azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I am an optimist and have blind faith in the social sciences (coughs). I believe in redemption, even for mass murderers.Redemption is not the main reason any person should be spared from the death penalty. It is just more economical to put the criminals into labor camps.If you want to punish a terrorist who wanted to tear down American society, have him put up American infrastructure with his hands.Capital punishment is just revenge.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Okay correct me if Im wrong but isnt he muslim and dont muslims believe in a great afterlife if you "serve" Alah Im not saying I believe in that shit or anything but why let him live his last days in peace in "knowing" he will be in a better place why not make every day a living hell forever for him everyday he gets beaten the crap out of from somebody who is related in some way to someone whowas hurt or killed on this earth from this evil piece of shit that even dogs wont eat. If he gets raped by the biggest and "biggest" guy ever and is bullied by everyone and maybe 20 years from now he has a painful death then you can call the American justice system a success...`murica
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Non-offensive post *
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I wonder whether we have the moral authority to even judge him?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Of course we do. We as a society have agreed upon a legal and social code, one that be broke when he intentionally and knowingly harmed and killed innocent individuals. By breaking said codes and acting in the way he did, he loses his rights to self determination, and we as a society, through our legal system, judge the extent of his crimes and the adequate penalty for them.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Hmm, but if we as a society break our own laws in this matter by what standard of fairness can we judge anyone else?
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

I'm confused, could you elaborate? It seems like you just essentially repeated yourself, but I'm not sure if I am missing something.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Let's see...I first said that I'm not sure that we have the moral authority to judge this butthead.Then I said that if we break the laws that we are judging him by aren't we kind of buttheads ourselves?I share my POV because although I'm a veteran and a citizen of the USA I don't see us as a moral actor when it comes to terrorism. I believe that our nation was born in terror and has used terror throughout our history whether during peace or war.As a nation we've murdered pretty much without compunction.So given that this guy came over here (yes I know he was a citizen and lived here) and killed some of us in an apparent retaliation for civilian deaths overseas, I can see killing him because he's a enemy combatant but not really because we have moral authority in law to do so.BTW we are at war with terror. If this has some legal meaning d-bag up there should be held and treated as an enemy combatant. Which would make us guilty of a war crime if we killed his sorry ass.I'm just saying. I personally would like to squash him with a steam roller... killing babies really gets under my skin. But we are in sort of an ambiguous position on the subject ourselves.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Then I said that if we break the laws that we are judging him by aren't we kind of buttheads ourselves?How have we as a society broken the laws that we are judging him by?I share my POV because although I'm a veteran and a citizen of the USA I don't see us as a moral actor when it comes to terrorism. I believe that our nation was born in terror and has used terror throughout our history whether during peace or war.I am in complete agreement.So given that this guy came over here (yes I know he was a citizen and lived here) and killed some of us in an apparent retaliation for civilian deaths overseas, I can see killing him because he's a enemy combatant but not really because we have moral authority in law to do so.We can certainly judge him and sentence him without employing the death penalty. I advocate for that.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

