BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy.

This must not be dismissed as petty nostalgia, desire for outdated British tradition and fear of change. The fact that Britain does not want to lose the national symbol of her Queen on the banknotes is surely a sign that the British want to hold on to their own identity and keep control of their own economy. As explained by Alan Clark, "The European Commission Press Office chose that moment to release facsimiles of the new euro banknotes in their various denominations. The unfamiliar, but so obviously foreign, appearance made many people uneasy. Polls showed that the electorate, for most of the time indifferent to European squabbling, whose technicalities they could not be bothered to master, disliked the removal of their Sovereign's head from the currency of the realm. The sceptics took fresh heart and the likelihood of the dispute fading …became still more remote.”1 This highlights the depth and strength of anti-Euro sentiment in the British psyche. It is surely unfair for both Britain and those fellow EU Member states that ARE under the Euro to enter the single currency while not entirely convinced by it. 1Alan Clarke, The Tories: Conservatives and the Nation State 1922-1997, page 435-6. improve this
Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term.

Britain does not have to become a part of the Euro to benefit from the EU economically. Britain has already struck the right balance between EU involvement and managing her own economy. "We are already part of the single market, and getting rid of the barriers put up by having separate currencies will make little difference. It was the removal of all the other barriers– such as tariffs – that mattered far more. The economies of scale are already here – from the EU’s almost 300 million consumers – having an effect.”1.Accepting the Euro could very well upset this balance with very negative effects; “Staying out, we have the advantage of a more flexible economy, more adaptable labour market, and lower taxes.” Therefore, it is more advantageous for Britain to keep the pound whilst maintaining EU membership. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91 improve this
Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out.

This has simply not been the case; since the launch of the Euro in 2002, London has consolidated her position as the financial centre of Europe. There is no need for Britain to join the Euro, she can profit from the financial influence London exercises while her mainland European counterparts use the single currency. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “at the launch of the Euro…that what were effectively regional financial centres –such as Paris- lost any reason for their existence and saw all European business drain away to Europe’s real financial centre, London.”1 Moreover, Britain is not wholly reliant on her European counterparts for business; “More people work in financial services in London than live in Frankfurt, its only likely rival. We have the English language and a time zone that means we can deal with New York and Tokyo in the working day.”1 If the British economy does not even need mainland Europe for business, even less it needs the single currency. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 93 improve this
Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency.

No; cheaper goods come at a high monetary price and a high price of a chaotic turnaround. Even before the Euro has taken effect, it is going to be costly; "Converting to the Euro will also cost businesses, and shops in particular, billions of pounds, and that is bound to be passed on to their customers."1 Once it fully takes effect, "The Euro will also lead to higher inflation and more red tape, encumbering businesses and their customers with even higher costs". 1 And so the initial monetary costs and inconvenience are not going to be short lived, but will in fact spread. Any silver lining of cheaper goods prices eventually is not going to be worth the upheaval of complications and inflation its creation entails. 1 The Euro: Should Britain join?, Anthony Browne, p. 102 improve this
Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.

This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday.  Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103 improve this
For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost

No; Unemployment will rise if Britain stays out of the single currency. Britain's indecision over joining the single currency has already discouraged foreign investors from doing business with her, and this will only worsen if she stays out, thus reducing the number of jobs there. Britain has to be in the single currency to retain a presence in the European business scene if she is to prosper and make any profit at all. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?; "Without access to the single currency zone, foreign investors who are here will move out, closing factories and businesses; new ones will set up in Euroland in preference to the UK." London's position as the European financial centre has already been depleted by Frankfurt and this situation will only deteriorate if Britain stays out of the Euro. The pound is no longer a source of hope for Britain. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 52 improve this
In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs.

These restraints exist to ensure that all countries contribute to the European Community. Surprisingly, Britain's sovereignty will actually increase by joining the Euro. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "When it comes to interest rates, we would in some ways get more sovereignty. Being represented in the ECB (European Central Bank) would give us more influence over the business cycle, because we would be there as part of the decision-making process, not just having to accept decisions made by others that would have a profound effect on us."1 Joining the single currency and by attachment the ECB would help Britain to better oversee and predetermine her economic activity, thereby improving the handle she has on her finances. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"   improve this
Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy.

