You're a vicious soul aren't you.

0% of countries in Europe have the death penalty. This is what the debate was about. Even if they did it is difficult to imagine them choosing a way of killing that is more painful than an alternative.

Humane isn't defined as what does or doesn't cause pain. It is defined with the consideration that we have control over something/someone and we need to be compassionate with respect to how we treat the something/someone. So compassion could be considered actions such as, allowing suicide of the terminally ill, the execution of someone not wanting to spend the rest of their life in prison, the execution of someone sentenced to death using a technique that causes them the least amount of stress and pain. (as an example)

But why is humane defined by what causes pain?

It isn't a definition, it is just what we use to categorize it. Pain is used because pain is unpleasant when you are alive, so it should also be unpleasant right before you die.

If we consider killing to be inhumane in the first place, why are we discussing what way to kill is humane?

We haven't decided that killing is inhumane. We have already decided that killing would be ok and now we are trying to figure out how to make the killing less painful.

I agree. I am just talking about why I support his idea. .

No, you don't agree with me, if you did, you wouldn't claim that opposing torture is the reason why you support his solution. And I already explained how being opposed to something doesn't necessarily mean that espouse a different solution.

Too bad you can't ban me from this debate as well.