How have we as a society broken our laws?Well there are the Indians... Whom we murdered for land. That's against our law. If someone were to break into my home and kill me in order to take possession, it would be considered illegal.It doesn't matter whether Indians themselves possessed property, we have a saying... Possession is nine tenths of the law. Under our philosophy we had no valid reason for murdering Indians and taking their land. That this was an act of many separate genocides simply strengthens my assertion that we lack moral authority when it comes to prosecuting terrorists. Much of what we did as individual settlers and groups of US citizens would very definitely be held as terrorist actions if they were committed against us.One sided justice isn't.I'm not at all certain that Obama's executive panel on drone targeting is legal process. Seems to put something that should be in the purview of the judicial branch within the power of the executive branch.Not only that but the drone program constitutes terrorism under our own definition. Double taps and signature strikes have a reasonable certainty of killing civilians and are as morally reprehensible as the actions of D-hoser Tarnished and his brother during the Boston marathon. Even more so if you judge these things by scale.I also wonder whether the actions of the authorities to completely shut down Boston and do questionable searches was legal.Then you could consider the Iraq war. Where one of the principles, Dick Cheney, was responsible for lying to public in order to gain support for the war. This guy, the vice president ended up developing 34 billion dollars in revenue for his companies. The result of that war, some 200,000 deaths -- mostly civilians. Do we really think, "Oops! Mistake! My bad!" covers something like that?Rendition.Torture.I could go on but I'm getting depressed.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Well there are the Indians... Whom we murdered for land. That's against our law. If someone were to break into my home and kill me in order to take possession, it would be considered illegal.It doesn't matter whether Indians themselves possessed property, we have a saying... Possession is nine tenths of the law. Under our philosophy we had no valid reason for murdering Indians and taking their land. That this was an act of many separate genocides simply strengthens my assertion that we lack moral authority when it comes to prosecuting terrorists. Much of what we did as individual settlers and groups of US citizens would very definitely be held as terrorist actions if they were committed against us.While I am not in disagreement with you in any way pertaining to our country's history with the Native Americans, I fail to see how that pertains to the issue with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and modern America.I'm not at all certain that Obama's executive panel on drone targeting is legal process. Seems to put something that should be in the purview of the judicial branch within the power of the executive branch.Yet again, I am in agreement.Not only that but the drone program constitutes terrorism under our own definition. Double taps and signature strikes have a reasonable certainty of killing civilians are as such are as morally reprehensible as the actions of D-hoser Tarnished during the Boston marathon. Even more so if you judge these things by scale.I disagree that they constitute terrorism, as the intent is not to strike fear into the civilian population. I do think the amount of "collateral damage" constitutes war crimes, however.Then you could consider the Iraq war. Where one of the principle responsible for lying to public in order to gain support for the war ended up developing 34 billion dollars in revenue for his companies. The result of that war, some 200,000 deaths -- mostly civilians.Should be illegal, but isn't. Sadly, the Military Industrial Complex (We miss you Ike) is alive and well, and sees very few legal hurdles.Rendition.Torture.More and more agreement, but my issue still is how it pertains to this particular issue. Indeed our country has done many, many bad things in our history, but I fail to see how that prevents us from having the moral authority to imprison murderers.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

If you will recall my first statement concerned whether we have moral authority.We as a society judge people based on their history. For example, if someone commits a sex offense we not only put them in prison for awhile, we require them to put their names on a list of sex offenders as a means to keep track of them.If a person commits a crime and then having been imprisoned and then released offends yet again, we will use the first crime to help determine the penalty for the second.Now why should it be any different for nations? I think it is a morally fatal mistake to consider that we hold no responsibility for the past. Especially when you consider that we end up committing the same kind of atrocities over and over again. I'd argue because we never really take responsibility for the crimes we've committed as a nation. Instead we see our ancestors as being morally imperfect without ever acknowledging that we are as well.Concerning drone strikes. It should not strike you as odd that I see these strikes as terrorism. Because they quite obviously have a political component. To support this I'd ask you to consider how the USA views Muslims, especially Arab Muslims? They are an obvious political enemy of the USA in exactly the same way the Indians were back in the day. Even a lot of the same language and propaganda is being used to support our actions against Muslims who could as easily be described as "freedom fighters" as "terrorists. The whole thing is a political game to destabilize the regions as a means to control resources and the resulting strategic geography.Then you might consider that this so called war on terrorism can not possibly even be a war. Because terrorists are individuals or criminal groups that exist within nations. A nation cannot declare war on criminals anymore than they can declare war on Starbucks, they can only prosecute them. So collateral damage which is a term used properly in this context during wartime can not come into play if a state of war does not exist.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

His life was failing at a very crucial stage of his existence. He always had an option out of this but, he took the wrong one this time. He was very stressed, at times like these you might have a mental disorder when you think you have no other option so, you do what you brain thinks and don't listen to anything else. He should go to jail for 10 years and in that time, he should go to a therapist to get his life back on track.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Please, tell me you are being sarcastic. Sometimes, I miss that.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

