azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

It may surprise many that I would vote on this side but hear me out.There is a fundamental flaw in thinking to say just because there are problems administering something that we then should ban it from being used ever. Flaws may be fixed, risks may be minimized.I can grant to the opponents that the death penalty really doesn't deter many if any.I can grant that too many minorities seem to get it relative to the national population.I can grant that there probably have been some innocents put to death by mistake.I can grant some of the techniques used to execute are flawed or cruel.I can even grant that the criteria for imposing it should be soooo tight that maybe no one for 30 years would qualify for it.But even after granting all that, it doesn't mean society must tie it's hands to never allow capital punishment under any circumstance. That's bogus. That's like if in the early days of surgery an edict was made there can never ever be another surgery because the way it was practiced then was so horrible and ineffective. Wrong. The processes can be re-thought, the decisions honed.Indeed, there are a small number of people out there (hopefully a very very small number) who are wicked and dangerous enough that the world would be better off to remove them immediately. But yet there are some. There really are some people that bad. And the whole time you incarcerate someone truly that bad you are wasting resources, potentially endangering other prisoners, and definitely endangering guards. Yes, there are some people who do deserve to be executed. The option to do so should remain. It should be very hard to do it. It should be extremely rare. But the option should exist.I also don't buy the hypocrisy argument that society can't kill a killer. Nonsense. We empower police to use deadly force within a parameter, and we empower the military to fight and kill. This is not hypocrisy, it's keeping order in a civilization.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I believe we should have a death-penalty system similar to that of India. It is very rarely used, but when it it, it's to great effect.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I'm for it in principal. My problem is the "innocent man" issue. If we ever have or ever will put an innocent man to death, then the death penalty is not a supportable principal. If you support the death penalty and concede that an innocent man could be put to death, you must be willing to put your name in the hat, with every one else, to have the government execute you by mistake.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Yes. If a criminal does something so diabolical, he gave up his life. Like if the guy who did the Newton shooting survived, everyone would call for his death. I kind of like Oklahoma's and Texas' way; they still offer death by firing squad.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Only in the harshest offenses, and maybe they should uh, cut the costs of doing the deed a bit, eh? The world has enough people on as it is; getting rid of a few bad eggs really shouldn't be much of an issue.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

yes since that would highly discourage people in committing murder and rape. Lately, people have not fear in the life imprisonment since they have the magic of money and power. So death is the only being they can`t bribe or scare.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

We have to many being in jail and prison as it is and it's costing a lot, these people have murder others. They knew what they did and it's time to pay the price instead of them wasting money so they can live until they die.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Jailing someone isn't a penalty, it's just relocation of the individual into a closed environment. I would enjoy that if I knew that I would have a bad life outside. Why wouldn't I just commit a crime and let you, the citizens, pay for me, yes your taxes pays for my well being. Death penalty should be allowed for those who deserves it. In this day it would mean being charged with murder or more murders with undeniable evidences. Yes it is a long process, which takes years. Also now those you are to be executed in US, gets a last dinner; I do not see why you would deserve such a hospitality. In the end I am for Death penalty. It should be allowed for though it solves little, it solves more than not being there.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Yes, string them up and fry 'em! That is what should be done to the group of men who raped the girl in India and ended up killing her! Yes, they deserve the death penalty!
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

not only should the death penalty be retained but also televised so that we can all see the terror on their faces as they are locked into position.this is where the "real" deterrent lies."seeing is believing".whilst the "act'of killing a vile person is kept behind closed doors it will be relatively ineffective in western society.yes i agree that it must be years in the processing to avert the tragedy of getting the wrong person.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Yes, the death penalty should be use as a punishment. I'm not saying it is an effective deterrent, don't really care if it is a deterrent. If your issue is maybe a person found guilty isn't really guilty, then that is a separate issue. Assuming a confidence in the legal system (which I don't necessarily have) the death penalty is very efficient. I would have to advocate that, after all allowed appeals were exhausted, all life sentences (proper life sentence, as in you can't get out prison while alive, not the life sentence = twenty years for a nineteen year old) are converted to death sentences. There is no reason for all the law abiding people should pay for criminals to live their life in a prison. (Prison isn't as miserable for everyone as it seems to be for you.) Now I'm not unreasonable, I think those that get a life sentence converted to a death sentence should get a choice of method of destruction, including heroin overdose, or any preferred method of death. Along with that, anyone that get convicted, without a doubt, of crimes even the anti-death penalty people think should be killed, they should be executed in some fucked-up painful-ass ways. Any suggestions?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Absolutely. If someone is found guilty of a heinous crime beyond doubt, the people should not be responsible to pay for them to live out their lives with more comfort, food, and medical attention than we even allow to our veterans and innocent homeless population. Our prisons are already ridiculously overcrowded and I do believe the death penalty could stop a lot of people from committing violent crimes. We need to crack down on hardcore criminals.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

We are not a killer to do killing or anything that the killer does
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

The death penalty shouldn't be banned as it deters crime. Since people who have done heinous crimes will be executed, other people who intend to commit more crimes will be afraid of the consequences and avoid committing crimes. Therefore, the death penalty shouldn't be banned.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

