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

The cultural example may have been a poor one for the topic, it was simply meant to illustrate that a person can be murderous without actually being sick. I have gotten off track from the topic. The fact that I agree with the death penalty has little to do with how humane I think it is or isn't. So I will concede that lethal injection is most likely not humane. I don't however find this to be reason enough to discontinue it.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

An important distinction, and one I made in a response elsewhere before reading your clarification. You may feel free to disregard that point where I made it as you clearly recognize the difference on your own accord.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

I do not think they should be killed that way. they should die by being tasted on.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

Testing on them would be profitable. Which means it would also be profitable to falsely accuse innocent people so that you have more test subjects. I think testing is a bad idea.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Killing any body is humane. But what must be done must be done.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

By what rationale is lethal injection (or any other form of execution) something which must be done?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

It really depends on the context and the crime. Some states have adopted the death penalty for certain crimes against children. These states saw a drop in such crimes though there isn't a significant decrease in other types of crime as a result of the death penalty.The idea of the death penalty as a disincentive to crime is valid for some types of criminals but not for others. In order for the disincentive to be taken seriously, the actual punishment must be carried out.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

I would have to see the research from which I presume you are drawing your observations. Such conclusions are frequently misrepresentations of correlation as causation.You further presume that the relative (and questionable) disincentive for a crime is an adequate justification for the taking of another human life. That the punishment must be enacted to secure the purported benefit of the disincentive is not an innate justification for the overall necessity of the disincentive itself. I would argue that this is an especially difficult justification to make where non-fatal crimes are concerned, given the innate disproportionality of the sanction.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

I would have to see the research from which I presume you are drawing your observations.It was a lecture. So I'm afraid I have no source to site.That the punishment must be enacted to secure the purported benefit of the disincentive is not an innate justification for the overall necessity of the disincentive itself.If it can be found that the death penalty is actually a disincentive to particular heinous crimes, it justifies itself. It can be argued that the disincentive isn't effective, but if it is then what else needs to be said? At least until there is a more effective disincentive.I guess the flip side to this question is this; given a particularly terrible crime, what is the justification for not killing the perpetrator?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

It was a lecture. So I'm afraid I have no source to site.Then I am afraid I cannot take it on face.If it can be found that the death penalty is actually a disincentive to particular heinous crimes, it justifies itself. It can be argued that the disincentive isn't effective, but if it is then what else needs to be said? At least until there is a more effective disincentive. I guess the flip side to this question is this; given a particularly terrible crime, what is the justification for not killing the perpetrator?You have still neglected to provide evidence for your claim that deterrence is actually effective. Harsh punishment is not correlated to, let alone causally linked with, a decrease in crime. This is borne out by the fact that the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world and one of the highest rates of government executions, yet still has a relatively high rate of crime when compared to other countries with more lenient laws and no death penalty. Moreover, internal variation within the U.S. itself indicates that the South has higher violent crime rates than the Midwest and New England areas, despite having the preponderance of state executions. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3,, Source 4)Making the mighty assumption against the evidence, then, that a disincentive is created by implementing a particular punishment also does not create an immediate sanction for its use. If your logic were accurate, we might suspect the death penalty to be an effective deterrent against car theft too since the gains are seriously outweighed by the risk of execution. Yet few would likely support implementing the death penalty for car theft. The only other qualifier you provide is that it is a logical option for "particularly terrible crime"... but there is no objective bright line for identifying what fits that standard. The reality is that particularly heinous and violent crimes are generally non-responsive to retroactive punishment because those committing them do not think ahead to the consequences, do not believe they will be caught, or do not care about what happens to them. In some cases, especially with instances of sexual crimes, the crime is a consequence of identifiable mental illness which expressly means that the most effective action is increased mental health resources, not prison and executions. You ask why we should not kill a criminal for committing a "particularly terrible crime". My response in short is because the action is not a consequence of free will, that execution does not deter crime, that there are more effective actions available, and that in carrying out an execution we are undermining the very right to life which we claim to hold in such high esteem. Additionally, it is an altogether different question to ask why we should not execute criminals and whether that execution is humane. Even if we should execute them, the act may remain categorically inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

All human action is a consequence of biological predisposition conditioned by environmental exposure. This includes all actions which have been, are, or could be punishable by state sanctioned execution. To kill another human being for actions beyond their control is inherently inhumane.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

All human action is a consequence of biological predisposition...To kill another human being for actions beyond their control is inherently inhumane.Predisposition is not the same as predestination. This seems to be more a debate over free will. If it is, there's not really more to say since the people in government are predisposed to carry out death sentences and all of it is beyond out control.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

My argument was not one of predestination, as that is theological, but of secular determinism. I am not arguing the non-existence of free will but presenting it as the framework behind my argument on the particular issue of lethal injection. I can divorce my arguments from a framework no more than you can. Your conclusion regarding the predisposition towards execution is premature and over-simplistic. Thinking that free will is a mythical non-reality is a causal variable capable of differently affecting human thought and action. We do not control what response we have, but there is no reason to presume that a continued preferentiality for executions given that altered variable. In fact, as our awareness of human cognitive processes and behavior has developed the death penalty has become more constrained and in some places wholly abolished. More specifically, many legal courts have begun to introduce considerations for criminal insanity as a consequence of research indicating that such conduct is not under the control of the criminally convicted.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's painless

