BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The EU has a mandate to reform the fiscal politics of member states

Austerity is a very broad term for a highly diverse range of reforms and policy changes. It does not simply consist of increasing the tax burden on a nation’s citizens. Properly administered austerity packages aim expand the size of a state’s workforce, by securing rights to equal pay, tackling patronage and preferential employment practices and improving standards of education. These are just some of the measures that are being put in place in Greece at the moment. As the first opposition point demonstrates, sometimes austerity measures are necessary within an economy. While plurality consciousness and political tolerance are important aspects of the European Union’s identity, these principles do not outweigh the need to ensure that the European project is not jeopardised by free riders. We will use Greece as an exemplar of a wider trend. Due to the heterodox and dissenting characteristics of its political and economic policies, Greece will inevitably be brought into conflict with more closely integrated members of the EU if it is thrown out of the Euro without being made to reform its fiscal policies. This will mean increases in arbitration costs, as conflicts between Greece and other member states are sent to the ECJ. It will mean that states such as Greece will be less able to contribute funds to the EU, running the risk of becoming free riders within the Union. Moreover, the continued relevance and growth of the EU is also a function of continued trade and movement of workers and capital between member states. A state that adopts a politically controversial approach to running its own economy is less likely to attract investment and will be unable to contribute capital. A state with a dysfunctional education system will be less able to contribute well-trained, multi lingual workers. A state that regularly runs a trade deficit will be less able to trade goods with other EU member states. Monetary policy has been used too frequently by states seeking to manipulate and subvert their way out of debt. It is no coincidence that excessive devaluation of a currency is frequently practiced by oppressive and politically bankrupt states – Zimbabwe being a case in point.[i] Manipulation of interest rates and seigniorage enable states to ignore the problems that lie at the heart of economic crises, while also claiming that they are attempting to resolve them. Devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar did nothing to address the political failures that had led to the destruction and expropriation of farm land.  Austerity allows the EU to collectively address and resolve similar political and legal failures within member states. [i] BBC News, ‘Zimbabwe in currency devaluation’, 6 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6982749.stm
Abolishing the Euro will cause capital flight

Capital flight will pose a significant risk to peripheral European economies following the break-up of the Euro.[i] Before the beginning of the financial crisis, the interchangeable nature of the Euro encouraged investment in small Eurozone states. Unlike national currencies, the collective strength of the Euro (led by Germany) seemed to guarantee that financial turmoil in one country would not pose a significant danger to capital held in the new currency. However, once the euro is eliminated, the value of individual states’ scrip (the new drachma, the peso, the Belgian franc) will no longer be tied to the strength of other European states’ economies. As a consequence, investors will withdraw their capital from smaller, poorer and less competitive states and move it to reserve currencies or to states like Germany and France. As deposits are withdrawn from the banks of small and peripheral EU states and as investments are wound up, various liquidity problems are likely to occur. Banks may experience runs, as smaller and domestic investors become concerned that financial institutions will be unable to back up their deposits with cash. Lending by and between banks will be restricted even further and funding for expansion of states’ domestic economies will be hard to come by. Capital flight- and the absence of the guarantee of stability provided by the Euro- will also make it harder for states to attract new capital to replace that which was lost. Capital flight, as noted above, will tip small economies into recession, or entrench and deepen recessions that have already taken hold. Poor growth prospects will deter other investors. In this environment, the developmental objectives of the EU will go unfulfilled. In some cases, member state’s economies may atrophy. [i] FP Editors, ‘’Mother of all bank runs’ has already begun in eurozone’, FirstPost Economy, 12 December 2011, http://www.firstpost.com/world/mother-of-all-bank-runs-has-already-begun-in-eurozone-154124.html
Development, politics, nationalism and EU integration

Allowing states such as Greece to pursue policies that can only be maintained through excessive foreign borrowing or by subordinating economic development to the interests of collective bargaining mechanisms can only ever produce conflict and economic inequality within Europe. Removing Greece from the EU and the ECB’s sphere of authority will only serve to promote the forms of strife and division that side proposition envisage. The history of the developed world is littered with failed treaty organisations that attempted to bind states into grand pacts, the better to understand and enrich each other.  As soon as membership of these bodies became onerous- notwithstanding the long-term benefits that it could bring- members would begin to leave. The EU is different. By being supranational in character, by deeming membership to be permanent, it can pursue long term development strategies for the benefit of its member states, safe in the knowledge that they will not withdraw from the Union due to short-term inconveniences or petty political squabbles. The EU exists, primarily, to serve the long term interests of EU citizens. Therefore, It is legitimate for the EU to coerce states such as Greece into adopting a more responsible approach to borrowing and taxation if it means that subsequent generations of Greek citizens will be able to live more stable, more productive lives. The state and citizens of Greece consented to participate in this process when they agreed to hand-over of sovereignty entailed by EU membership. The EU is the only mechanism available that allows for states such as Greece to be disciplined when they engage in dubious financial practices or conceal real social problems behind political concessions and state borrowing.
Currency valuation is ineffective and dangerous

