BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chrome is better than Firefox

1. yes, the speed of a browser is all techincal. RAM, Connection Speed, processer, and other bits of hardware will effect the performance of computer speed, if you have high RAM and a high end processer you could have a lot of tabs open on a browser with no slow down.2. So a user friendly interface doesn't make a browser better, but the logo of said browser does?3. These features and addons make browsing better and easier for all age groups, they are far important.4. Wait, you can use an extension to disable java script, I thought those "nick nacks" arent important! 5. Honestly this sounds like an ease of accsess which like you said, was no big deal :/6. Actually its good to have those other tabs/extensions take up data, this may sound odd, but all tabs and extensions will become their own process, allowing for the browser to run multiple tabs + extensions with the browser hiccuping or slowing down, which firefox does not do. [1] You can also disable addons youre not using in the settings to free up room. Firefox actually tried to start that in 2009, but as of 2011, its on hold.7. I was hoping you would bring password saving up, heres a fun fact, Firefox is as unsafe as chrome is in terms of saving passwords. [2]8. You need to be careful closing tabs, lol. Anyways, you can restore those tabs if you accidentley closed the browser pressing ctrl+shift+t [3] so this argument is invalid.9. Its a new browser (as in 2008 -_-) so obviously adjusting will be needed, just like people who got fire fox for the first time ever. 10. Oh no lose a few seconds to loading, ah well. 11. You said eariler that Google Chrome had borrowed a lot of features exclusive to firefox, and also complained that who cares about ease of accsess with not having to go back to google to search, and if firefox wanted to do that they would. Well they did, a long time ago actually. [4]Sources: [1] http://www.howtogeek.com...;[2] http://www.digitaltrends.com...;[3] http://gappstips.com...;[4] http://mashable.com...;
Chrome is better than Firefox

I will be playing the role of Devil's Advocate for this debate 1. The performance speed of a browser when multiple tabs open does not depend on a said browser, there are multiple things that actually come in hand when it comes to performance. First of, the computers hard ware plays the biggest role, a computer requires higher level processer to manage tasks like multiple tabs, and the performance can also be effected by how well internet speed is in your area. 2. This is complete opinion, and no evidence could ever change pure opinion, also this barley proves why firefox is better than chrome, which is more important? Flash or Substance? 3. Chrome for most people has been simplified to peoples convience, all searching and website connections can be done in the home bar (you can also search through different sites using the bar.) you can also change your home page and search engine in chrome's settings. so.... 4. I would need to have a definition of "safe" safe as in safe from hackers/virsus, or safe as in protects your personal data. Now for my arguments. 1. Chrome's webstore allows for many programs and extensions to be added onto chrome to make the experience of the browser far better, and altough firefox allows it too there isnt exactly a hub to find extensions and some extensions unlike the chrome webstore can be dangerous. 2. Chromes layout is far more user friendly than that of other browsers, you can search directley from google, other websites, and connect to websites, in one bar, unlike firefox and other browsers, making it an ease of acsess for people. Also the options and settings are all easily rounded up in one tab for ease of settings. You can also type a key term into the browser box and get access to said website without having to visit it first. 3. Chrome features that beat firefox features, Chrome has abilities firefox does not, for one, instant bookmark synch, it also has a feature called Greasemonkey scripts, that allow you to change the desing of websites or do special features. Some which change website background black to ease eyes, accept all facebook friend request at once, and so on. Tune in to my next debate and ill get into some techincal stuff :p
Chrome is better than Firefox

Firefox is much better than Chrome: 1) Firefox can deal with multiple tabs much better, where as Chrome might have trouble running at an adequate speed with multiple tabs open. 2) Firefox has a cooler logo than Chrome. 3) What if your homepage(i.e. MSN, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) isn't Google. Then why would you want Chrome as your browser? 4) Firefox has been around longer and is more trusted then Chrome, which came out more recently. As a conclusion to this round, I actually have an experience. Now I have a somewhat older computer, and I have used Chrome since it came out. Lately, I began to have problems such as tabs loading slowly, etc. I looked to see what was taking up the CPU, and what was it? Chrome! I switched over to Firefox and now my CPU usage always hovers below 50%, AT THE MOST! I found out that the rest of my family was having this problem, and recommended Firefox, since we all used Chrome at that point. We switched over, and our problems were solved! My whole family now uses Firefox for ALL of our computers. Thank you for joining the debate! Good Luck! :P
Resolved: Stability and Security is more important than Personal Freedom.

