BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This is the first nail in the coffin of flowing football

FIFA introduced various rules that changed the nature of the game with the view to MAINTAINING FLOWING FOOTBALL e.g. The backpass rule (preventing a team continuously passing back to the goalkeeper who could then pick it up). As for GLT then this clearly breaks the flow of the game because the goal line bounce scenarios usually occur with the ball remaining in play after it. The referee having to stop the game for a decision breaks the run of play. Also if the decision is close, we are back to debate and time, whereas the rule is better that a goal is given when a goal is CLEARLY SEEN by the officials. If the aim is to remove human errors and be 100% accurate...then firstly humans invent the technology and they judge the results of the technology. There is no proof that such systems are 100% accurate. Secondly, the amount of decisions in a game that effect a goal are MAINLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BALL CROSSING THE LINE. Rather offsides, unseen fouls, unseen handballs, handballs that were not handballs, penalties that were not penalties, wrongly given corners, free kicks and throw ins, corners, frre kicks and throw ins that were not given.....along with sendings off...that either should or shouldn't have been but were given the opposite decision....ACCOUNT FOR FAR MORE WRONGLY SCORED GOALS OR WRONGLY DENIED GOALS. How does it make sense to change the whole nature and universality of football for the least significant occurrence? The point is that these human errors are natural and (not trying to elimnate them mechanically allows the game to flow, and in general teams gain and lose equally from these decisions. If you actually wanted to try and deal with all such decisions with various technological, computer, camera, sensor aids.....then the game really does turn into a big bore, it slows down and we may as well restrict football to nintendo. Also it would still be unable to eliminate injustice because too many things are impossible to know for sure, even when looked at many times. If we really want football to go this way then...lie detector tests are also a must to see whether players INTENTIONALLY did this or that. Better still, only declare the result of each game two days after play so everything can be properly analyzed.
It would be divisive.

Your ignorance is greatly saddening. firstly the football association have enough money for this technology, if not then they should reduce footballers wages to fund this. So finance is not an issue or a minuscule one. Also This technology is used in Tennis, however in amateur tennis matches such technology is not used. This technology should only be used on the professional scale because they can afford to do so. Therefore your argument contains a fallacy, the fallacy that if it cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. The referee does not become less respected, what reason is this so? In Tennis the umpire is respected even though he was corrected. Referees will be more respected for allowing their decisions to be corrected, who wants a referee imposing wrong decisions when they could have been corrected in seconds through technology. Therefore the argument opposite is completely invalid and false.
Goal line technology creates inconsistency in the laws

You have contradicted yourself entirely. If the referee does not allow a goal in due to some error in sight but the ball actually crossed the line, on another occasion the ball crosses the line and it is counted there is an inconsistency within the laws. The technology could be used where there is a camera present. Also the technology only makes the decisions more accurate, it uses the same laws but increases accuracy. This makes it more just for the players and their supporters. Your conclusion is ignorant, paradoxical and you have not used logic. Again, when young footballers can play without this technology but when entering the professional world they are faced with more challenges, one of them being 'the rules are actually consistent and the decisions more accurate'- if they cannot adapt then their talent is non-existent.
It brings no overall change to the causes of success and failure in football

The inherent possibility of mistake !! by the very nature of the sentence you are saying that the referees are doing something wrong i.e. they are making mistakes. Mistakes should be avoided therefore the solution to these mistakes should be put in place. The GLT system has been scientifically and empirically verified, through tennis and other sports and experiments. Therefore GLT should be put in place. You are claiming that tradition should be used instead of reason however, things change, and this change has no inherent problems for it solves them. Actually you are completely wrong about a bad decision not being the reason for a loss. For example- If two teams are completely equal but one goal is allowed illegally then this goal could decide the match. You are allowing an injustice to take place with no sound reason. You and your arguments are completely ridiculous. Grow up and use reason, logic and perfection.
Technology and innovation WILL change football completely . . . for the better, Just like it always has and will

