convicted miniscule in murder cases, but many of those wrongfully convicted cases really a byproduct of overzealous prosecutorsSo in your view it is perfectly just to execute the innocent because they are already victims of a flawed system? That is sick and twisted. If you value life then you should care about the wrongfully convicted... no matter how miniscule their numbers. If they have not done wrong then it is innately unjust and immoral to execute them which is what your call for 100% execution would require.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Death by execution is inherently disrespectful of life.No death by execution is not inherently disrespectful of life, there must be punishment and proportionality to every crime where it should be clear that the proportionate principle is a maximum, not mandatory. A criminal would only lose his right to life if he had first deprived some victim of that same right, furthermore, in libertarian theory, there would be no compulsion on the plaintiff, or his heirs, to exact this maximum penalty. If the plaintiff or his heir, for example, did not believe in capital punishment, for whatever reason, he could voluntarily forgive the victim of part or all of his penalty. The 100% execution rate solely depends on the plaintiff, not on the state.If you go back to deterrence then please actually refute my point about the merits versus risks/costs of a 100% execution rate. Already did this. The deterrence of proportionality in punishment to murder has merit more over than the risk and costs because those suspects will know the potential outcome if they commit this act. Only psychopaths will deterrence not work because most people value their life over others first so the deterrence of the death penalty is inherent. Eye for eye analogy, and not eye for eye lash.So in your view it is perfectly just to execute the innocent because they are already victims of a flawed system? Unfortunately, your misinterpretation far stretches beyond comprehension from my last post. There is no way that I believe it is okay to execute innocent people because of a flawed system. Way to twist the words. Wrongfully convicted cases are so small tiny, yet it is critically important to prove in court beyond reasonable doubt the murder, and again, most of the wrongfully convicted come from cases of overzealous prosecutors where there may be a lack of real evidence and only circumstantial evidence.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Punishment is a way to show people what is and is not acceptable so they might improve their lives. How can you even consider death as a form of punishment? The person who committed the murder would have no chance to improve themselves and be a morally functioning individual. Everyone has the right to help when they need it. Obviously if someone is disturbed enough to murder there is some psychological problem that must be dealt with so why not at least try? Why kill them because their brain isn't wired like ours or because some traumatic experience drove them crazy? Yes they deserve punishment, but death doesn't accomplish what punishment aims for. It's odd that people would give our government the right to kill people for moral mistakes instead of trying to help them. Would you agree that your code of ethics is based on GPGN (greatest positivity for the greatest number of people)? If this is so how can you call the government killing someone ethical? Death is negative. So the initial killing is negative and the killing of the murderer is also negative. The mourning of the victims family is ended with the death, but the murderers family is now mourning. This has only caused positivity for the victims family and people shouldnt be getting satisfaction from death anyway.