I don't expect there to be anything wrong so I won't bother to lay out rules. I affirm that the Stablity and Security are more important than Presonal Freedom. My first and only observation is that the pursuit for stablity and security may have imperfections, but it is not my burden to defend the system, only the intent of that system. The first contention on the Pro side is that security and stablity stop terrorism First, security. The Heritige Foundation finds that since 9/11, 6 factors have contributed to decreased terrorism. (Quote is in Bold) Support for important investigative tools like the PATRIOT Act to ensure that law enforcement can track down leads in local communities. Creating a lawful, durable detainment framework, written into law, which deals not only with detainees in Guantanamo, but also future captures outside Afghanistan . Reorganization of congressional oversight of homeland security, accompanied by a department-wide authorization bill, to improve the oversight and guidance by Congress on security matters. Elimination of the current security-grant formula in favor of cooperative agreements to ensure that counterterrorism dollars are allocated on the basis of risk—not pork-barrel politics. Increased information sharing between the U. S. and its allies while improving interagency communications among the State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence agencies. Support for NATO and U. S. forces counterinsurgency strategies in Afghanistan, as well as for missions around the globe to eliminate terrorist safe havens. As a result of increased security, 39 terrorist attacks have been foiled since 9/11. Foiling terrorist attacks is important for 2 reasons. First, Terror attacks have extensive economic impacts. As CNN reports, the economic impact of 9/11 was at least 123 billion dollars. The second reason why stopping terrorisim is important is saving lives. The November 2015 Paris attacks killed 137 people. The Orlando Massacre killed 50 people. The Ankara Bombings killed 102 people. 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people. Ultimatly, in a more secure, stable world, these lives could have been saved. The Pro's second contention is Many Hands. Stablity and Security impacts every single memeber of society. While everyone has personal freedom, only you benifit from your personal freedom. If you sacrifice some of your personal freedom to contribute to increasing security and stablity for society as a whole, you benifit everyone while only creating marginal harms for yourself. It is as the old saying goes, "many hands make light work. " If everyone contributes to stablity and security, than everyone benifits more than if they are harmed. For these reasons, I can see no other vote but one for the pro. . http://www.heritage.org...;http://www.cnn.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...
Money Is More Powerful than Intellect and Emotion

A reason why people donate is to evade taxes. The fact is that Money drives your life. And Money can buy Happiness!!! Give a homeless man some money, and look at the joy on that person's face. That joy on his face will make you feel good and you too will be happy. If this fails, you can buy anti-depressants, that's happiness!! Even though money is a mode of exchange, it holds a high value in our lives today as it can overpower one's emotion.
Money Is More Powerful than Intellect and Emotion

(Opening Arguments) Does money give true happiness? Does Money give meaning to life? Money is powerful, but what drives your choices every single day? Emotion is the key to this answer. The reason you seek money is because of the fear and insecurity of not having a home, or not having food. Thus money has a fair amount of power, but if money had more power than emotions, why would people donate? Sure most people don't, I concede that. The people who do however are the basis of this argument: Why would someone want to give away the source of their power?
Money Is More Powerful than Intellect and Emotion

In today's world, money is an important aspect of our lives. We crave money if we lack it. And that, my friends, Is the basic cause, that money is more powerful than intellect and emotion. Let us take the case of the terrorist Ajmal Kasab, a member of the Lakshar-E-Taliba, who carried out the attacks on Mumbai in 2008. Kasab left his house because his Father did not have enough money to buy him new clothes for Eid. He only joined the Lakshar-E-Taliba, because his family was promised a sum of $4000, If he carried out the attacks on Mumbai. In this case, Kasab's emotions towards his father, were wiped away by the more powerful greed for money. Did he not ever think, that his Father would have to go through intense pain, If he became a 'martyr' for the LeT? Now, let us take the example of an average government official. Sadly, a majority of these people are corrupt. Their greed for money is overpowering their intellect to be just, honest, fair, and faithful to the government they are 'committed' to. I do agree that there are some honest officials, who are committed to their work. But, if you do know that malpractices are taking place, why don't you go and file a complaint? The fear of losing one's job, because the corrupt official is in a seat of higher power? And what does losing a job mean? Losing your income, your source of money. This proves that money is more powerful than your intellect, even if you claim that it is not.
Death Penalty