I see the argument that the death penalty could possibly be used on innocent people, and I totally agree we should only use this penalty when there is full undeniable evidence. People may say that life sentence doesn't let the criminal get off free, but death is the ultimate punishment and you at least have a life in prison, unlike the person you murdered for no reason.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I am against the death penalty. There is no crime which justifies others to kill as a form of punishment, and it is ineffective as a deterrent to prevent crime.The only time where a death penalty is potentially justified is where an individuals continued life is likely to cause large amounts of deaths in the future (so to protect other lives, not as a punishment), such as with OBL (attacks to get him, or terrorists attacks until he was released, and such), and where there is as close to certainty over guilt as possible. This is the only exception that I see as valid - all other state-dealt deaths are nothing other than murder.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

So you are for death penalty in serious cases. Thus you are for death penalty.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

No, because if that was true, so would this be: "so you are against the death penalty in serious cases, thus you are against the death penalty"
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Human life needs to be valued above all other things. If someone is no longer a threat to the public, the government should not have the right to kill them. Once the danger is gone killing a person is simply murder.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

The murderer didn't value it. So why should his or her be valued? Indeed they are no longer a threat if they are chained. They just know that if they wait, they could be threat again or maybe not depending on the reason of murder. Indeed we are not them, we should value the life, including theirs. But then, aren't we simply being naive or just stubborn behind our moral code, which they do not oblige to.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime and put in jail, they can be released if they're found to be innocent.If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you cannot bring them back to life if they're found to be innocent
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Well, you can't give wrongfully convicted people back their time either. If someone was released after innocently serving 15-25 years - then no amount of monetary compensation will give the man his lost time back. Should we refrain from putting people in jail, because they could potentially waste the majority of their life in there?Honestly, if you're going to reject a govermental state security policy on the basis that it may end up killing innocent people, then you should also be consistently against similar policies as well. You'd essentially have to be a hard-core pacifist. Can you support a war against terror if it may end up killing innocent civilians? Clearly, if the loss of innocent life is such a tragedy and even the slightest chance of that happening is enough to condemn the policy - then we can't ever use lethal force for any reason, because there is always a chance some innocent guy may be caught in the cross-fire.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I'm sure almost anyone would take being wrongfully jailed for 15-25 years then wrongfully being executed.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

THATS TRUE SENTENCING INNOCENTS TO DEATH MAKES YOU A MURDERER EVEN IF YOU DONT THINK MURDERING A MURDERER DOES
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

it is not an eye for an eye. it is about giving the fair punishment people need since life imprisonment is a sham and people always get away with it.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONGONG FOR SEVERAL REASONFOR ONE IT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO COMMIT MURDER AGAINST ITS CITIZENS NUMBER 2 MURDERS ARE USUALLY NOT PREMEDITATED AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE TREATED AS MANSLAUGHTER NOT INTENTIONAL THIRD IF SOMEONE IS KILLING SOMEONE EXCEPT IN SELF DEFENSE IT MEANS THEY HAVE A PROBLEM AND NEED PSYCHIATRIC HELP ALSO IT DECIDED BY MEN AND WOMEN THAT COME INTO THE COURTROOM WITH BIASES WITH IDEAS AND MORALS WHO ALREADY HAVE DEFINED OPINIONS AND AREN'T NECESSARILY RECEPTIVE TO A DEFENSIVE ARGUMENT AND THERE IS ALSO THE INNOCENT TO CONSIDER SOME PEOPLE SAY THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE IS STATISTIC LY ACCEPTABLE BUT COULD YOU SAY THAT IF IT WAS YOU UP THERE?NO! TAKING A LIFE FROM A MURDERER IS MURDER SO WHAT DOES TAKING THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT MAKE YOU? EVEN BY AMERICAS MORAL STANDARD IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE THOSE WHO SENTENCE WORTHY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ,IF YOU LOOK AT OUR LAW SYSTEM YOU REALIZE SOMEONE WHO KILLS SOMEONE WHO KILLED THEIR RELATIVES IS PUT TO DEATH AND ISN'T THAT JUST WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

WHY SHOULD SOMEONE ELSE HAVE TO DIE THIS MEANS THEY HAVE A PROBLEM NOT THAT THEYRE KILLERS IF THEY DO THIS THEYRE USUALLY MISSING CERTAIN MENTAL INHIBITORS AGAINST KILLING AND THAT MEANS THEYRE SICK
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Just so you know very few people will take you seriously if YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Haha You rock justified22 Now Let's bring your philosophy to the court and put the government to the jail.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

no there shouldn't be a death penalty aren't we essentially playing god we do not have the right to take someone Else's life no matter the crime thats just what i think
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I just have one argument to say I am against is that when we allow to use the death penalty, what do we differ from the criminals?! We do the same action, we make the same decision - take a life!
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The Death Penalty cannot bring someone back who was wrongfully executed.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

There is absolutely no justification for killing someone. Whether they were horrible people, murderers, terrorists, traitors or serial killers, they still shouldn't be killed. The taking of human lives, is the worst crime that exists, which means that the government itself is committing this crime. The death penalty is the biggest example of why there should be a radical reformation of U.S laws.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

