BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Playoffs Offer More Suspense

Within the playoff system every game during the playoffs is a knockout. As such, every single game in the playoffs carries the potential risk of excluding the losing team from the remainder of that season’s games. This works incredibly well to build up tension, because favourites have lost to teams that were believed to be a lot worse. With history supporting this idea all players and fans are likely to feel tension during the playoff games which directly contributes to the enjoyment of a game. Further, given the prevalence of late game comebacks in American football, due the ever present threat of an interception, it means that fans are still likely to enjoy games even when their team is likely to lose going into the later quarters. Further, the playoff system still significantly incentivises good work during the regular season. The top ranked team would face the lowest ranked team in the first round and gain home field advantage for being the higher seed. It is beneficial for both sides because under BCS, the second team has no guarantee that it would even be included and the former team would not be guaranteed home field advantage.[1] [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709
Playoffs Lead To More Exposure

The issue with the BCS system, as mentioned above, is that teams selected by an often broken and biased BCS mechanism receive more money and exposure than more talented, harder working institutions, making them more likely to be selected by the same mechanism in the future. Standout teams that only perform that well for a season are able to get significantly more exposure under the proposition model. Due to the very high profile nature of playoff games- as well as the fact that there would simply be more playoff games with palpably fair and meritocratic outcomes later in the playoffs- more people will watch college football. Specifically, including more teams in a playoff based competition will mean that more fans get their favourites in to the playoffs and as such more people watch. Secondly, the increased number of matches’ means that it is more likely that fans will be able to catch another match if they cannot watch one. Finally, should an upset happen, the amount of interest generated in the subsequent match is incredibly great and generates significantly more exposure for both teams participating.[1] [1] Sanderson, Matthew. “The conservative case for college football reform.” The Hill. 06/01/2010 http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/74567-conservative-case-for-college-football-reform
Playoffs Would Earn Less money

BCS makes consistent money for the Universities and colleges that partake in the system. The issue is that, should a playoff system be implemented, it is likely that these institutions would seek to undermine it in order to simply revert back to the old system. Should they withdraw their teams, the overall skill ceiling of college football would lower significantly. The fact that playoffs would occur during the Christmas period also means that owing to the cold weather at the time, the number of fans that would be drawn to the stadiums to pay money would be significantly lower than in regular season. The “Bowls” system makes sense because the only one near the Christmas period is the national championship which is considered high profile enough to draw a crowd.[1] [1] Purdy Mark. “College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea.” Mercury news. 8/01/2010  http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100021407&docId=l:1106674787&start=23
Playoffs Result in More Injuries and Hurt Academics

The toll on the bodies of players in American football is much greater than that of other sports, primarily due to the high frequency of physical impacts in the sport. To be able to get through a season, players often need to play through more minor injuries and thus need fairly long rest periods between games. However, playoffs would all be run within a small window of time, meaning the accumulation of injuries would be greater and thus players would be more likely to risk much more serious injuries just to be in the championship game. The quality of the championship game would suffer significantly because of this, but also players might riddle themselves with long term injuries that they could come to forget in the future. Alternatively, players with an interest in their long-term careers would be likely to pull out of the bowl system altogether. Further, football players often have to take a lot of time away from classes in order to play football games under the status quo. A lot of the time players catch this work back up in the holiday. However, this would be impossible under the new system as the entire Christmas holiday would be potentially lost to playoffs.[1] [1] Scripps Howard News Service. “Florida president to push playoff plan at SEC meetings.” ESPN. 29/05/2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2885646
The referendum is good PR for the UK.

A vote will make the government look weak. The government will seem like it's avoiding a difficult issue by shifting responsibility for the Europe question to the public. Europeans will see the British government as an unreliable political partner willing to gamble EU membership at a volatile and dangerous time for the continent's economic and political future. To lose the trust and co-operation of Europe by permitting a referendum would be myopic at best, and replace long-term political co-operation and security with short-term appeasement of the general public. improve this
The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh

Referendums are a positive democratic force. The argument that the UK has always been a representative democracy does not preclude integrating elements of direct democracy into the political process. If referendums reinforce the legitimacy of government, strengthen the social contract and keep the citizenry engaged, to reject them because they are relatively new is simply reactionary. Those who decide to call a referendum can be held politically accountable, which means that the volume, expense, and quality of referendums will be held to standards. In addition, there is no reason why referendum use shouldn't or wouldn't be codified as it continues to be incorporated into the British political process. If the coalition government deserves to stay in power, it will find ways to cooperate and coexist: if not, the country will be better off with a more functional one. improve this
EU membership is too important to gamble.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK  -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK.1If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote.2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already.3 1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011. 2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011. 3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011
The vote will be illegitimate.