That statement is at least as sensible as any of yours have been...
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The death penalty is the easy way out for cowards like him. Of course what he did was wrong and inexcusable, however he'll be thrilled with the death penalty. He wouldn't care he's dying, he did his job. Instead you let the man rot away in prison for the rest of his life, that's called justice. He took innocent lives away, so his life should be taken away too, slowly and painfully.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I don't think the man deserves death. Yeah he killed a few people but every Us President of the last century are sociopathic killers and murdered thousands but yet we still celebrate them.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

They killed people in war. This is different. This was no honorable death on a battle field, it was murder.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Nobody celebrates these idiots. How about we put em all in cages...
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Big mistake in giving him the death sentence. Whilst on the one hand he would be deprived of his life just as he deprived his victims of theirs the fundamental difference is that his victims wanted to LIVE at the time they were murdered. Tsarnaev wanted to DIE (pretty sure he tried to take his own life in the run up to being captured anyway). These terrorists are not your average criminal (who would possibly want to stay alive), they commit these crimes with the objective of becoming martyrs so the death penalty to them is more like a prize of honour rather than a punishment. He should be kept alive and made to live with what he's done and with no chance of parole because that would be far more torturous to him than being killed. On the occasion, the death penalty is not just, it's freedom.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Non-offensive post *
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I think the death penalty is too good for him. Besides, it's cheaper to keep him locked up.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

To be clear, then, you favor an increasingly outmoded form of retributive justice and also think that laws ought to be determined by their economic impact rather than by their justness or objective impact on society. Nice; that will end well for everyone I am sure.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

What do you think a sentence for a murderer should accomplish? Because that really determines justice. Do you really believe the death penalty accomplishes something that a life sentence does not and is more valuable than the money saved? I'm not just considering the economic impact. Please tell me how a life sentence is worse for society than the death penalty. Then maybe your argument will carry some weight.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Actually, I am generally opposed to the death penalty and never stated otherwise. My rebuttal was not targeting opposition to the death penalty, but rather your arguments in defense of it. Your original comments exclusively considered only the most retributive form of punishment ("death penalty is too good for him") and the economic cost ("it's cheaper to keep him locked up"). I introduced the concept of broader social implications as a counter to those statements, but nice try acting like that was your idea. You have effectively conceded my counterpoint that there are other valid considerations while simultaneously failing to defend the variables you chose to focus upon, rendering my work here done.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Nice job completely avoiding my argument! You'll see that I did not address the social implications because I felt as though they should not weigh as heavily on the decision as the economic cost simply because I do not think the positive social implication of the death penalty comes close to the benefit of money saved by life in prison. But feel free to continue to be petty and believe your argument accomplished something.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Your argument was (and still is) premised upon a fallacious assumption of my stance on this issue. You asked me to prove that the death penalty accomplishes a social good greater than that of a life sentence; I did not do so because I think the opposite is true contrary to your false presumptions. My critique has never been about the conclusion but that you falsely separated empirically integrated systems from one another by neglecting to address the matter of objective social impact. Given that you have subsequently attempted to advance a more nuanced statement than your original remark, I can quite safely say that my argument did accomplish something.Take the final word if you like; I am disinclined to continue this exchange.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

A death penalty keeps us from feeding them on your dime. *
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

