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

On the contrary, The cost of the death penalty is much higher than other punishments. Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is the same for a Death Penalty case, only more so.More pre-trial time,More experts,Twice as many attorneys,2 trials instead of 1, 1 for guilt, 1 for punishment,And a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in high security of death row.It's also a well-known fact that people with resources get lighter sentences. They can afford better lawyers than others. This is just one fault in our legal system.As the saying goes, Capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Yes, it may cost to execute, however you will be greatly reducing the cost of dealing with crime, as criminals will worry about dieing(for example, murder). The crime rate was higher after the death penalty than before it.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Then you should reduce the costs of the execution. The only reason it is more expensive is because people make it more expensive with a overly complicated process.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impracticalSo if it costs more to maintain, choose the "practical" option? By that logic, no one should have children and everyone should be getting abortions since it costs less to kill a fetus than to bring one up.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I'm sorry, was the convict thinking about how much it would cost to kill the person they murdered? How much it would cost the rapist to rape the rape victim? No, of course not. So I don't think we should, either. Until it comes to absolute necessity, of course.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

That's only partially true. The cost of execution is dependant on the state the prisoner is to be tried and executed in. Some states (such as Texas) have streamlined their court system to more easily accommodate execution. the current plan has been in place for 7 years now and with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction. Texas' system of capital punishment is less than a quarter the cost of housing a criminal for life.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Haha, yeah, hasn't been a single false conviction.... Here's the part you're missing: Texas doesn't allow official investigations into cases where people have been executed. Also, there's an estimated 30% margin of error in terms of innocent people being executed.Also also, 10,000 Executions? That's a surprisingly high number seeing as how there have only been 1191 executions in the COUNTRY since 1976 back when execution became legal. (actual numbers for texas: 448)Also also also, it isn't just the state law that comes into play, it's also federal law. If the prisoner passes through the State collateral review, they can apply for Federal habaes corpus. The court process is long and expensive.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

I was going to reply to his, but then you did it so much better than I was going to! Yay!
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Also, there's an estimated 30% margin of error in terms of innocent people being executed.I will retract my claim that there hasn't been a single false execution. My point is that it is very low. Your 30% by the way is only one of several projections ranging from 1% to 40%. The reason why there is such a wide spread of numbers is because in many capital cases, after many appeals and retrials, the defense is finally able to plant a seed of "reasonable doubt" and a sympathetic jury exonerates the defendant, even when his actual innocence is very questionable. Furthermore, even if it is 30% as you claim, the risk of the average Joe being killed by wrongful conviction is incredibly low. Much less than the chance of getting killed in a car accident. Should we ban cars too?Also also, 10,000 Executions? That's a surprisingly high number seeing as how there have only been 1191 executions in the COUNTRY since 1976 back when execution became legal. (actual numbers for Texas: 448)Actually I was going back to the days or the Republic, so the 1976 legalization and the 448 criminals that were executed after that don't mean much to my argument.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

You do know that Texas has the highest false imprisonment rate, don't you? Predominantly blacks too.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

You do know that Texas has the highest false imprisonment rate, don't youNo, Texas has the highest arrest rate because of their Mexican problems. That is quite different from a false conviction.Predominantly blacks too.And Hispanics. That's because they are committing the majority of the crime.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

You've offered exactly ZERO proof of any of your claims here.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Who are you saying this to? Certainly not Republican2, he gave evidence of his claim.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.I say this:We show we are better than the muder convict by not executing him/her.What does this mean? Well, the murderer (if he/she is truly guilty - a separate reason to be anti death penalty is that sometimes there has been a miscarriage of justice and the convict is innocent!) has shown no mercy by killing someone. If we, that is, the country or the state, extracts an eye for an eye (sometimes on a spurious religious basis) by executing the murder convict we surrender the moral high ground and lower ourselves to the morally bankrupt level of the murder convict. We make ourselves less by doing the same as the murder convict - that is, not valuing a human life.I call for an end to the death penalty in the USA (it has happened already in Europe). It is barbaric for the above moral reason i have outlined.Long prison sentences are the answer.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

just pointing out that you argue to eliminate the death penalty, but your argument is tagged as 'Hang 'em high'
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Excuse me but I believe what you are referring to is justice and letting the person sit in jail while our tax dollars are paying for him to sit there and not be rightly punished is so totally wrong
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