There shouldn't be death penalties anywhere in the world. Just enforced slavery. At least that way's productive...
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Unfortunately that cannot be done as the prisoners retain some of their ''rights''. Should prisoners be stripped off their rights is another debate, but then isn't death penalty a solution to get rid of some prisoners in the most productive way, after all they do live off our taxes, including victims?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

It's 2013! Capitol punishment is a relic of the past. Besides, if someone raped and killed my daughter, I'd prefer they suffered the rest of their life in jail being man-raped by a bunch of rednecks and neo-nazi's than just be given the easy way out.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Wow, a lot of fallacies here. 1. You are generalizing. Not everyone that goes to prison gets man raped. Hell, he might even be the one raping people in prison. But you're incorrect to think that going to jail guarantees a life of butt rapes.2. Why are you assuming the murder was non white? lol raped by red necks and neo-Nazi's?
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Who said anything about the murderer being non-white? I know I didn't say that. I think you've jumped the gun and just assumed that, when talking about crime, someone is talking about non-whites. White people are just as inclined toward criminal violence as non-white people.Why target red necks and neo-Nazi's? Because they love to butt-fuck and they're usually pro-capitol punishment.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Guess so. He's not coming back
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I think that if the murderer wants the death penalty, they should be allowed it if the victim's family agrees- but for crimes of passion and misunderstanding, no death penalty.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

absolutely not. its that kind of mentality that helps aggressiveness linger on by showing that its ok for you to hurt someone who may slightly hurt you or greatly hurt you for that matter. while i'm not against self defense, imagine if you heard a story of someone who had self defended himself and knocked the other guy out to the point of unconsciousness, but instead of calling the police he decides to finish him of with a couple of blows from Maxwells silver hammer. people who are already contained in prison cells cant hurt anyone in normal society so why go the extra step to kill him? if he does pose a threat to prisoners inside you could still even then lock him up in permanent solitary confinement. it seems so unnecessary to have to kill someone, just as long as there is at least a bit of reason to keep them alive whether it be 24/7 solitary confinement or simply putting them in prison. as long as there is a way to keep them alive without them hindering other peoples rights them you should keep them alive. they still have a life to, and for all we know they could make a total spin and become a rehabilitated individual, they could even help rehabilitate other prisoners in a prison as well and do good now where they could not do good before.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I'm inclined to belief, that every crime should have a following punishment, however, from my point of view if government will support such verdict as capital punishment it will not reduce crime rate among people. Moreover, death penalty is just deprivation of life of offender, consequently, not right decision to overcome a real existing problem, it's just eradication of a person. In addition, capital punishment affects plenty of people and ,obviously, their psychology, which can lead to following offenses.Thereby, it is a significant aspect in favor of prohibition of this form of penalty.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

How would you then punish a serial killer? or a hitman? If according to you every crime should have a following punishment.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Pro-Death Penalty

We don't need punishments to solve problems.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Well, the death penalty is something like not giving criminals a second chance, so i don't think it should be allowed, unless for serious crimes like murder
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Well how can you say this is moral,the State has no right to legalize Death Penalty mainly for it is irreversible;Better show mercy and give the culprit a second chance.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

If the culprit murders people, his victims' conditions cannot be reversed either. So what happens when he kills again? A third chance?If you a kill a person on purpose or through recklessness then you should be punished. You have taken away someone else's life. As you have pointed out, that is irreversible. The criminal's freedom is forfeit. Instead of taxpayers paying to keep them alive or to execute them (death row costs more), they should just be put into labor camps where they can actually contribute to society.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The death penalty is final. This means that the court has to be 100% sure of a guilty verdict. Consequently, the death penalty does not account for the possibility of new evidence emerging which could prove vital for proving a man's innocence. The death penalty does not account for the error of forensic technology (e.g. DNA tests). This uncertainty makes it impossible for a court to be 100% sure that a human being is worthy of the death penalty therefore the death penalty should not be a punishment used by the government.
Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I am against death penalty. I believe in what we call “restorative justice”, in which criminals have a second chance to regret their crimes and live another life - because all humans deserve to live. Death penalty chooses no person - even if you’re innocent of the crime. When an innocent is sentenced to death, there is no way to reverse the life that you had taken away. Life imprisonment is more humane because stripping your liberty and rights to live in the outside world is enough for the criminal to think what he’d done.
Debate: Should the Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge abortion as a right?
Side: Abortion is a human right

Freedom of CHOICE is a human right. I don't condone any "frivolous abortion", but, isn't GOD supposed to do the judging??
Debate: Should the Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge abortion as a right?
Side: No, abortion is not a right

Last time I checked it didn't seem as though humans had that much direct contact with God.
Debate: Should the Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge abortion as a right?
Side: No, abortion is not a right

"Nowasaint" seems to have a direct line, along with a few of our other CD friends. Key word: seems.
Debate: Should the Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge abortion as a right?
Side: Abortion is a human right

Not according to the Bible. If you dont have Him leading your life, and talking to you, and giving you understanding in His Word, then you probably dont know Him!