None of the above. Where is the "He's innocent option?" Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpu6_kArb9U  Now, These 2 websites, https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/false-flag-theatre-boston-bombing-involves-clearly-staged-carnage/  And http://www.hangthebankers.com/proof-boston-marathon-bombing-was-a-false-flag-operation/  You are voting for this man to be killed/ locked up but all he is is an FBI informant who was turned into a Patsy. Please look at both sides of the story He did nothing and deserves freedom.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I think the best solution is talk to him about why he has done and try to change his ways of life. Throwing him in prison as a sign of revenge is reasonable but it is better to try to change his ways of life. People wouldn't do that because they are so fixed on getting revenge that is actually not healthy for society. Revenge creates a cycle of hate and that will continue forever until one side stops. If the only two options is prison or death sentence, then obviously it is life sentence. If i was a revengeful person and i am a revengeful person, life sentence is better because death is an easy escape.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

except hes innocent and he didn't do anything. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpu6_kArb9U  after that visit these 2 websites. This man is INNOCENT! http://www.hangthebankers.com/proof-boston-marathon-bombing-was-a-false-flag-operation/  and https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/false-flag-theatre-boston-bombing-involves-clearly-staged-carnage/
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

He's a Muslim. He's devoted to the teaching of Muhammed no matter what you try to "reteach him". He's obligated to follow the commands of a child rapist and is brainwashed as such.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I don't think that the court should sentence him to death. If he is killed, it will make him a martyr to the people in America that are being recruited by terrorists. If he is locked up, then it won't be as big of a deal.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Or chop his head off and declare it as Sharia Law. Then quitting the bastards into the country like mindless liberal idiots.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

He was sentenced to death in May 2015 but I feel that he should have been given life in prison with no parole.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Firstly, the filth should have his hair shaven off, and then incarcerated for the rest of his useless life. If the dirtball Muslim was to be executed his breed would take revenge and he would become a martyr. Hard labour, breaking rocks in the hot sun with a daily ham sandwich and just enough water to keep him alive would be a reasonable punishment.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Well then we can just execute those who try and take revenge and use espionage to find out which of the radicals are so we can arrest them before they do anything.As much as I despise him as a person, shaving off those gorgeous locks would be a crime in itself ;)
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

Death penalties are unfair. Recently, two of Australia's (my hometown) citizens were executed in Indonesia. This caused international outrage across the world. Even though Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's wrongdoings caused such a fuss, a life sentence is a humane and fair punishment. SWAGGGGG
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

Okay. A man rapes your toddler then tells you how much they liked it. When they get no death penalty, they look over at you and smile...
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

a life sentence costs the state less money and it also is a harsher punishment you must wake up everyday in a box where people hate you. looking over your shoulder everyday is far worse then the death penalty.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

He should get a life sentence and a swift one. They should hang him by his heels and gut him like the pig he is. Boo Hoo, he had a bad childhood. So did most of the rest of us. That is no excuse to behave with such cold, calculated indifference. He only showed pity for himself. He should die, the quicker, the better. Don't drag the process out and cost the state and national a lot of additional money.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Death Penalty

The whole point of the appeals process is to prevent innocent people from being killed. If you remove the appeals process for him, you risk the chance of removing the appeals process for legitimately innocent people down the road.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I don't think there should be an appeals process for people who freely admit to their crimes, especially when there is video and eyewitness testimony. I believe that anyone convicted of multiple murders such as terrorists and serial killers, shouldn't have an appeals process. It's a waste of time and money.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

I don't think there should be an appeals process for people who freely admit to their crimes,What if they are pressured into admission, which happens quite often?especially when there is video and eyewitness testimony.What if the video isn't clear? And eyewitness testimony has been wrong plenty of times before.I believe that anyone convicted of multiple murders such as terrorists and serial killers, shouldn't have an appeals process. It's a waste of time and money.There have been multiple individuals who were convicted of multiple murders then later found to have been wrongfully convicted. People like you would have put them, innocent individuals, to death.
Debate: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get LIFE or DEATH?
Side: Life Sentence

The appeals process should be kept by people who have a reasonable doubt to their crime. This guy was seen, videod and admitted in court that he was involved in the murders and mutilation of many people and injury to over 260 people. He needs to die. He is a useless human being. To make a point as to what will happen to the ones in the future who try this sort of thing, he should be stuffed with pig entrails, wrapped in a pig's skin and cremated and thrown out where no one knows.