  The Queen's head on British money will not be entirely lost. This nostalgia is simply ridiculous; the head of Queen Elizabeth II has only appeared on English banknotes "since 1960, having been made impossible by the nationalisation of the Bank of England in 1946."1 (Moreover, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never had the reigning monarch's head on their banknotes; and so no change will incur. The Queen's head will be lost from banknotes but "By contrast, we have had the monarch's head on our coins since the Middle Ages, and that will continue. Countries in Euroland can put a symbol- such as their monarch- on one side of each coin."1 The attitude expressed alongside is irrational fear of change. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 83. improve this
Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term.

Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2. 1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89 2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian improve this
Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out.

London will further lose its position as Europe’s financial centre, and the financial influence this brings with it. Britain’s staying out of the Euro has already depleted London’s status as the European financial centre. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “The European Central Bank – the second most powerful in the world – had a natural home in London, but ended up in Frankfurt because of our indecision over the Euro.”1 Germany used this to her advantage, for it “reinvigorated Germany’s bid to ensure that Frankfurt becomes Europe’s financial centre, with a massive office-building programme to rival London’s Docklands.”1Germany seizing London’s sphere of influence will only increase if Britain stays out of the Euro. Moreover, if Britain’s indecision over the Euro continues, “it would lead to a serious rethink by foreign owners of many of the City’s financial institutions about where their core activities should be located.”1 If Britain does not join the Euro, her economic activity both at home and between fellow Member States will be badly affected.    1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 92 improve this
Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency.

There will be initial conversion costs and inflation, but this will be short lived. If Britain accepts the Euro, “There will be far more powerful forces – price transparency and economies of scale in a massive single market – that will continuously push the price of British goods down to European levels [resulting in] massive savings.”1. The end of cheaper goods justifies the means of attaining them. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91 improve this
Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.

Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102 2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103   improve this
For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost

The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"   improve this
In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs.

If she accepted the Euro as her currency, Britain would have to hand the control she has over her economy over to Brussels. EU Committees would dictate how she may spend and tax. It is too dangerous for any country to have her economic affairs dictated by another country. This is an issue even Europhiles (those who support the EU) are sceptical about. "Joining the euro would involve a major surrendering of our sovereignty, severely hindering our ability to run the economy as we see fit. We would lose control over interest rates, and the ability to manage the economy through taxing and spending. Instead, it would be run by European committees… Even British politician Kenneth Clarke, nicknamed “Europe’s biggest friend” and one of the leading campaigners for the euro, admits that Britain’s ability to tax is central to its democracy.”1 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 70
Playoffs Would Not Benefit Fans

College football fans tend to have lower budgets than those of NFL fans. Specifically because there are many more colleges and owing to the lower number of fans per game, there usually aren’t deals on travel. As such travel between grounds is expensive. Given that playoffs result in more games being played it is apparent that supporters of the various teams will incur more cost. Further, if their team loses where they might have instead won a lesser competition, the supporters will likely be less happy than they are now. As well as this, when a team does win in the playoffs, the people watching that team face a very high burst of costs should they want to continue to support that team. Further, if the fans do have to stay at home they will as a result be subjected to watching a game with a half filled stadium with no real atmosphere.[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
Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness

The practice of having multiple “Bowls” creates a system where more teams “Win” at the end of the season. Whilst college football is serious, it is understood that college teams’ players participate in collegiate events in order to gain the skills and experience that will enable them to join NFL teams. As such, the participation of talented youngsters in college football is dependent on collegiate tournaments being seen as fair, impartial and meritocratic tests of players’ and teams’ skill. Confidence in the meritocratic nature of the system is not enough to guarantee the interest of the best players, however. Returns on the investment of time and effort and opportunity that players engage in must be high. The odds of gaining recognition as a good player within the collegiate system must outweigh the risk of losing out on the chance to participate in high profile games. In a situation where playoffs are introduced, only one team stands victorious at the end, the others lose and are inevitably forgotten about. This is incredibly discouraging for those players who do lose, and might cause them to drop out of football in the future, which significantly harms the NFL’s pool later on, impacting significantly on the national pastime. Deterred by the risk of sinking into obscurity, junior players may avoid participating in college teams altogether. Further, the concept of playoffs often results in weaker teams defeating ones who have had a much better regular season. Ultimately this is less fair, as the side which consistently performs well should be awarded more accolades than a side that gets lucky during a game which happens to have been assigned a greater weighting within the BCS’s algorithms. Again, when there is an upset, the harm to the losing team is often greater than the benefit to a winning team that is likely to lose in the next round of the contest.[1] [1] Davis, Michael. Kane, Time. “Would a college football playoff be fair?” Real Clear Politics. 12/11/2009 http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/11/12/would_a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html
Playoffs Offer More Suspense