"People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime."- there is no evidence of anyone ever being wrongfully executed in the United States."Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk."- ill answer this with another quote: "if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all." If its not right to put innocent people at risk, then why are people allowed to drive?
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

"But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point."Where did you get these statistics? I can tell you for certain the accuracy is much higher than this.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

I believe in the death penalty 100% too, but I’m disappointed in the non-needed politics behind it. I hear of plenty of obviously-guilty people in the news that committed absolutely deplorable acts that get only life in prison. As a citizen in a state that rarely utilizes the death penalty, I’d like to see THESE people succumbing to their damned fate. States like Texas need to be more conservative in their sentencing of the death penalty, and states like Pennsylvania need to be more liberal. The death penalty needs to become more equalized.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

The death penalty doesn't need to become more equalized. The death penalty is useless deterrent from crime. Granted, someone, who bestows great harm onto a family for egregious acts, doesn't give the government the right to kill that person. The eye for an eye biblical crap is barbaric and outdated. All death penalty should be abolished. If anything, the death penalty is a easy way out for most of the criminals instead of living and suffering in a small cell with crappy food. Maybe instead of killing inmates, they should get rid of more privileges like going outside and visitation. The death penalty is saying that we give up on this person, and we enjoy watching people die.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Innocence The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:  "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx  The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scamhttp://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx  "The Exonerated: Are Any Actually Innocent?"http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/08/21/the-exonerated-are-any-actually-innocent---new-mexico.aspx  Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx  "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx  "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/ Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx   "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D., http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

One, I will agree with you because you have a lot of likes.Second, I agree with you.Finally, this is the right choice for me.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

The death penalty has no place in modern society. It is a primitive, ineffective system based on emotion rather than logic. 1- Cost - It costs way more to put someone to death than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. About 10 times as much. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty  2- Morality - If it's not acceptable for people to kill people, what makes it ok for the government to kill people? The state-sanctioned killing of a country's own citizens is a hallmark of third world nations. State run executions are done in the interest of political gain (usually occurs in dictatorships) or emotional fulfillment (such is the case in America). Either way, nothing is undone with the killing of a prisoner. To quote Gandhi: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"3- Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter anymore crime than the fear of life imprisonment does. The people who commit crimes that deserve such heavy punishments don't think about the consequences. If they did, then they probably wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Also, the death penalty in the US isn't a painful, public spectacle. The criminals have no shame or pain to fear. The death penalty may have deterred crime in the 17 or 1800's, but it is simply out of place in modern society.4- Accuracy - No justice system is perfect, so it is unwise to assign punishments that cannot be reversed. With life in imprisonment, judicial mistakes can be rectified. With death they cannot
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Cost - Includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs. Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives.Morality - When people kill people is usually isn't justifiable. When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias. Even if a person does kill another person justifiably it isn't their job to do it. In the same way it's not their job to arrest people, bank people's money, act as a defence lawyer etc. it is not their job to murder even in a logically, morally, calculated way. They should leave that to the government to make the decision and actions.Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death. Read the statistics on the website you provided and you'll find that less than 5% of criminals get executed. With federal cases averages to about 27%. People know they aren't very likely to be put to death because they are able to appeal, reappeal, rereappeal, rerereappeal, rererereappeal, rererererereappeal and at worst they'll be put on death row but never executed.The problem with the death penalty doesn't lie with the death penalty itself but how it is carried out. It should not be so easy to defeat and be appealed against. For something that's meant to be tough love.. it doesn't really give it. Not only would it reduce costs.. it would also increase the deterrence.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Cost- "Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives." So are you saying that in order to prevent costs we should just kill people without trials or appeals? The fact that life sentences cost less is due to the fact that they are treated no differently than the general prison population and have limited appeals (this is because while the convicted person is alive, the possibility of a wrongful incarceration can be rectified, whereas death sentences cannot.). The whole point of unlimited appeals is to try to explore all possible evidence before an irreversible decision is made. If the death penalty were simply abolished, there would be no endless chain of appeals and therefore cost would decrease.Morality - "When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias." The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."Deterrence - "The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death." Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent. It's like begging a girl day in and day out to go out with her. Eventually she'll say yes. I've got nothing against appeals. It's the number of appeals that creates an inefficient system.The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about? LACK of death penalty is the exact same thing. Infact in todays western world where the majority of people are against death penalties (I think) it's appeasing the citizens by not executing. Life sentences are based on emotions about life and what not.Capital punishment vs Life sentencesKills the guilty vs. MAY, POSSIBLY kill the innocentDeters crime vs. .......no/very limited deterrence on crimeCheap to uphold vs. Expensive to keep a person alive for the rest of their lives.ETC. ETC.Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.Read what I said. There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid. I hope you actually read the link you posted. I hope you read about trials of capital punishment. The trials do NOT the majority of the time clear the guilty to innocent. It plays on people's feelings that this man should not be put on death row due to so and so. NOT because of the reasons you have stated.Look at countries around the world outside of America where the death penalty is more commonly used and see what their society is like. Singapore for example has very little drugs because of its tough stance on it. If countries like America and UK were tough on crime, it would be deterred.. but they're soft and THAT is why crime is so much higher.Appealing against death row plays on feelings.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