Side proposition believes that it is the right of a democratic Greek state to govern itself however its people choose. Although this position may prove unpalatable to the world’s free markets, it would be outrageous and tyrannical for the EU to demand that one of its members shift to a political system that lacked popular support. Concurrently, side proposition also believes that other EU member states should not be made to bear the cost of their neighbours’ political preferences. The EU must abandon the Euro in order to avoid the risk of being seen as dictatorial and de facto federalist. It must abandon the Euro in order to allow its member states the political and cultural freedom that the union was intended to safeguard, while protecting other members states from the effects of political nonconformity. Any attempt to reform the Greek economy must be accompanied by certain incentives. As recent event have demonstrated, the EU and the ECB will probably opt to provide Greece with the means to continue servicing its national debt in exchange for Greece undertaking to rebuild its economy in a form much more closely aligned with neoliberal ideals. However, the principles that the rest of the EU are attempting to foist on Greece seem to be align or unpalatable to Greek political culture. Such is the level of resistance to reform that continual strikes and political paralysis are likely to exacerbate the harms discussed by side opposition. Under these circumstances, money pumped into Greece by other EU member states is likely to go to waste. The only way for Greece to effectively engage with its own problems is for it to leave the Euro. Greek politicians and policy makers will then be able to devise a program of fiscal reforms that better suit the demands of Greek politics and culture. The same applies to other member states that are currently running high national deficits. The people of Greece- or Spain, Portugal or Italy- should have the right to self-determination. States will not be able to exercise this right effectively if other states or the ECB become stakeholders in the political decisions of the Greek population.
The EU has a mandate to reform the fiscal politics of member states

We will return to the example of Greece. Attempts by the current Greek government to reduce spending and increase tax revenues have been met with universal condemnation by the Greek people. Civil disorder and disobedience is now so widespread and pernicious that even Greece’s tax collectors are contemplating strike action. The people of Greece have clearly rejected the economic reforms that the Eurozone and the IMF have attempted to impose on them.[i] It should not be forgotten that economic reforms are interlinked with political ideology and the normative projects that a society chooses to pursue. While the EU exists to facilitate understanding, trade and dialog between its member states, it is not in the business of quashing dissenting political viewpoints, nor does it seek to promote a neoliberal monoculture. Debates about the role of established religions and the devolution of power to culturally distinct regions within existing states show that preserving and protecting diversity is an important part of European political dialog. By maintaining support for the Euro, however, the EU is left with no choice but to force restrictive austerity packages on Eurozone members in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. An economic crisis in one European country- including a default- would reduce the confidence of international markets in the stability of the Euro itself, and would also expose other Eurozone member’s banks to severe losses. This is likely to have an adverse effect on the value of the Euro, damaging more productive economies and countries that deal with their debts in a responsible fashion. Imposed austerity schemes are bound to fail if the population of a particular country are resistant to the reforms austerity demands. If the population of Greece, for example, believe that the harms that will result from abandoning a strongly socialist style of governance would be greater than the harms resulting from the state defaulting on its debts, they will seek leaders who are willing to default. Not only will this cause the failure of the bailout packages tied to the austerity scheme, it will also cause the Greek state to disengage from and reject other, more positive, aspects of the EU project. [i] Lowen, Mark, ‘Greek referendum: Papandreou ‘dancing on a volcano’’, BBC News, 2 November 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15561153
Abolishing the Euro will cause capital flight

It is entirely appropriate that capital flight take place after the abolition of the Euro. The rapid and wide-spread uptake of the Euro between 1999 and 2007 caused many banks to begin investing in smaller, poorer Eurozone states such as Greece. This boom in the availability of credit was frequently accompanied by irresponsible business practices. Many banks failed to assess the health of the Greek economy and Greek businesses as thoroughly as they were obliged to do. This lead to financial institutions becoming exposed to very significant credit risks. Since the Euro was created, very little has been done to reform the infrastructure and labour markets that support the economies of the weakest Eurozone members. Capital invested in these states now is just as likely to be used inefficiently as it was in 1995. A reduction in the supply of money within the Greek or Portuguese economies will serve to incentivise their national governments to bring about the changes necessary to attract more diligent foreign investors. It is disingenuous for side opposition to claim that states have a right to seek funding for their activities by taking on debt that they have no ability to repay.
Technology is available

GLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials. improve this
GLT is used across a range of other sports

Technology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11) improve this
Technology is more reliable than human judgement

Goals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them. Howard Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: "anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes."1 Currently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)   improve this
The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology

In other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing. improve this
The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world

Only professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A. Further, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: "One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."1 For example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs). 1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11 improve this
Controversy and debate are a part of the game

Controversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary. Sepp Blatter famously argued that "Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport"1. Supporters love to hate the referee; it provides them with a scapegoat for defeat. With GLT, the authority of referees would be irrevocably diminished. They would become merely cogs in a mechanic process of decision making. If we come to rely on cameras to govern the game, the passion is drained from it.   1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)
The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario

In order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence. These incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league. improve this
Technology is available

It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies. improve this
Technology is more reliable than human judgement

Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it. In March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: "No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2 Decisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time. 1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11 2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11   improve this
The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world

it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic. Also, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward. If both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped. improve this
Controversy and debate are a part of the game

Supporters love the game, not the soap opera. As Howard Webb articulated, "Controversy is not the reason why I watch football but we need to be careful not to change what draws millions to football. I still keep an open mind of the future. It's a tricky thing to do."1We must progress on terms of reason, not tradition. 1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11) improve this
The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario

The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable. 1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11   improve this