The "majority" count for a lot, actually. The instigator claims it is irrelevant, whereas the whole judicial system is based on majority decision, in the form of a jury. It is the public perception of justice that needs to be tackled, however I am willing to concede, that, with certain strict stipulations, the rehabilitative model can be combined with an "Arpaio model" of sorts. That is to say, cost will be at a minimum, inmates will something productive/produce something to be SOLD for a profit (thus covering the prison's fees for educating them), with the inmates working long day, doing hard manual labour. I truly believe this combines the aspect of punishment the public require, along with the rehabilitation that education and routine of work will provide for the inmate, whilst also benefiting society at large by their contribution of products. However, there are, as the instigator has mentioned, certain individuals by which rehabilitation would be ineffective. I put to the instigator: What do we do with those by which rehabilitation will be ineffective? I hope that adds line thought to the death penalty aspect. I believe we have reached a consensus that the death penalty can be morally opposable, and I am willing to concede to the points listed above about human rights. There is still the aspect of "Murderer takes away other human rights, so his should be diminished." I understand that point has been answered, but it still does not sit well. I believe it is morally opposable that someone convicted of a financial crime receives a longer sentence than one that has commited a social crime, but what kind of rehabilitation should be made available to people such as Rupert Murdoch, technically a criminal, yet obviously of sound mind?
Death Penalty

I deem the death penalty to be necessary. Morally, it is senseless that a serial killer would not face death as a punishment for their multiple crimes. Again, I could go into the devastational effects on the families of the victims, which harms many more people than it would the family of a serial killer, but you would argue I would be creating more pain by killing the killer. I cannot understand why a family would continue to support said killer, however it may happen. You have discounted economics and all other sensible retort I may have had, so it would be pointless me highlighting the economic benefits of the death penalty. You may personally be opposed to the death penalty, but, as is apparent in the Unite States, the people evidently want the death penalty, else they would proposition the banishment in their own state. Regardless if it actually deters crime or not, "the majority" want the death penalty: http://www.gallup.com... The above is only one example of a poll, and there are more to be found should you require . I concede that the Government has too many powers as it stands, however if they are to maintain any degree of PERCEPTION of justice, it would be a wise move to include the death penalty. Regardless of its effectiveness, it still puts the public mind at ease. All too commonly, we read comments in newspapers referencing the death penalty and the revival of it. To put my position bluntly, I will use an example. If most of the penitentiaries in the United States followed the model of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, with his demeaning treatment prisoners through making them wear pink underwear and handcuffs, feeding them on pittance per day, and letting them sizzle in 100 degree heat in the desert of Arizona, I would be opposed to the death penalty. However, this is NOT the case, most especially here in Britain. Some prisons are palatial. If the "Arpaio model" was adopted, I would deem that apt and just punishment, considering their life would be in more misery than if they were dead. That is certainly punishment in the true sense of the word. For as long as Britain continues to send prisoners to tax-funded 5* hotels, I deem the death penalty a worthy inclusion to the system.
Death Penalty

I am against capital punishment, regardless of the logical, economical, or practical arguments that support it. After countless debates I've concluded that, actually, capital punishment is wholly unnecessary. My primary concern is that once life is ended the death cannot be reversed, thus the issue of miscarriages of justice is evoked. I also feel that the government should not be involved in the killing of its citizens, regardless of the crime they have committed - two wrongs do not make a right. The argument that capital punishment would only be used for cases where the defendant's guilt was 100% assured is self-defeatist because very few such cases exist, which would mean the death penalty would rarely be used. If that were the case, it would be futile to have a death penalty other than for the sake of retribution, for neither does it act as a deterrent, considering the amount of people that the USA imprisons and the crime rates there, and that they still have the death penalty in most states. So the reality is that there is seldom a trial where a juror could suggest that there was no doubt whatsoever as to a defendant's guilt. British law recognises this hence the jury may convict where there is no reasonable doubt. This means there could still be some doubt, albeit irrational rather than reasonable. But even irrationality alone can sometimes have its own case.
Death Penalty

Yes, the whole system is based on majority decision, whether the judicial system through jury of the legislative system by parliament or congress, however we do not operate under a mob rule. The idea that the majority can vote on everything was defeated with the creation of the modern republic state, notably the USA. The majority cannot vote on the issue of natural, inviolable and universal rights, such as the right to life. Yes, a murderer has violated someone's right to life, but this does not justify the removal of their right to life. To argue this is only to presume that man's right to life is entirely subjective - a scary thought. My opponent is entirely correct in saying that a mix of retributive/rehabilitative justice can be good. A system whereby we teach criminals the skills to use when they are released back into society, or whereby we allow them to compensate their victims or their victim's family, can work. To answer my opponent's question, "what do we do with those by which rehabilitation will be ineffective?" The obvious answer here if we absolutely cannot rehabilitate them in any way would be to lock them up for a very long time indeed. I do not think that giving the government (an institution with a monopoly on the legal system and the death penalty if there were one) the power to kill its citizens is an inherently wise move. As I said in my opening statement, the argument that capital punishment would only be used for cases where the defendant's guilt was 100% assured is self-defeatist because very few such cases exist, which would mean the death penalty would rarely be used. There is always the high chance of judicial mistakes, and when we are discussing the life of an individual human being, this is too risky. I have already pointed out the moral flaws in removing the life of someone to punish them for removing the life of another. I don't necessarily see social crimes as inherently worse than financial crimes, although this depends how you would define the two. I believe the 'social "crime"' of peaceful drug dealing or taking warrants no sentence at all, whist the 'financial crime' of fraud is evil and wrong. The only things which should exist as 'crimes' are actions which deny a man his rights.
Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

First, let's define the some issues. How do we define profits? Merrian-Webster Online defines profit as follows: Profit 1. 1profit (noun) 2. 2profit (verb) Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin profectus advance, profit, from proficere Date: 14th century 1: a valuable return: gain 2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially: the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost 3: net income usually for a given period of time 4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales 5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent We have a pretty vast definition here. How can we actually find the definition we are looking to apply to the health insurance industry? What if the definition we apply and the definition insurance companies apply are two different concepts? For example, is a $2 million dollar bonus to a top executive profit? No, it is actually an expense. When we focus on the company itself and separate the individuals profiting from the company it is easy to lose sight of the trees for the forest. Anyone who has ever run their own business, from a small landscaping company with one employee to a multibillion dollar insurance corporation, all know how to portray financial information in whichever light is most favorable to the outcome they desire. For instance, if I owned a company where I was the only employee and I wanted to make it look like the company was making a lot of money; what would I do? One easy method of boosting profits on paper would be to simply draw less salary from the company. Wow! Profits went up 75% in the third quarter! Nobody has to know I took a part-time job for a couple months to offset the money I stop taking from my landscaping company. Now I can go get that loan for the new mower and trailer. Wait; now its tax time and I made a lot of money plowing snow this winter, what would I do if I wanted to make the company look less profitable? Why I could simply increase my salary. Oh no, the company is losing money! We are going to go out of business! Funnytown Landscaping is going bankrupt. Must I go on with this? I think we all realize that these corporations have teams of lawyers, accountants, public relations professionals, and statistical engineers working round-the-clock to spin data in whatever manner serves current interests. The definition of profit is broad and expansive, particularly with huge, multinational corporations. Perhaps, round two will include historical insurance profit percentages and not the "latest" in engineered statistics.
Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

Advocates of increased government involvement in health care frequently cite the profits of private health care providers as a major part of the costs of health care. An example of the criticism is that of Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), speaking on the Rachel Maddow show, who said, speaking of proposed legislation that would heavily tax the health insurance industry: "Well, the one behavioral change we are clearly not going to see is the insurance companies aren't going to suddenly start saying, 'You know what, we are going to stop making 30 percent profits and cut it down to 10 percent or 5 percent because of this bill.' " http://www.msnbc.msn.com... So are the insurance company profits really 30%, as claimed? Fortune magazine http://money.cnn.com... rated the health insurance industry as the 35th most profitable of 53 industries surveyed for 2008: 35 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 2.2% In 2006, in better economic times, health insurance company profits were 7.1%. http://money.cnn.com... In the Yahoo Finance ranking of industries (they divide ndustry into more categories than Fortune) by profitability, "Health Care Plans" rank 84th, with a profitability of 3.3%. http://biz.yahoo.com... Total insurance company profits were $12.87 billion in 2007 and $8.40 billion in 2008. http://www.politifact.com... Total health care spending in the United States was $2.2 trillion in 2007. http://www.kaiseredu.org... Insurance company profits were therefore 0.59% of total health care costs in 2007. Since total costs have been rising at about 6%, the insurance company profits would be about 0.36% of total health care costs in 2008. Because insurance company profits are much less than 1% of health care costs, they are not a major factor in healh care costs in the United States. The resolution is affirmed.