No where in the rules of Fifa does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. Fifa rule book (2009) article 72 states that 1. During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee and 2. These decisions are final. This is why currently a referee uses; his own judgement, two assistant referees (introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined), a fourth official (introduced in 1991, 128 years after the rules of association football were coined), the recently introduced two additional assistant referees (fair enough its only in European games but that only brings the universality question into play thats a different point) and an earpiece linked to the two assistant refs and fourth official (introduced in 2006, which to me sounds a little bit like technology). Add that with the fact that Sepp Blatter himself has introduced many new technologies to assist him in doing the best job as president of Fifa. Or even the introduction of the offside rule which did completely change the way football is played so much so that the records had to be wiped. Going against GPS/RFID technology to track the players for offsides and the ball for going out of play/over the goal line, or even hawkeye goal line technology at the least, is going directly against the continuity of football and that desire to innovate and improve evidently resonating throughout its history. P.S. taking bad decisions into account is illogical as they have always existed and will always exist, its called human error. Taking human error and exchanging it with the the much, much less frequent computer error will not change a thing. It will only decrease the frequency of bad calls occuring but again this is in the spirit of the game.
FIFA will be contradicting their objective of opening football to the world

By installing the GLT system it in no way follows that it will affect the amount of people playing the sport... what evidence justifies your link? By allowing GLT they are actually creating a more consistent and just system which it can be assumed will encourage and attract more players because they know they will play in a equal and just sport. Also FIFA does not have to install this technology everywhere, this would be foolish. FIFA will only install it on a professional scale, which will not affect the amount of players coming in because players from all social backgrounds can play if they are talented.
The technology is used in other sports

Tennis and cricket are allot faster sports which are allot harder to judge. For instance in tennis there is mainly just the one question. Did the ball cross the line or not. In football there are two. Did it cross the line and Did it cross the line by fair means or foul. It would be unfair to answer just one of of those questions with technology but to leave the other unanswered. To answer both questions you would have to video everything that went on before the goal which would not be enjoyable. Limited challenges are also unfair because if, after judicial use of your allowances, you spot horrendous foul, your stuck. A serious question is: Why does Football, without all this technology have far far more viewers that all these other sports that use it.?
Goal line technology creates inconsistency in the laws

You can't have a competition which has different laws and different criteria for judging goals in the same competition. Secondly, the structure of football itself is actually a continuous structured hierarchy. Grass roots all the way up to the ighest division. In theory a team after several years could make it to the top by starting at the bottom, this mean it is like one continuous progressive strugle in a single structure. Introducing GLT means the inconsistency between that structure which is like one competiton. Those calling for GLT claim fairness is their cause but in reality for rare events a major widespread injustice is caused.
It brings no overall change to the causes of success and failure in football

Many people think without GLT there is injustice. However, this is incorrect. This is because the referees decision and the inherent possibility of mistake is known to both teams and part of the rules. So it is fair, both teams benefit and lose from such decisions in the course of a match and over the season. Bringing in GLT makes alot of changes but will make no changes to the status quo of football. There is no team that continuously loses because of the lack of technology and there is no team that is continuously unjustifiably successful because of the absence of GLT. Rather success in football is related to more important factors in a teams control e.g. skill, speed, passing, accuracy, creativity, strength, anticipation, formations, tactics, stamina, fitness, taking chances, motivational management, tactical management etc. It is very foolish that managers and players who can't take losing blame one technological issue for their failings. They would do better not to change football like a workman blaming the tools and blaming the rules that are the same for both, and instead concentrate changing the real reasons they lost the game. Football is a game of 90mins....one debatebale goal is not the reason for the loss...rather the failure over 90 mins or so, to create more chances, score more goals and defend those goals that were scored against you. Did we hear of a team that got relegated, because they kept losing goals that were not goals due to wrong decisions about whether the ball crossed the line? NO. Did we hear of a team that one the league because they kept getting false decisions in their favour due to absence of GLT.? NO.
FIFA will be contradicting their objective of opening football to the world

Gary Lineker claims 'the world of football' wants GLT. He means by that, himself (who has a job making millions talking about football and can then claim to be a big champion of changes as he beats the GLT drum) and all those rich managers and footballers who can't take losing and will look for any scapegoat for their loss (it wasn't them being overpaid, overrated and not having the committment, skill, tactics etc but rather because the technology is not there!) He doesn't mean by 'the world of football' the ACTUAL WORLD OF FOOTBALL.....i.e. the thousands of football clubs all over the world plus the millions of players and supporters. However, the media is busy at the moment pumping a very one sided argument (as well as it being an irrational one) in favour of GLT, so the TV watching sheep will most likely repeat what they hear. No doubt FIFA and manufacturers will get very rich on the introduction of any such technology....endorsements etc. But all of this contradicts the idea of the South Africa 2010 world cup...opening football to the poor etc. In reality football would became a nintendo game on the pitch for the elite-rich.....with the rest of the world playing a game with very different equipment and different rules and standards.
Football is an art not a science.

Goal Line Technology such as GoalRef is instantaneous. The project intended only for a signal to be immediately sent to the system it's hooked up to and into the referees watches. Upon receiving this signal (all this happening in a split second), the referee would know for sure the ball crossed the line. HawkEye also takes a literal split second, unlike your typical video review. While HawkEye requires a request to spit out its "Goal" or "No Goal" answer, it is still lightning fast. A coaches appeals system to the 4th official would work nicely here. Both of these methods are in the final levels of testing for use in professional play. I am a referee myself. I understand it's an art. This debate is over GOAL LINE technology though. Not "fix every call the players don't agree with" technology. *No* Article wrote:Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision." *No* Article wrote:"Was it a handball, did the defender play the ball or take out the man, which way should the throw in be awarded, should it be a corner or a goal kick, was the forward marginally offside or not etc..." These are all subject to the interpretation of the official. Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision? Of course not! Flow of the game. But is the ball going over the line a debatable decision? No. There is no gray area. It is either all the way over the line or it is not. There is LITERALLY a line. Calls on the field: Interpretation of the referee. Examples: "Was there intent?" "Will the player gain advantage?" "Was that shoulder to shoulder contact or did he push off with force with his hand to send the player down?" BUT, with all this in mind: Ball going over a line (ESPECIALLY a goal line) is this or that. It did go over or it didnt. White team did earn that goal, red keeper did fail to save that goal. OR. White team did not earn that game winner, good save by the red keeper. Goal line calls are this or that. Because the human eye is sometimes incapable of seeing it, this is one area where technology can improve our skills. Are we asking the technology to make the calls on the field for us? No. They are to the interpretation of the official, as always. But over the line or not? There is no interpretation. It is, or is not.
The deliberation of linesmen, particularly Azerbaijani linesmen, is an important part of the game.

You are implying that the players should not abide by the rules, this means that, to make fair play possible each team/ player is allowed to break the rules. This is stupid and ignorant. The teams should abide by the rules and make the game exciting not by foul play but by genius of teamwork and creativity. Also just because you dont want to watch a game where the rules are not followed does not mean everyone agrees with you, maybe there are intelligent people out there who believe in fair play, truth and an efficient system where the players are encouraged to excite the audience with magic not with cheating. Also maybe then the referee should not call the time, but a computerized whistle should be blown. Use your brain please.
The costs and changes for a relatively rare scenario are unjustified

Again, another weak and un-reasonable hypothesis > Your argument basically says: because these occurrences are rare, technologies which would help make decisions on these should not be put in place. However, goals that are not given due to some rare mistake do affect the match either way which then affects the financial status of that team and league. By putting this technology in place you are ensuring that these rare occurrences are accounted for and the decisions on these occurrences are accurate and just. You stated in your last few lines the problems faced by linesman, this can be sorted through this technology. My reasoning is that the use of light rays are more accurate than the reflexes of a human linesman. Therefore these problems are solved.
The benefits far outweigh the costs

Goals are the ultimate measure of success in Top Class football competitions. If it is a Top Class game then it will be covered by a TV/media production company. They can provide the robust technology as part of their contract with whichever football authority negotiated the match coverage. The production company can make a monitor available to the match officials for replay of 'ball over the goal line' incidents only. This solution will provide the Benefit at no/little extra cost to the football authority/club. If the game is not important enough to be of interest to the media then it is not a Top Class game by default and the match officials continue as before without the technology. Outside of Top Class football, debates about referees decisions are part of the unique culture of football for both players and supporters alike.
The US is no longer faced with a situation where it is dealing with a single enemy who either will o...

The US is no longer faced with a situation where it is dealing with a single enemy who either will or will not launch a wave of annihilating 45 kiloton missiles, and it needs to change its arsenal to reflect a different world order. The possibility of multiple threats from rogue nations launching regional strikes on the interests of the US and her allies (e.g. an Iranian attack on Israel or US troops in Iraq, an invasion of Taiwan by China or an attack on South Korea by North Korea) requires a range of much smaller scale arms.
George W. Bush’s signing of the Moscow Treaty in 2002 (which requires the USA to cut its strategic n...