My argument was not one of predestination, as that is theological, but of secular determinismThat's true, though the same practical conclusions can be drawn from either.as our awareness of human cognitive processes and behavior has developed the death penalty has become more constrained and in some places wholly abolished.This for many reasons other than science. Don't make the correlation causation mistake. many legal courts have begun to introduce considerations for criminal insanity as a consequence of research indicating that such conduct is not under the control of the criminally convicted.I guess this is my point. Our justice system is based on the idea of free will. If we conclude it does not exist, how do we justify holding anyone responsible?
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

That's true, though the same practical conclusions can be drawn from either.I make the distinction to make it expressly clear that I do not believe that we have any destiny; there is no purpose to our existence. This for many reasons other than science. Don't make the correlation causation mistake.I never asserted causation, but identified a correlation as a prospective basis for concluding that the two may be related. I am curious, though, as to what you might consider these nebulous "other reasons" to be. I am unfamiliar with arguments against the death penalty not somehow grounded in our developing knowledge of human neurobiology. I guess this is my point. Our justice system is based on the idea of free will. If we conclude it does not exist, how do we justify holding anyone responsible?That our system is premised upon a false presumption is innately problematic. That we should have to revisit our response to crime and criminality is not. Responsibility does become irrelevant, but compassionate accountability remains a practical consideration. Rather than continuing to approach crime from the ineffective and purely reactive angle of punishment and retribution, we are able to finally evaluate those actions which will actually protect and benefit both individuals and society. Proactive mental health services and behavioral interventions become prioritized, and incarceration is a final resort taken when other options are exhausted. Incarceration ceases to be the go to reaction, and it further ceases to be a matter of punishment. Care need not be cruel or retributive. We are not punishing the individual, but holding them separate for their well-being as well as that of the general public.
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Killing any human (against their will) is inhumane. A lethal injection is just a more humane way of doing an inhumane thing, it still is not humane
Debate: Is Lethal Injection Humane?
Side: It's Cruel

Beheading by guillotine is technically the least painful means of killing someone. Its quick and if there is any pain associated with it, you'd be in pain for less than a fraction of a second. When you really think about it all "modern" execution methods: lethal injection, electrocution, and poisonous gas are very sadistic by comparison.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Ugh,I'm so tired of this rosey view of history. People live longer, have more stuff and more freedom, and are far healthier than they have ever been in the history of the world, and on a large scale.If you want to know what it was like to be an average Joe in the early 1900's move to a third world country and you'll get a good idea.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

First, we must consider the question of how to 'rate' life. I would consider happiness, health and prosperity to be the primary factors. HappinessThis is the most difficult issue to deal with. People who lived in the early 1900's would not have known of the possibilities that are granted by modern technology, so it is reasonable to assume that they would not have felt overly unfulfilled due to the relatively primitive level of civilization they inhabited. An analogy: a Playstation 2 is perfectly acceptable to a child, the superlative form of electronic entertainment, until said child sees the capabilities of the Playstation 3, whereafter the inferiority of the former becomes readily apparent.So we must assume that our primary advantage in this area is the intrinsic happiness found in pursuing those possibilities; visiting the Caribbean, attending concerts, electronic entertainment, accessible music, etcetera. HealthWhen Alexander Fleming accidentally discovered Penicillin's bacteria-fighting capabilities in 1928, humans took the first tentative steps on the road to modern antibiotics. Before said, the options for fighting bacterial infections were limited at best. Naturally, the introduction of antibiotics has lead to a significant decrease in mortalities from said. In addition to this, innumerable advances have been made in surgery practices, understanding of human anatomy, treatment vectors etcetera. Today, humans live to an average age (1) of 76.5, contrasted with 49.2 in 1900.ProsperityIt is necessary to look beyond the current adverse circumstances in this area. Massive advances in manufacturing techniques and technology have allowed us to bring products to almost the entire developed world. In addition, modern agricultural practices have virtually eliminated hunger from the civilized world. In no other era has the common man had such wealth to his name.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

we have made some progress. i admit there are still a lot of problems, but over all we have improved ourselves. Most importantly, at least to me, we have gotten closer to equality for all, with the exception of a few bigots.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

All things considered, being human has never been better.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Yes, it is all due to capitalism. Capitalism creates wealth, which develops progress in technology and knowledge.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Yes, it is all due to capitalism. Capitalism creates wealth, which develops progress in technology and knowledge.You're joking, right?The 1900s were nearing the end of the Industrial Revolution nightmare, where there were no social programs to help those who were literally starving due to poverty. The stock market crash in the coming decades only made things harder for many people, and it occurred with a lack of regulation and law.I'd say that we juggled with knives the better part of the last century and got where we are in spite of capitalism.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: No