Under the BCS, every single game is important as losing the BCS is often catastrophic when it comes to qualification for any of the subsequent Bowls. As such, the playoffs mean that regular season games become less relevant as winning and losing only has an effect on seed and qualification becomes a lot easier. Further, BCS builds up the need for an undefeated season for certain teams to be able to qualify. As such teams are more likely to give everything to every single match during the regular season under BCS, unlike in some leagues where a clear winner will emerge very early on and not have to play nearly at 100% capacity in order to win the conference overall.[1] [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103
Playoffs Lead To More Exposure

The Bowl system results in a few incredibly important matches for players. As such, offensive coordinators for teams bring out every single trick that they have in the book to win them. Every player involved in the Bowl system goes all out to win these events because they are the only televised matches that most players will ever see. Given that that is true, Bowls have a reputation for being some of the most exciting and spectacular matches of the year. The viewing audience for Bowls is disproportionately high because of this. As such, the exposure for teams participating in Bowls is significantly higher and would be lowered if the resolution were to pass, the inevitable result of lower viewing figures for the individual matchups.[1] [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103
Playoffs Would Earn Less money

The existence of the Bowls is simply a way for the BCS businessmen to earn large amounts of money. Under the status quo, the BCS businessmen get a share of all revenues generated from each Bowl. Further, the money is also then divided further, with the television network that covers the game taking some of the revenue. Further, given the games aren’t played on home turf, instead on a stadium that is hired for that day’s play, money is lost on travel. By comparison, under the proposition, if high seeded teams win consistently, they would play at home, not lose money to the BCS officials and thus gain significantly extra levels of revenue just by running business in-house.[1] [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709
Playoffs Result in More Injuries and Hurt Academics

As at least 18 year olds, college football players know the risks of injury that college football might entail and should they choose to continue playing it is their right to do so. If they get injured they have consented and are not harming anyone else. Further, the teams that get through the playoffs are most likely to be the teams that have won the most games. Generally in football, the teams that do win the most games have suffered the fewest injuries on the dint of them being very strong at protecting their running backs and quarterbacks. Academically, football players are mandated to attend a minimum number of classes and often are better at attending classes than many other students. As such, playoffs would be fine, especially considering they come during the holiday period where often students are home with their families and not working anyway.[1] [1] Schad, Joe. “Auburn coach Tuberville calls for playoff system.” ESPN 05/10/2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2612789
Playoffs Would Not Benefit Fans

There is an impetus for playoffs among fans, with 63% saying that playoffs similar to those used in college basketball should be implemented. Further, given that the games would have implications for the national championships they would not suffer a loss in attendance given that right now the “Bowl” games are viewed by most fans as being meaningless exercises. Given that most view these games as meaningless and simply go for the camaraderie and the pageantry they feel, it seems logical that in playoff games that have ramifications for a legitimate championship they are more likely to go. Fans already do this for college basketball which has sixty extra games and doesn’t even happen during a time when people are off from work for the Christmas and New Year break.[1] [1] Starin, Harvey. “There is nothing wrong with college football playoffs.” Sun Sentinel. 01/07/2010 http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-01-07/news/1001060624_1_college-football-playoffs-playoff-system-playoff-games
Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness

The BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall. Finally, as noted football analyst Michael Shull notes, due to flaws in the computer algorithms used to allocated BCS places, some teams that do well for a single season as an outlier or due to a positive change for the team do not get into the cup. This potentially means that the same teams consistently get into the cup and gain $17 million in revenue regardless of whether they win or lose. As such this system ensures that those who do get selected just get richer and better and thus become more likely to be picked by the computer system in the future.[1] [1] Shull, Michael. “BCS No More: Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS.” College Sports Fans. http://www.collegesports-fans.com/articles/college-football-playoffs_120308.html