BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Telecoms can't be relied on to make best decisions for public.

Robin Chase, Founder of Zipcar. "Zipcar-Like Data Innovation Counts on Neutral." Bloomberg Government. March 03, 2011: "we cannot rely on the telecommunications industry to define the Internet. The industry would almost certainly define it as their new preferred “triple play” --their telephone service, their movie service, and access to their idea of your ideal Internet experience. We need government intervention to ensure that the Internet remains its evolving and flexible and accessible self. Without it, startups with crazy and novel ideas might not be able to even reach consumers to try their wares. The telcos can’t be expected to think outside their boxes. When we first approached them for a data plan back in 2000, we were met with blank, non-responsive stares. Despite the paltry amounts of data that were being sent to and from our cars, the telcos only had one vision of wireless use and therefore one data product to sell. We were either a cellphone or we didn’t exist."
Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall.

It is not essential that network neutrality be good for Internet Service Providers, so long as it is judged good for the public and websites overall, and sufficiently tolerable for ISPs. A good analogy is any piece of consumer protection regulation, such as seat belts or food-packing industry regulations, which certainly cost the businesses under consideration a little bit of money, but do so in the interest of the general public. Therefore, any conclusion that net neutrality is somewhat harmful to network owners does not mean that the idea of network neutrality is, overall, a bad idea.
Network neutrality damages competition and niche suppliers

Arpan Sura. "The Problem With Network Neutrality". FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: "Network neutrality also is bad for competition. Differential pricing of content allows competition among ISPs. If a company wants to adopt a policy of network neutrality, it is free to do so and win market share from consumers who find this attractive. If a company wants to favor video or voice content, it can find consumers and applications providers who use the Internet primarily for this purpose. [...] Niche companies that want to offer only a small fraction of the Internet can flourish, too. Imagine, for example, a company that allowed cell phone users to access sports scores and only sports scores through its Internet portal. If that company were upfront about restricting its service to a limited part of the Internet, this would not be a nefarious idea. Many people would find it quite convenient. But it would nonetheless be banned if network neutrality legislation were passed. Network neutrality will destroy many entrepreneurial ideas like this one."
Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet

"Net Neutrality Will Increase Government Monitoring of Internet Traffic." Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views: "Net neutrality calls for the Federal government to enforce standards on how online data is transmitted. But to accomplish this, there would have to be a significant increase in federal monitoring of online traffic at all levels to ensure compliance, including both the public Internet and dedicated private networks. Moreover, once inevitable disputes arose, federal courts would become involved, which would likely lead to even higher levels of monitoring."
Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies

"Consumers Deserve Protection". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: "In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet."
Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs.

By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.
Net neutrality prevents discrimination between sites

"Access and the Internet." New York Times Editorial. August 29, 2009": "On the Internet today, a Web site run by a solo blogger can load as quickly as any corporate home page. Internet service providers, including leading cable and phone companies, want to be able to change that so they can give priority to businesses that pay, or make deals with, them. [...] A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality the law."
Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a February 2006 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Net Neutrality: "I would like to focus this morning on three main points. First, Congress's policy of leaving the Internet unregulated has been a resounding success. The resulting network flexibility has encouraged billions of dollars in investment. Companies that include high speed Internet services among their offerings have the freedom to experiment with multiple business models, producing more choices and competition in content and providers for consumers, and more innovation than ever before." Mr. McSlarrow's overarching argument is that laws like Net Neutrality would limit the innovative business and pricing models of Internet providers like Comcast.
W/o net neutrality Internet has fast and slow lanes

"Hey internet entrepreneurs, nuts to you." The Economist. Apr 6th 2010: "THE writers at this blog don't really care about today's appeals court ruling, which concluded that the FCC lacks authority to regulate net neutrality. Why should we? The paper will pay whatever Comcast or any other connectivity provider charges to make sure our bytes get out to the masses at a reasonably high speed. At least, we think it will. Unless the Financial Times or Forbes offers more. Then the magazine will have to ante up, or face discriminatory second-class service. Perhaps Comcast will start demanding "ultra business elite" fares on our packets if we expect them to reach that last mile just as fast as those from the FT. Then, of course, they might offer the FT the Sapphire Express rate on their packets, with an absolute guarantee that packets will arrive faster than the competition. [...] As much as such services are worth to us, they'd obviously be worth vastly more to Bloomberg or Dow Jones. A guarantee that time-sensitive financial information will arrive milliseconds ahead of the competition can be worth billions when you're trying to move markets. How could a last-mile connectivity provider possibly explain to its shareholders a decision not to take advantage of this opportunity, to offer 'priority packet service' to time-sensitive information companies and induce them to engage in a bidding war?" Having such fast and slow-lanes, while potentially advantageous to an individual company, is not good for customers and browsers, who must constantly deal with these inconsistencies.
ISPs have a right to recover costs from heavy bandwidth users

- Internet Service Providers are businesses that make huge investments in building internet pipelines with high bandwidth capacities. This bandwidth is not public infrastructure. Other parties that take up a significant amount of the provided bandwidth are costing ISPs a significant amount of money by forcing them to expand their infrastructures. These parties are often reaping huge profits off of this for-profit bandwidth without paying anything in return to the ISPs. The ISPs have a right to seek return on their investment and demand that such bandwidth users pay a higher price for their heavy use.
Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:

Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.
Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace

Doc Searls. "Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering." Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: "By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before."
Tidal energy production varies with tides; requires stand-by power

Tidal energy varies on a daily basis with the movements of the tide. The tide moves fastest in the morning and night and is much slower in between as it shifts directions. This variability means that tidal energy requires a stand-by source of energy. This is generally considered in unappealing trait in an energy resource because it requires complex management and can require the burning of fossil fuels as the stand-by energy source.
Potential energy-production of tidal power is immense

"Wave and Tidal Power: Energy from the Seas". Environmental Defense Fund. - "The potential of ocean energy is immense. The Snohomish County Public Utility District north of Seattle, WA, estimates that the tides in just seven areas under consideration for ocean energy development in Puget Sound could provide power for 70,000 homes. In places around the world where waves are big, fast and continuous, ocean energy could be generated 80–90 percent of the time. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that ocean energy could provide power for up to 10 percent of US households."
Very few sites globally are appropriate for tidal energy

"Tidal Energy". Unisun.net.: "Similar to other ocean energies, tidal energy has several prerequisites that make it only available in a small number of regions. For a tidal power plant to produce electricity effectively (about 85% efficiency), it requires a basin or a gulf that has a mean tidal amplitude (the differences between spring and neap tide) of 7 meters or above. It is also desirable to have semi-diurnal tides where there are two high and low tides everyday. Tides out in the ocean have maximum amplitude of about one meter. As you move closer to shore, this can increase to as high as 12 or more. This can depend on local features such as shelving or funneling meaning the tidal range can vary considerably along any given coastline. This can mean that a lot of places just aren't suitable. When planning the location major consideration has to be given to see whether the tides ar high enough and if there is a suitable place for building the site."
Tidal power requires no fuel; free energy of the tides.

Tidal energy does not require any fuel. Tides rise and fall naturally every day, and so supply a free source of energy. Therefore, once a tidal energy plant is built, the energy extracted from it is virtually free. This compares favorably to coal, petroleum, or nuclear power generation, in which fuel must be drilled for or mined (which takes energy and money), filtered or refined (which takes energy and money), transported (which takes energy and money), and burnt for energy (which has environmental and subsequent economic costs). This means that fossil fuels have a price while tidal energy is a free energy source.
Tidal energy systems are simple, so easy to maintain.

Tidal energy technologies have been around for centuries because it is so simple. Barage systems are as simple and easy to maintain as a dam. Turbine systems involve propellers rotating around an axis, which is attached to a generator. The simplicity of this design makes it possible to design strong tidal turbines that require very few tidal repairs. Therefore, even if underwater repairs are expensive, they are so infrequent that the costs are negligible in the long-run.
Tidal energy has existed and been developed for ages.

Tidal energy is one of the oldest forms of energy used by humans. It was used on Spanish, French and British coasts as early as 787 A.D.. Tide mills consisted of a storage pond, filled by the incoming (flood) tide through a sluice and emptied during the outgoing (ebb) tide through a water wheel. The tides turned waterwheels, producing mechanical power to mill grain. Tidal energy's long history testifies to the simplicity of the energy source and also demonstrates that it is a tried and tested renewable energy source, even if its modern designs are younger.
Tidal barage energy can impair the natural "flushing" of water ecosystems.

Bays and estuaries are always naturally "flushed" or cleansed and replenished by tide-waters flowing in and out. To the extent that tidal energy impairs the natural flows of these tides, it impairs this natural "flushing" mechanism. Tampering with this mechanism can have unpredictable and even disastrous consequences for an ecosystem.
Repairing tidal energy is difficult and expensive.

Repairing tidal energy systems underwater is very challenging and expensive, as is repairing anything underwater. The problem is that it requires a combination of divers and submarine equipment, both of which are expensive. This is all compounded by the fact that proposed tidal energy plants are generally located in environments with the most violent tides. The mass of water moving via tides can easily damage and corrode tidal energy systems.
Tidal power has a low capacity factor (poor return-on-investment)

The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant period over its output if it could operate at the full capacity of the installed generator. Tidal energy has a very low capacity factor because tidal energy production peaks infrequently in the day. This means that a tidal energy plant could have the same turbines and generators as a hydroelectric dam, but produce half the electricity. Because it takes the same amount of money to build and install these generators, the return on investment in tidal energy plants would be about half that of hydroelectric plants.
Tidal energy could replace unsafe/polluting nuclear energy.

There are many concerns surrounding nuclear energy, regarding the potential radiation hazards for nuclear-plant workers and locals as well as for the environment when radioactive nuclear waste is buried. There is pressure to continue to build nuclear plants because they can supply a significant amount of electricity and do so without producing greenhouse gases like coal. Yet, the above concerns remain. Tidal energy can act to replace nuclear-electricity generation, and so by-pass these concerns.
Tidal power generates little return on investment so is unviable

Lewis Page of The Register (UK) estimates that the US tidal energy project SeaGen will not recover the costs of its initial investment until the end of its predicted life of 20 years. In other words, there will be virtually no return on investment for SeaGen. Since return-on-investment is a necessary force in incentivizing market investments into an energy facility, SeaGen and other tidal energy plants may be entirely unviable.[3]
Tidal energy can't produce enough electricity to replace nuclear.

Tidal energy is incapable of producing electricity on a large, global scale, due to its low capacity factor (0-production when tides aren't moving) and because it is viable in a very limited number of sites. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is capable of scaling to produce massive quantities of electricity. It currently supplies around 20% of all electricity demand in the United States, and could supply the majority of electricity demand if more nuclear energy plants were constructed in the United States. For these reason, tidal energy is incapable of replacing nuclear energy as a fuel source.
Tidal energy is predictable and reliable

The tides and currents are based on the movement of the moon around the earth, so they are entirely predictable. This makes it possible to precisely predict the daily energy production of tidal energy. This is important because the electric grid must precisely match supply and demand at every moment of the day. Predictability makes it easier to do so. This contrasts starkly with wind-power as well as solar, which depend entirely on unpredictable local weather conditions.
Tidal energy disrupts marine ecosystems like a dam.

Barrages effectively dam estuaries and bays in order to build-up and concentrate water mass into turbines that convert the energy to electricity. Daming a bay or estuary in this way changes tidal flows, which can have significant consequences for aquatic and shoreline ecosystems, including changing the flow-dynamics of an marine ecosystem, disorienting animals that depend on the flow dynamics of an ecosystem, increasing silt build-up, killing marine wildlife (particularly fish populations), and destabilizing ecosystems that depend on that marine wildlife.[1]
Threat of filibuster is used to extort pork giveaways

Elliot Richardson. "The Case Against the Senate Filibuster". 2005: "In May 1994, for example, our government was forced to give away $10 billion of gold on federal land. Why? Because filibuster threats blocked efforts to fix the Gold Rush-era mining law requiring this giveaway and dozens more in the months ahead, giveaways of billions of dollars that come out of our pockets as taxpayers."
Filibuster wrongly burdens majority party

Randy Barnett, one of the burgeoning field of Volokh conspirators, argued against the filibuster on the following grounds: "The contemporary filibuster is a polite affair. Charles Schumer does not talk through the night, bleary eyed and exhausted. Why not? Couldn’t the filibuster be broken if the Republicans forced the Democrats to go 24/7? No. Because the 24/7 option actually gives an advantage to the minority. Why? In order to force a 24/7 filibuster, the majority must maintain a quorum at all times, but the minority need only have one Senator present to maintain the filibuster. So 24/7 both exhausts and distracts the majority, while allowing the minority the opportunity to rest and carry on their ordinary business. [Emphasis added.] No modern filibuster has been broken by the 24/7 option. For more on this, see my post entitled Update on Filibusters."[3]
During turmoil, filibusters impede government progress

George Kenney. "Kill the filibuster rule." Los Angeles Times. March 5, 2009: "During a time when the nation will need a lot of legislation quickly, it seems absurd that the Senate binds itself to an obsolete supermajority rule requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster and force a vote. What's so magic about the number 60? Why should 41 senators -- coincidentally the current number of Republicans -- be able to block public policy indefinitely?"
Constitution empowers Senate to set rule, including on filibuster

"A response to arguments that a filibuster on the Estrada nomination is unprecedented or inappropriate." National Women's Law Center: "Filibustering or requiring cloture on a judicial nomination is not 'extra-constitutional.' The Constitution simply gives the Senate the duty to 'advise and consent' to judicial nominations and leaves it to the Senate to carry out its responsibility in accordance with its own rules; it does not specify that the vote must be by a simple majority. Requiring cloture to end debate on a nomination is permitted under Senate Rule XXII. [The Filibuster is, therefore, Constitutional]."
General statements against the filibuster

"The Senate and the Filibuster--Posner". The Becker Posner Blog. July 5, 2009: "The filibuster is an incomprehensible device of government. A supermajority rule, whether it is the rule of unanimity in criminal jury trials or the supermajority rules for amending the Constitution, makes sense when the cost of a false positive (convicting an innocent person, or making an unsound amendment to the Constitution) substantially exceeds the cost of a false negative. But it is hard to see the applicability of that principle to Senate voting, given the other barriers to enacting legislation."
Filibuster is justified to block extreme nominations

Joanne Mariner. "A Good Tool for the Good Fight. In Defense of the Filibuster". Counter Punch. November 26, 2002: "From now on, with the incoming Republican majority in the Senate, it will take a Democratic filibuster to prevent the confirmation of President Bush's most extreme judicial nominees. But it must be emphasized that in such dire cases, a filibuster--by which a minority of forty-one senators can block an appointment to the bench--is justified, reasonable and necessary."
Filibuster ensures better justices are nominated and confirmed

John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport. "In Praise of Supreme Court Filibusters". National Review Online. June 25, 2009: "we believe that the routine use of the filibuster rule will obtain better justices, where better is defined as justices who have better qualifications and whose jurisprudential positions are more broadly supported than they would be in a world without the filibuster rule."
The US Constitution makes no provision for the filibuster

It is true that Senate rules provide provision for the Filibuster. But, these rules are not established in the Constitution. The Constitution only provides the authority to the Senate to establish such rules. This in no way means that the filibuster is protected by the Constitution, as is a very common misconception about the filibuster. The Senate is free, therefore, to vote to change the rules of the Senate and abolish the filibuster without amending the Constitution in any way. Getting rid of the filibuster is, therefore, much easier than many supporters of the filibuster often argue.
Filibuster helps flag controversial issues for the public

Joanne Mariner. "In Defense of the Filibuster". History News Network. December 9, 2002: "Because of its potent nature, the filibuster is a means not simply of counting heads, but of assessing the intensity of views on a given subject. Simply put, the use of the filibuster raises the stakes in a debate, signaling to the public that an issue, or a nominee, is worth getting exercised over."
The filibuster helps protect the will of the minority

Joanne Mariner. "In Defense of the Filibuster". History News Network. December 9, 2002: "The use of the filibuster is undemocratic, and unquestionably so, to the extent that democracy is equated with simple majority rule. But if democracy is seen as a more complex process in which minorities, too, deserve a voice--and which even recognizes that public officials who belong to a political minority may nonetheless represent majority views on certain issues--then filibusters may have a legitimate role to play."