The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the people. Representative democracy makes the further basic assumption that citizens are capable of making important and informed decisions when they vote. To suggest otherwise is elitist and undemocratic. improve this
A referendum will create a better political climate.

The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not only individuals but also parties will be appeased: the far left and right each feel strongly about this issue. Euroskeptic parties like UKIP and the BNP have agitated for an in-or-out vote for years, and disguise racism and anti-immigrant sentiment as Euroskepticism in the process. A vote either way would settle the issue and make it harder for them to disguise antisocial aspects of their platforms. Pro-Europeans like the Lib Dems also want the referendum: leader Nick Clegg said that "nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide"2 by not holding one. Both sides of the political spectrum wants this issue definitively settled. Once it has been, politicians will be able to redirect focus and work on crucial issues like the economy. 1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011. 2 CLEGG, NICK. October 15, 2003. "We need an EU referendum." The Guardian.accessed June 14, 2011.
An in or out referendum would be legitimate.

Parliamentary and logistic precedents indicate that holding a referendum about an issue of sovereignty is practical and practicable. There have been two successfully-held national referendums, one the direct antecedent of this one (the 1975 EEC vote) and one recently (the 2011 AV vote). The history of national referendums therefore indicates that they are both constitutional and logistically viable. Furthermore, the referendum is legitimized by public desire. A BBC poll in 2009 indicated that 71% would vote 'no' to EU membership if a referendum was held, a level of dissatisfaction which indicates the need for a public discussion and vote.1 1 MORGAN, CHARLES. January 2, 2009. "No change in British public opinion on Euro" Cafebabel improve this
The public have a right to a referendum.

The public deserve to vote in this referendum because it regards a constitutional issue – sovereignty. Beyond constitutionality, referendums maintain democratic society when the public’s views and MPs’ clearly misalign, as they do in this case. This vote will also maintain the established precedent of holding referendums on EU issues. If the British people had to be consulted on EEC membership, as happened in 1975, they must be consulted on EU membership: the current EU barely resembles the EEC that the UK voted to join long ago, but has greatly magnified stature and power. improve this
The referendum is good PR for the UK.

A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the UK is not doing enough to co-operate. Europeans also will improve their view of the United Kingdom: a "Yes" vote will minimize the perception of the UK as a foot-dragging, reluctant participant in Europe; a "No" vote will be seen to end a half-hearted charade. Either way, a more straightforward relationship with Europe will minimize UK-Europe mistrust, which will benefit each politically and economically. improve this
The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh

Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about issues: the resources their position affords are a major justification for representative democracy. The UK must reverse its recent referendum trend (which only began in 1973) to avoid undermining government legitimacy and stability. In the status quo, referendums are deployed inconsistently, used as a political tool to hedge on issues, and used by parties to avoid tough internal conversations. Referendums also harm governmental accountability, which is key for a functional representative democracy because it protects voters. MPs avoid being held accountable by their constituents and fulfilling their own role in parliamentary democracy by using referendums to avoid taking a stance on politically contentious issues. In addition, the overuse of referendums causes governmental paralysis: see the US state of California’s initiative addiction. Referendums are a poor use of public funds: each costs £80-100 million1 -- especially unacceptable since MPs can call referendums on a whim with no guidelines. In the current political, the referendum might tear apart the coalition government. Lib Dems and Conservatives are deeply divided from each other and internally over the issue. If the parties campaigned against each other the divisions formed during the AV campaign would widen. A broken coalition and new general election would interrupt government in a time of recession when the country desperately needs new policies and programs. 1 BBC NEWS DESK. February 1, 2011. “MPs reject Tory MP's call for 'in-out' EU referendum.” The BBC,accessed June 15, 2011.
EU membership is too important to gamble.

