azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Violence and death only begets more violence and death. Killing a man for killing a man just makes you as despicable as him. There is nothing righteous about the death penalty. There's righteousness in the protection of the innocent and the such, but not the killing of a helpless prisoner.All you do when killing a killer is make people around you subtly believe that killing a killer will somehow put an end to all murder, when this is oxymoronic and hypocritical.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Not really. The murderer killed an innocent person. Killing him was the punishment for the crime. By your obviously flawed logic (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) murderers are innocent. I'll remember that if someone kills you. I'll make sure the judge knows you thought murderers are innocent.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Killing him was the punishment for the crime. By your obviously flawed logic (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) murderers are innocent.My logic is to treat him better then he treated his victim. 'An eye for an eye' is a silly means of interpreting violence, because then everyone ends up blind. Just because we don't commit the crime against him that he committed upon an innocent person doesn't mean he's innocent himself. He's not. But the point is to be better then him and punish him in a different manner.It's like you assumed that I think we shouldn't kill them and instead release him, which is most definitely not what I said.I'll remember that if someone kills you. I'll make sure the judge knows you thought murderers are innocent.Ooh, look at you, full of righteous fire. So I think it's not right to kill someone as a punishment means I want to let them go? Again, I never said this. They're criminals, no doubt, but killing them just makes us murderers that adds to cycle of violence.And since you're so full of hatred and sadism yourself, apparently, just because a human being is a criminal, think of it this way: death is a mercy, suffering while living is not. Certainly since you're a violent person yourself, why not just keep the prisoner alive and whip them everyday? You'd like that, huh?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"And since you're so full of hatred and sadism yourself."Look who's talking! Here, I'll quote you:"Killing a man for killing a man just makes you as despicable as him."Yeah, so since you are so full of hatred and sadism yourself, I think you would love to just let him walk away, free as a bird. You'd love that, huh?"'An eye for an eye' is a silly means of interpreting violence."Better than a eye for nothing (or less). The funny part about your side is it's OK if someone else has to sacrifice as long as it isn't you; but if it is you then OOOOHHH NO! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! (E.G. For example, we should tax the pants off the rich because they have too much money, but apparently there is no such thing as the middle class having too much money.)"Just because we don't commit the crime against him that he committed upon an innocent person doesn't mean he's innocent himself."There you go again with your obviously faulty logic (and again it's a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid). Will you please stop using logical fallacies in your arguments? You can't just assume the death penalty is a crime. It isn't. It's like saying this: "Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people all the time, therefore surgeons are criminals." You can't just assume stuff like that. Therefore your logic (and entire argument) is invalid. But then again, you proved to us all that your logic sucks when you said this:"My logic is to treat him better then he treated his victim."Yeah, that's sure teaching him a lesson.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Can't deny bro, all types of killing is violence either killing the innocent and inmate .
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

More expensive, hypocritical and not proven to be any worse than solitary confinement. Hell yes I disagree with it.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I think that it should be done by blade. Who would want to die strapped up to a chair?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

More expensive? Electricity is cheap. Prison's are expesive to build and expensive to run, not to mention the cost of living.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Not the execution itself, but the cost of Death Row is far higher than life imprisonment.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/ us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.T8-0VdVfFn4
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Interesting, the article doesn't mention why. It just says it is. Hard to believe this article.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I thought that was obvious. The cost of keeping a prisoner on death row, combined with the cost of lengthy appeals and court cases, and you'll find that the cost dwarfs that of life imprisonment.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Then instead of getting rid of the death penalty, maybe we should lower the cost of the lengthy appeals and court cases. Eliminate the costs, not the punishment.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Then you end up with miscarriages of justice. The price is necessary for a completely fair trial, with no stone left unturned, and no appeal rejected without thought.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Yes, but you also don't account for how many people escape from prison and don't get caught. It's more than the "miscarriages of justice". So before you try to fall back on the "killing someone who's innocent" wooden leg, don't forget the murderers who escaped from prison and weren't caught. And the funny thing is it's a higher number than what your stupid number is. Don't believe me? Just check out your local law enforcement's website, or the FBI's website and see how many escaped convicts there are. The FBI even give out generous rewards for capturing them. Then you could spend the money on learning the facts about the death penalty.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I can't be bothered to have 2 ongoing discussions, so any rebuttals I make will be on the other side.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