You're joking, right?Seriously, when is the Industrial Revolution rhetoric going to end?Is this really your only argument? We been over this multiple times.Industrial Revolution was the stepping stone to America's success, and if it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution, America would have been stagnate for years of technological and scientific advancement.Government is simply to slow to adopt to market changes.The stock market was not the cause of the Great depression nor was capitalism was the cause of the Great Recession.The cause was of government interference in the market, it was not because of the lack of regulation or law, it was the act of failed government polices.Capitalism is simply unable to fail because there is no central planning.I'd say that we juggled with knives the better part of the last century and got where we are in spite of capitalism.So, you are going to tribute America's success to government?Give me a break!Capitalism is the sole reason for the technological and scientific advancement in America.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Delete......................................................................................................
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Seriously, when is the Industrial Revolution rhetoric going to end?If you're asking me seriously: when people learn from that very tragic history and resolve not to repeat it. That is when I will stop bringing it up.Industrial Revolution was the stepping stone to America's success, and if it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution, America would have been stagnate for years of technological and scientific advancement.Correct. So why won't you acknowledge that it caused a nightmare to the workers during its period in Britain and America?Does your reasoning preclude the ability for a technological stepping stone to have bad social consequences?Government is simply to slow to adapt to market changes.No argument here.The stock market was not the cause of the Great depression nor was capitalism was the cause of the Great Recession.Free market capitalism allowed and in fact encouraged insider trading, and all sorts of corruption surrounding the stock market. I say encouraged because this was a viable way to make a large profit in the market, through abusing the system.It also failed to provide on its own a private-sector version of an economic safety net. The government had to do this later.In other words, without state regulation the market failed to regulate out behaviours that could cause market collapse and failed to provide its own solution to a collapse before the recession happened.Capitalism is simply unable to fail because there is no central planning.By your reasoning species shouldn't go extinct.So, you are going to tribute America's success to government?Life is more complicated than that. We became a success in the middle part of the twentieth century because of science, local industry, a war that drove innovation and fostered a new culture, and regulations that made the market safer.Capitalism is the sole reason for the technological and scientific advancement in America.Derp!
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: No

when people learn from that very tragic history and resolve not to repeat it. That is when I will stop bringing it up.So, was the most prosperous time in Humanity's history of all classes a tragic history?Correct. So why won't you acknowledge that it caused a nightmare to the workers during its period in Britain and America?No, as already mentioned, it wasn't as bad your governmental sources gain.No argument here.Yet, you worship it like a god.Free market capitalism allowed and in fact encouraged insider trading, and all sorts of corruption surrounding the stock market. I say encouraged because this was a viable way to make a large profit in the market, through abusing the system.It also failed to provide on its own a private-sector version of an economic safety net. The government had to do this later.In other words, without state regulation the market failed to regulate out behaviours that could cause market collapse and failed to provide its own solution to a collapse before the recession happened.Derp!! This is fun. You are a robot reading right from the liberal rhetoric handbook guide, yet you deny it. SAD!!!By your reasoning species shouldn't go extinct.Irrelevant to this topic. Next...Life is more complicated than that. Your deluded mind only makes it think it that complicated.Government doesn't do anything correct. Never did never will. Government wastes.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

I can now call someone across the world in seconds, we have several machines and people constantly going to and from outer space, there are computers, smart phones, robots that assist cripples, etc. Don't try to tell me life was better back then because you're feeling nostalgic. Move or be moved.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

We was almost in another great depression, but we have life much easier now a days
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: No

And like of both of these depressions, government created both of them.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

And like of both of these depressions, government created both of them.Just like how our own government made 9/11 happen.Seriously.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: No

Just like how our own government made 9/11 happen.Seriously, more irrelevance?Failed Policies of the GovernmentGreat Depression of 1929The Creation of the Federal ReserveFederal Reserve overinflated the money supply.Great Recession of 2008Government laws forcing banks to loan money without the means to pay for the house.Federal Reserve Inflationary polices.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

The Great Depression occured because of a free market crash. The Free Market crashed because there was no oversite or rules of practice. We got out of the Great Depression by implementing vast government programs and project works, and we set up safety nets like Unemployment Insurance, which is the only thing that saved us from another great depression this time - which again almost occured because of a free market crash due directly to rampant deregulation of the free market since the 80's.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

The Great Depression occured because of a free market crash. The Free Market crashed because there was no oversite or rules of practice. We got out of the Great Depression by implementing vast government programs and project works, and we set up safety nets like Unemployment Insurance, which is the only thing that saved us from another great depression this time - which again almost occured because of a free market crash due directly to rampant deregulation of the free market since the 80's.He won't listen because in his mind anything that contradicts Libertarian Policy is a government conspiracy.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

We still have problems today, but life considerably better. We have higher living standards, better food, advanced technology, higher life expectancies, better medicine, better transportation, better communications, more scientific answers and discoveries, etc.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

a recession then meant you might have to go without food for a few days, a recession now means you might only get one holiday this year.
Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

Life is better somewhere yet not Myanamar. The country is still blocked and do not receive any support from other except Chinese.------------http://www.myanmartravel.com