Membership of the European Union is too valuable to be cast aside. Prime Minister David Cameron refuses to hold a referendum for a good reason: he knows that leaving the EU would inflict great harm on the UK.1Economically, the UK is weaker on trade negotiations, especially with the US,2 as a lone entity. In international society, the country will be seen as unreliable, and the UK's already fractured relationship with Europe will sustain further damage. Keeping strong ties with Europe as well as the US is essential for UK well-being. If the UK left, the EU would be weaker and might collapse. The organization is at a crossroads given the collapsing Euro and it must weather this difficult time in order to prove its sustainability. If it lost the UK's financial support, the economic fallout in Europe would further weaken the continent's economies, which would in turn harm the UK, whose economy would necessarily remain tied to its European trading partners and financial service customers. 1 PHIBBS, HARRY. March 14, 2011. "Is Cameron worried that withdrawal from the EU would be a foregone conclusion if a referendum is agreed?" The Daily Mail., accessed June 20, 2011. 2 BOWLBY, CHRIS. November 16, 2009. "If the UK left the EU what would the consequences be?" The BBC, accessed June 16, 2011.
The vote will be illegitimate.

The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only fosters misinformation and subjectivity on the behalf of campaigners. Racist far-right parties can easily exploit European issues by playing on public fears about immigration. The referendum lead-up would provide a megaphone for these parties' unacceptable views. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum campaign showed that the public readily believes misinformation and scare tactics and meaningful discussion of issues is drowned out. Leaving the decision to elected representatives preserves the rationality of the debate. 1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011. improve this
A referendum will create a better political climate.

A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct rebuke to their own power. Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some constituents want it. It is not the job of government to neutralize radical voices, but to offer better alternatives while preserving freedom of expression. If parties want to resolve the Europe question, they should do so through established political channels. improve this
An in or out referendum would be legitimate.

A referendum would not be a legitimate use of government money, for it would not be practical. Holding a referendum on an issue the country already approved in 1975 would be a waste of time and resources. The expense of referendums is abhorrent to the UK taxpayer; the Alternative Vote referendum held in 2011 was believed to have cost £250 million, excessive at the best of the times, irresponsible during times of financial austerity.1 Moreover, the practice of holding national referendums must be stopped as it undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the parliamentary system. Regarding public will, referendums are not hostage to the demands of the public, for dissatisfaction with the status quo rarely leads to or justifies a referendum.  If 71% would vote ‘no’, but 83% admit they know little about the EU, then a referendum on the issue cannot be deemed a legitimate representation of the United Kingdom’s views on EU membership. 1PORTER, ANDREW. February 15, 2011. “Voting referendum will cost £250 million claim campaigners”, The Daily Telegraph, 201   improve this
The public have a right to a referendum.

Referendums are not a right. Parliament has passed no law governing when referendums must be held. Because Parliament has set itself no guidelines on when to call referendums, the public has no right to one even if similar situations in the past have warranted them. Moreover, a system of representative democracy means referendums are not necessary -- it is MPs' job to make decisions. The public have the right to vote for leaders and hold those leaders accountable, not a right to vote on individual issues. improve this
Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies

Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.
Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked

It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite  the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010.[i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue. If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else. Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen,[ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed[iii]. We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007.[iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do[v]. [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/21/global-carbon-emissions-record [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04310w.html [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/the-climate-change-tipping-poi... [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-climate-arctic-idUKBRE87T0LH20120830 [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011. http://www.unep.org/pdf/RIO20/progress-internationally-agreed-goals.pdf
The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent

Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic. Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms[i]. The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs[ii]. Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year[iii]. [i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450 [ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf [iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”. http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-...
The necessary research alone will take time and should be a priority

There are significant research challenges that need to be addressed in terms of envisaging what an adaptation regime would look like. For example how adaptation would tie into to other types of change – social, economic, demographic, etc. Answering these questions, alone, will take time but are a necessary precursor to building a realistic adaptation routine[i]. The urgency here comes from the fact that it will take time to establish new systems to work on this at an international level. One of the difficulties demonstrated by the experience of initial studies of climate change was that it needed to be conducted on a global scale, frequently involving complex and expensive modeling systems. There are several backstages to establishing this and the majority of relevant academics are currently working on prevention models rather than designing an entire new framework of prediction. Developing such frameworks will require the focus of governments, in terms of research funding policies and agreeing enforcement and delivery models. Given the choice between building a framework that can work and focussing on one that hasn’t, the choice seems to be fairly obvious[ii]. [i] National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility website. http://www.nccarf.edu.au/ [ii] See also the UN site here