Appeals - "Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent." Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point.Emotional appeasementHad you the capacity to understand the argument I was making, you may have answered it better than: "LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about?" I'll make a chart like you did because apparently that's an easy way for you to understand things.Capital punishment vs life in prison-may permanently kill the innocent vs possibility of wrongful incarceration with ability for rectification-convict has no chance for redemption vs convict has opportunity to change-convict is suffers for about 10 years vs convict suffers for 20-30 years-cost 10 times as much per inmate vs lower cost of one regular inmate-provides biblical "eye for an eye" justice vs punishment in a humane and civilized manner-ineffective deterrent (Look at the numbers, and you will see that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those who do. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008) ) vs moderate deterrenceFear of death-"There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid."In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible while incorporating a death penalty system, a lengthy appeals system is needed. You cannot allow your government to kill its own citizens just to prove a point to other possible criminals. Your government needs to spend the time and money going through every bit of evidence to make sure that the decision it makes is justified. Other countries have death penalty systems that are more effective because their citizens don't have the luxury of appeals, countries like China and Iran. Your government shouldn't proceed to end a person's life without adequate investigation because it simply didn't fit into the budget, or thought your life was expendable anyway. The sort of extreme punishment you are advocating may be effective in some places where they flog you for spitting gum on a sidewalk, but its certainly not fair, and certainly not constitutional. For example, I'm certain speeding would stop if people had their fingers cut off instead of being ticketed for violations, but that's definitely not a society I'd like to live in.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Hang 'em high!

Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point.No, no and nope. How many innocent people have been executed..? How many appeals did they have? How many people on trial for deathrow have been proved innocent? a VERY LOW number. MOST of these cases get turned to life sentences. The defendents actually plead guilty so that they're put on life sentences instead of deathrow.I'm all for appeals used to prove innocence. That's not the case I'm afraid. Appeals are used to lessen their sentences.Your chart clearly states that life sentences are for emotional appeasement. I just want to get that out of the way.Your table is bullshit. Only the top 2 hold any weight and that's for a soft stance against crime.In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible etc.Haven't you just proved my point with deterrence? the LUXURY of appeals lowers the deterrence.thought your life was expendable anyway.See, this is where our views are different. I'll put it differently - Sacrifices must be made. I am against taking a person's life for the wrong reasons especially innocent, but for the right reason lives should be taken. Innocent lives MAY (and probably WILL) get taken but that's better than living in a world where justice doesn't prevail.definitely not a society I'd like to live in.I know. I would prefer to live in a society where no death penalty was handed out cause there was no crime. I choose the lesser of two evils.
Debate: Should America ban the death penalty?
Side: Let 'em live

I disagree with all three of your points, but the most telling point is the one you ignored, accuracy. The fact is that we as fallible humans have yet to devise a system that determines guilt with certainty. Death is irreversible and an innocent person who gets executed won't even get the satisfaction of hearing you say "oops".