prisons are profitable to run..... if they were not how would a private prison survive?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Historically, the death penalty has not had any effect on crime. For example, in England, the crime for pick-pocketing used to be public hanging. During the hangings, there was a high rate of pick-pocketing. Also, studies show that the serverity of a punishment is unrelated to it's effectiveness. The swiftness and certainty of it are. Therefore, to decrease crime, there should be court reform to make courts more effective, not a death penalty.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I simply think that since we are all humans, and since none is superior to anybody by right, to think to have the right to kill, or make kill, someone has no logical sense? Please, don't forget what all the great Religions, irrespective of where they are spreading, base on the same, deep, ideal: love anyone, even your worst enemy. Most people could, erroneously, answer saying: "it's easy for you to talk like that, what would you do if someone killed your daughter? Wouldn't you kill him? Or, at least, wouldn't you ask politics for a sentence to death?" Well, let me tell you one thing: this is right the reason why judges and courts were established; when someone gets hurt, immediately he wants revenge: right in this moment there should be a super partes administrative body who, far-off to be involved emotionally, it would help you to have justice, without yielding to one of the worst diseases in the world: resentment.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Why kill someone for doing wrong. If they killed someone, killing them won't bring the deceased back to life. It won't make everything better. You're just sinking to as low/lower than them. If you're innocent, and you are on death row for 10, 20, maybe even 50 years, i cannot think of any worse mental torturer.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"It won't make everything better."Yeah it will! If one of my friends/family was murdered, and his punishment was death; then at least justice was served.And the amount of people who are innocent as compared to the amount of people who are guilty; it doesn't add up. So quit trying to weasel that in. It only matters if it's a huge number.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

justice was served.Killing shouldn't be considered as justice bro. Ask the executioners, they feel like they did something wrong, they will just think they're doing the right thing because they have avenged the victim but there's still guilt on their system since they victimized the inmate.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

First off all Idk if u have ever been in a life or death situation but Idk if u would be saying the same thing if u had and there is alote of killers behind bars still killing people on the our streets without even doing it them selves I don't think most of these people on this site know realty having more time in jail just makes u a better killer inside/ out execution stops some from acting on killing not everybody
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

You are sinking to as low/lower than themI don't think that's true. Delivering justice is something good that isn't sinking, regardless of the method it is delivered by.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

No. The death penalty is completely, irrevocably wrong.What makes the man who pulls the trigger or adminsters the injection any different from the killer himself? At the end of the day the killer is being punished for ending a life. How is it NOT hyprocritical and moronic to punish him by ending his life?More importantly, what gives a regular person, a judge, the jury, what gives any of them the right to decide if a person should live or die? Nothing gives them that right. We're all the same. My final point is, whether you believe in the afterlife or whether you think once we're dead this is it, do you not think death is the least punishing form of punishment? If there is an afterlife, the killer will go where he deserves to (and that will differ - everyone will have a different opinion) if there is nothing, then that's it, nothing. The murderer ceases to exist and I think we can all agree that that cannot be a form of punishment since he no longer exists.If you want to punish a murderer, I'm all for life sentence. This will sound horrid, but I'm even for a little bit of torture. The family and friends of the deceased will want to see that murderer put through the same amount of pain they went through.I think those debating the cost factor in this whole issue are, frankly, ridiculous. What you're saying is that you would basically kill someone if it saves you some money. Life and death decisions should NOT be based on money.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

You're right on one thing: the death penalty is morally wrong and a horrific way to "rehabilitate" someone. That's what prison's about, right? Rehabilitation?Anyways, what you say about torture is so out of this world that I don't feel like I should respond to it, but I will. We must look into why the person raped a child or murdered a father. Under what conditions was this person raised for them to have been able to shoot someone in the head or to physically abuse a child?Taking revenge is a short term fix that will wear off quickly. You will find your true solace after you make peace with what that murderer/rapist did.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

No. Death penalty is not the solution to the rising crime rate. If death penalty were the solution for such criminal actions, then people who are "good" and have contributed to society deserve to live forever. Instead of death penalty for nefarious criminals, we could keep them alive and make them useful by allowing them to contribute back to the society (Community Service). All in all, everyone has the right to live.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Make them cycle on exercise bikes with dynamos to produce electricity!
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

the death penalty is wrong because killing is wrong. i say this not on any kind of religious basis, but one of humanity. if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not. the fact that it has been shown not to be a deterrent in preventing crime shows that it is not effective, since part of its use was the fear of being put to death. the use of the death penalty is an act of revenge which cannot be undone, so should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder. i think that life without opportunity of parole is the more humane and just punishment instead of the death penalty.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not.Remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family. And by your statement, accidental killing is also murder.should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder. The term "Murder" is a legal argument. Murder is the inlawfull killing of a human being. If they follow due process, they did the best they could do. I'm certainly not arguing in favor or disfavor of the death penalty, I'm only responding to some of your claims that I disagree with.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

"remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family."This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door. I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community."the term murder is a legal argument. murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. if they follow due process, they did the best they could do."tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought. with technological advances in not only investigation but in evidence collection and preservation (dna is a huge one) more and more could be proven innocent, which makes no difference if they are already dead at the states hand.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought.That only shows the law system is wrong and very flawed, not that killing is wrong.Killing is wrong only if it is not justified.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Killing is always wrong because we forcely take away the life of others, we do unto others what we don't want to do to ourselves. If we kill an inmate, we're doing what the criminal does which is mercilessly killing and being inhumane just like them.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door.That's laughable. No. It's realistic. I, by no means am paranoid that I will be attacked at any second, holding a gun in a shaking hand. I am trained on the proper use of a gun if in the worse case scenario happens and I need to protect my family. I intend to call the law enforcement and emergency response if I am able to do so, I also intend to only use a gun if no other option is available, but I am not afraid to use it if that scenario becomes reality.I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community.I've lived in a rural area. But most of my life I lived in a popular city, crime happened everyday. Police, fire and ambulance sirens were normal by the hour. This is not the "media" twisting what crime really happens for a story. It's reality. I have lived in the city, I've lived in the country where crime rarely occurred, and I now live in a suburb, crime is medium. I am educated about what types of attacks are more likely to occur in what scenarios and how to act accordingly. My education has paid off. I would much rather know what do to and have the resource to defend myself or my family, than to assume that I do not need to simply because "crime is low" and will take the risk of my life or my family's life by ignoring how to defend myself or them.tell that to the innocent people who have been executed.Apparently you ignored my statement that includes "If they follow due process". If they follow due process, innocent people being convicted would be rare. And even in the rare situations, it's sad, but it's the best method we have right now.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I find it interesting that you focus on my wording of the argument rather than the argument, this is the mentality of someone who has no basis for their own. you obviously have your obtuse view of the world in which the gun toting, john wayne (or waynette) guns down the bad guy and everything is hunky dory when the curtain drops. Your point about your view of the crime rate goes to prove my point that you are uneducated in what kind of crime you are really afraid of. Because sirens go off does not mean there is someone being murdered. Fire and Ambulance run sirens as well, and police will run sirens based on their initial reports, too many of those turn out to be nothing calls where no one is hurt or even in danger. Due process relies on human judgement, which you prove can be swayed by personal bias. Until there is a fool proof method you cannot rely on human judgement which has proven time and again to be faulty.Your entire argument is based on ZERO fact, and your opinion of your small view of the world only.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"Because sirens go off does not mean there is someone being murdered."Yeah, but because sirens go off does not mean there is not someone being murdered. Do you know exactly what the siren to murder ratio is, or do you just choose not to educate yourself about what kind of crime you are really afraid of?"...you cannot rely on human judgment which has proven time and again to be faulty."Yeah, including the human judgment that says that the death penalty is wrong. That could be faulty too.This entire straw man (and yeah, this is a straw man) is based on ZERO fact, and your opinion is only a small view of the world only (I think that's what the second half of your sentence was meant to say; and no, I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, it's just kinda unclear).
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Lets address this like this: because you say that I argue a straw man argument here are some links for you. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl23.xls This one will show you the national crime statistics by the FBI for year 2010 (2011 isn't available yet) this will emphasize my point that while in 2010 there were 12996 murders (nationwide) there were 5,391,580 thefts....statistically you are more likely to be the victim of a theft than a murder. This is how I educate myself.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/GoingItAlone_DeathPenalty.html This is a well written article about how the US is almost now alone (in civilized countries) in keeping the death penalty. This is not a "small view of the world" this is factual information that you could find for yourself if you turned of FOX news long enough to try. I find it not only ignorant of you to make claims like "do you know what the murder ratio is" and telling me to educate myself about crime when it is blatantly obvious you have not done the same. I also am a bit offended that you would say that my argument is based in fallacy when I have given factual examples and citations previously to defend my argument. But let me put this in a way that even the reddest of necks can understand...I'd just be happy as a flea on a hound dog if'n you all would pull head outta ass long enuff to smell the fresh air, you caint keep livin on yesterdays cornbread. (or something like that).