George W. Bush’s signing of the Moscow Treaty in 2002 (which requires the USA to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal from 6,000 to 2,000 weapons by 2012) shows that the US is not bent on nuclear aggression, simply an arsenal which is relevant to today’s threats.\ While the development of mini-nukes may well breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ultimately the states that are likely to threaten the US either do not care about international arms treaties (such as North Korea or Iran) or have already developed enough weapons that they can keep these treaties without their security being put at risk (Russia or China are both thought to already possess tactical nuclear stockpiles). While it is obviously important to try and stop other states from developing nuclear weapons, it should not stop the US from being able to defend itself. It was for that reason that the US broke the Anti-Missile Defence Treaty and mini-nukes should be no different.
Given that the smallest of the strategic nuclear weapons the US has is powerful enough to obliterate...

Given that the smallest of the strategic nuclear weapons the US has is powerful enough to obliterate an entire city, the arguments against ever using such a weapon are strong. For deterrence to work, rogue nations and other states with WMD must believe that the US will retaliate if attacked, however this is becoming increasingly unlikely. Given that the most realistic threats come from rogue nations who are likely to be only able to develop relatively low yield nuclear weapons, would the US chose to destroy the whole of Pyongyang in response to a small yield nuclear attack which only damaged the suburb of a US city? Perhaps more importantly, the relative difficulty of developing deliverable nuclear weapons means that rogue nations are increasingly looking towards other WMD. If the US was attacked with a chemical, biological or radiological weapon (a dirty bomb for example) it would be unlikely to retaliate by destroying Pyongyang with a nuclear strike. \ Thus to maintain deterrence the US needs to shift from MAD to a ‘Flexible Response’ philosophy and have an arsenal, including mini-nukes, which its enemies honestly believe might be used. By equipping itself with a range of responses which are appropriate to the range of threats levelled against it, the US is far more likely to deter potential aggressors in future.
Aside from dealing with tactical threats on the battlefield, the other main use for mini-nukes is as...

Aside from dealing with tactical threats on the battlefield, the other main use for mini-nukes is as ‘bunker-buster’ bombs to destroy underground bunkers. The US estimates that there are some 10,000 Hardened and Deeply Buried Tunnels (HDBT) spread over 70 countries and that around 10% of them house chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or command and control facilities. US scientists claim that existing conventional weaponry can only disable or disrupt HDBTs and even then only if there is accurate intelligence for targeting. The current alternative is the B61-11 nuclear bomb; however, it has a high yield and thus produces excessive explosive force and radiation. As a result it has never been used and instead ineffective conventional bunker-buster bombs have been deployed in combat arenas like Iraq and Afghanistan.\ A 5 kiloton mini-nuke bunker-buster would provide sufficient yield to destroy most HDBTs as well as to vaporise any chemical, biological or nuclear stockpiles within them. Perhaps more importantly, US Strategic Command (StratCom) estimates it would have between 10 and 20 times lower radiation fallout than the B61-11 while still achieving similar levels of damage despite its lower yield. This would make it a politically and morally viable option, particularly when it is used against stockpiles of WMD; even the most sceptical scientists concede that the potential casualties from any fallout would be lower than if the WMD was used aggressively.\ Obviously these bunker-busters have not been fully researched and developed yet, that is why this motion calls for support for research into them, and so we should be wary of claims that they will never be able to work. Yet if the choice is between sending a land invasion to destroy underground nuclear laboratories with the inevitable casualties as compared to using mini-nuke bunker busters, it seems clear the research is worth doing.
It would be possible to research and potentially to develop a new range of nuclear weaponry without ...

It would be possible to research and potentially to develop a new range of nuclear weaponry without actually having to conduct live tests. Since the 1992 nuclear testing moratorium, the USA has been developing increasingly sophisticated supercomputers designed specifically for simulated nuclear weapons tests. These would be sufficient for most of the research into the nuclear device itself.\ The second key part of the research into mini-nukes focuses on producing a delivery missile for the bunker-buster bombs. These missiles would be dropped from 20,000 feet or more by aircraft and then smash through the ceiling of underground bunkers. Developing such delivery vehicles is probably the most technically complex part of the research and accounted for most of the funding voted through by Congress in 2003. Testing these missiles would not breach the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Even if the US did decide to mount a mini-nuke on one and test it, given the administration’s vocal opposition to the Treaty and the way other states around the world have ignored it or chosen not to sign up to it, it is unlikely to lead to a flood of states deciding to start nuclear testing.