BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.

If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.
Public opinion is changeable

It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems. It may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly.
Referendums are very artificial.

It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides.[1] [1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009. http://iilhr.org/documents/complookreferendumlaw.pdf
Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf
Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.

Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want. Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored. For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented. [1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4th August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195
Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes

Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies,[1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination.[2] [1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009. http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadas-questionable-coalition/ [2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011. http://www.ejiltalk.org/sudan%E2%80%99s-lesson-for-secession-a-comment/
Public opinion is changeable

Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law.[1] Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time. [1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/pathtodevolution/index.htm
Referendums are very artificial.

The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field.[1] [1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568819.stm
Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.

Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.
Improves standards in political governance.

Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption. As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)
The job of a government is necessarily long term.

It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives. Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.
A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.

The situation in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal is not as extreme as that faced by Greece. It is therefore highly unlikely that a Greek default would have as severe a domino effect as the opposition suggests. Greece is the main source of political and economic uncertainty in the Eurozone, and their departure would ease the situation, facilitate investors and allow for the Eurozone to rally strongly. [1] [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf
Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.

Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro.
The current austerity measures are not working

The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity. [1]  Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9101397/Why-Greece-should-default-and-exit-the-euro.html
Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery

Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh. [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18143078 [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view
A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone

A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members. [1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view
Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece

There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen: The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find. The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3] These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4] [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232 [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf   [3] ibid [4] Arghyrou, Michael:  “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232
Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems

The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision. [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view
A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.

A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support.                                   [1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232
Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.

Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term. [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf
The current austerity measures are not working

The proposition’s claims that the austerity measures have totally failed are unfounded. Although it is true that the total debt % GDP ratio has not gone down, this is not as serious as the prop make out. The budget deficit is the main problem that needs to come down because a consistently high budget deficit is what will make the situation spiral out of control and make Greece default on its debts. There is nothing per se problematic with having a large total debt (look at the USA’s total debt of $10 trillion, or Japan’s much higher debt to GDP ratio of 230% which unlike in Greece has not resulted in high interest rates,[1] for example). The fact that Greece’s budget deficit has gone down from 16% to 9% is an encouraging sign of improvement. In addition, the proposition are not contentious in their claims about the negative effects of austerity. What they have failed to demonstrate, however, is why defaulting is the only solution to the suffering Greek people and the inability of the austerity measures to have their desired effect. The austerity measures have failed thus far because they have been targeted at the wrong areas of the economy and because the Greek Government has not been implementing them properly. Hitting the private sector with high taxation has done nothing to fix the faulty public sector which is the real cause of the debt crisis. The Greek Government remains hugely reluctant to carry out redundancies and wage cuts within the public sectors, as well as privitisations. [2] Greece, therefore, must be made to see that they must fulfill their promises and actually tackle the public sector, while alleviating taxation from the private sector. [1] Free Exchange, ‘Defying gravity’, 14 August 2012, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/08/fiscal-sustainability [2] Babbington, Deepa: “Greek PM sings in tune, now must hit the hard notes”, Septembe 5 2012, e-kathimerini, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_04/09/2012_459620
Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery

The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference. Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1] [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012510154748106118.html
A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone

Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted.  Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece.