BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Expansion could devastate farming in western Europe.

This is where land and labour costs and environmental standards are much higher than in the east. The prospect of new entrants receiving vast subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (current cost $48 billion per annum) would make this danger worse, while the collapse or reduction of the CAP under the strain of expansion would be catastrophic. Not only would a collapse of the farming industries of current members be an economic and strategic disaster, it would have grave environmental consequences.
Prospect of EU membership compels reform in former-USSR countries,

driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatisations, in human rights) which are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the likely early entrants to the EU has been impressive and deserves reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to these states, the often unpopular reform process might stall and public opinion could turn towards dangerous nationalisms.
Expansion strains EU institution and hampers decision-making, action.

e.g. the Commission and Court of Justice, endangering their effective working and the current benefits of membership of the EU. Expansion would be very risky unless it was preceded by major reforms of voting in the Council of Ministers to avoid deadlock in decision-making (or the tyranny of voting majorities by coalitions of small countries with a fraction of the EU’s population), and of the size and national-composition of the EU Commission itself, already unwieldy at 20 members. In addition, the EU stands to gain a long eastern border open to smuggling of both goods and illegal immigrants, and one which will bring the Union into constant friction with a suspicious Russia. The accession of divided Cyprus is also dangerous.
Poor often can't afford private schools, even with vouchers

Given the limited budget for schools, a voucher system weakens public schools while at the same time not necessarily providing enough money for people to attend private schools. Some private elementary and high schools are nearly $20,000 - $30,000 per year. Most voucher programs are in the range of $5,000 to $15,000. Many disadvantaged students and parents will not be able to pay the difference - ranging from $25,000 to $5,000. This means vouchers do not necessarily offer the disadvantaged the opportunity and choice to attend expensive private schools.
School vouchers mostly benefit the affluent

A voucher system that offers choice to parents is used most by affluent parents that are already engaged in the education of their students and whom would prefer that their child leave a failing school. Poor and disadvantaged parents are less likely to take advantage of vouchers. The result is that affluent students go to better schools, while poor and disadvantaged students generally stay in underperforming schools. Instead of helping the disadvantaged, vouchers actually end up leaving them behind.[5]
Competition via vouchers makes schools more efficient/effective

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. They introduce competition by giving parents and students the choice to leave bad schools in favor of better schools. This compares to the far less competitive status quo situation in which students are locked into schools in their district. The argument goes that competition forces schools to act more resourcefully, creatively, and efficiently as a means of enhancing their competitiveness relative to other schools. If they do not do this, they will be less competitive, lose attendance and tuition, lose quality students and teachers, and possibly be forced to close. In short, vouchers introduce competition, which provides an incentive to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
Privatization of public schools through vouchers is a good thing.

The Liberty and Democracy Party of Australia supports vouchers as a stepping-stone to abolishing public schools. LDP spokesman Shem Bennett said, "Initially some public schools would remain. But under the LDP’s plan, schools would slowly privatise and diversify as there’d be no need for government ownership."[12] This is a good thing because privatized schools are more efficient and cost-effective, delivering a higher quality education product at lower costs. An additional reason is that privatized schools are more agile in meeting the demands of local community members. Public schools, driven by national standards, are not as reflective of the educational preferences of local communities.
Education vouchers force schools to hire competitive teachers.

Schools that face choice-based incentives must increase the quality of the education they provide, which causes them to seek and keep better teachers and hold bad teachers to account. If they do not do this, they will lose students and tuition, and may be forced to close. Vouchers, therefore, provide an incentive for schools to increase the quality of the education they offer, which improves student achievement and success, and generally improves the long-term economic vibrancy of a nation.
Vouchers forget that education is a public good, not a private good.

The argument that education is a private good is based on the failure to differentiate education from public education. Education refers merely to the teaching of individual students for their own benefit. Public education refers to the goal of educating the entire public for their own benefit and the benefit of society as a whole. Looked at from this point of view, public education is a public good. This interpretation is arrived at by looking at society as a whole as benefiting from the education (or suffering from the lack of education) of its citizens.
Cooperation, not competition, is best way to improve schools.

Cooperation between schools, city and local officials, communities, and educational groups is the best way to improve schools. It ensures that information and resources are shared and that everyone works together to improve the educational system collectively. Competition is much the opposite. It ensures that school administrators do not share information that may undermine their "competitiveness" and distracts attention away from the most important thing - how to best educate children - and focuses more on how to out-compete other schools. When combined with testing regimes (such as exists in No Child Left Behind), it often creates a perverse obsession with "teaching to the test" as a means of producing a higher average test score compared to other schools. This may have no relation to the quality of an education.
Vouchers damage public schools that can't compete with private schools.

Public schools are unlikely to be able to respond to increased competitive pressure generated by vouchers.[2] This is not the fault of public schools - they are not designed to "compete". Public schools are designed to provide an education that reflects the educational priorities of a society; this is not something that competition can necessarily foster. Private schools often have a very different mission and are designed to compete, in some case purely for profit. It is wrong to attempt to mix non-competitive public schools and competitive private schools in a competitive voucher system. Obviously, public schools will lose, undermining the common values driving the public education system.
Market-based education vouchers help supply demand.

Under a student voucher system, where demand exists for education from the parents that would rather attend a different school, entrepreneurs are free to open and invest in new schools to accommodate demand. Supply demand, in this sense, is generally a good thing in its own right. People that want something are happier if someone is allowed to fulfill their desires. But this is only possible under a student voucher system, where students can move freely between schools and schools are free to accommodate this fluid demand.
Public schools are a public good; should not be subjected to market.

Education does not fit well into a fungible supply/demand system. The main reason is that the supply of schools cannot adjust quickly to year-to-year changes in demand. Schools cannot be built overnight or within even a single year. And, schools cannot rapidly adjust their budgets because demand rises and falls dramatically from one year to the next, via school vouchers. Schools are, rather, long-term investments for long-term demographic trends, with the objective of supplying the public with a stable public good - education. This stable supply of education should not be subjected to the whims of shifts in year-to-year demand.
Vouchers introduce competition without over-regulating public schools

Incentives to improve schools can be introduced without drammatically changing the whole system of publicly run education. Generally, it keeps everything the same while adding choice, and a sort of free-market competitive mentality. In this mentality, very little regulations are introduced that would weigh down the educational system. Independence and flexibility is maintained.[14] Furthermore, the public nature of public schools is maintained, with appropriate national standards, but simply with the beneficial introduction of competition into the system through vouchers.
Universities succeed because they are more like voucher system.

The key difference between a k-12 and a University system is that the U.S. University system receives a substantial portion of its funding from students and subsidies to students in the form of scholarships, government grants, and subsidized loans. This is argued to be conceptually equivalent to school vouchers because the money is provided ultimately to the student and in such a way that the student's ability to choose between schools is maintained. Because choice is maintained, universities must compete harder to attract students, which many proponents argue is the key ingredient in the relative success of the Universities system over the K-12 system. Thus, some argue that a similar competition-inducing approach should be taken with the K-12 system through school vouchers.[10]
Vouchers give poor a choice of schools, lower inequality

School vouchers allow for greater economic diversity by offering lower income students opportunities to attend previously unaffordable private schools. School voucher proponent and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman observed that the poor have an incentive to support school choice, as their children attend substandard schools, and would thus benefit most from alternative schools and access to private schools. In turn, increasing the poor's access to better schools helps increase their chances of success and decreases inequality.
Student vouchers reduce democratic accountability in education.

Another argument against the implementation of a school voucher system is its lack of accountability to the taxpayer. In many states, members of a community's board of education are elected by voters. Similarly, a school budget faces a referendum. Meetings of the Board of Education must be announced in advance, and members of the public are permitted to voice their concerns directly to board members. Although vouchers may be used in private and religious schools, taxpayers are not able to vote on budgetary issues, elect members of the board or even attend board meetings. Opponents of vouchers assert that this disenfranchisement amounts to taxation without representation.
Vouchers honor right of parents/students to choose school

Parents and students have a right to choose what school they will attend. Forcing a child to attend a public school, even if it is not a healthy and productive environment for them, is wrong. Vouchers afford children and their parents are right to choose which school best fits their needs and desires. It affords greater decision-making power and freedom to citizens, instead of the state, on a matter of tremendous importance to their lives and futures. This is righteous in principle.
School vouchers erode national educational standards.

Education vouchers erode educational standards by allowing public funding to go to private programs that may not reflect strong national educational standards. School vouchers also decentralize control over schools, creating a scattering of programs, instead of a core educational standard based on our highest educational ideals. It is generally important that schools be held accountable to a single national standard, but education vouchers have the potential to undermine such a standard and the ability to hold schools to account on a national scale.
Voucher combat cultural genocide occurring in public schools.

Some proponents of school vouchers, including the Sutherland Institute and many supporters of the Utah voucher effort, see it as a remedy for historic cultural genocide committed against demographic minorities by compulsory public schools. This is because public school standards and tests are established, usually, by non-minorities that are insensitive to the different cultures of minorities. They insensitivities ultimately undermine these minority cultures, sometimes intentionally, in a form of "cultural genocide". Vouchers offer choices and alternatives that counter the monopoly of public school standard-bearers and those committing "cultural genocide".
Vouchers drain talent from public schools, undermining competitiveness.

Some economist critics point to the problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the educational market. With a greater pool of applicants, the private schools could be more selective over which students to admit, excluding those who do not belong to a preferred group (for instance, religion or ethnicity), those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems. By law, the public schools must accept any student. So that they would presumably end up with all students whom the private schools turn away for such reasons. This would likely further undermine the reputation and competitiveness of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and perhaps the end of universal education.
Vouchers lack choice as private schools can exclude students

Vouchers do not provide all public school students with a choice to attend private schools. Private schools can, inherently, deny applicants entry. The main problem with this is that many of the most needy disadvantaged groups are already being turned away by private schools, so education vouchers may not provide them with any greater choice or access to private schools. Public schools are open to all students, and this is why the disadvantaged should be helped through the public school system.
Vouchers for religious schools violates church/state separation

Education is used to inculcate values that the society believes in and to promote social and civic awareness. Religious schools promoting anti-female policies, for example, should not be receiving taxpayer funding in the form of vouchers. This violates the constitutional separation of church and state. State funds cannot be separated from state control. It matters not whether the state is not directly making the choice to fund religious schools. Taxpayer funds should not be allowed to be directed toward religious schools.[15]
Education vouchers worsen economic and ethnic divisions

"The Case Against Vouchers". National Education Association: "A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America's success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations." The general logic for this is that vouchers would often be used by parents and students to attend schools with like-minded students, whether black, hispanic, catholic, or disabled. They, therefore, allow for the separation of groups, and the problems of misunderstanding and division that follow as a result.
Students choice of public schools can be improved without vouchers.

The argument for vouchers relies on the premise that there is not enough choice in the public school system. This may be true. But, it is possible to have enhance choice for students/parents between public schools without vouchers. By simply allowing some or all students to attend public schools outside of their schooling district, for example, choice can be enhanced. By not considering these simple mechanisms for choice within the public school system, vouchers overshoot.
Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005

"Openness is a Fundamental Principle of the Internet." Open Internet Coalition: "Legal safeguards protected network neutrality during the Internet's first three decades, promoting the dramatic expansion of Internet services, apps, and websites which generated billions in investment and many thousands of new jobs. In 2005, these protections were stripped away, and some Internet access providers have already started discriminating against certain applications. For example, in 2007 Comcast was caught blocking Bittorrent, which is used by competing video providers, and AT&T has restricted Internet telephony and video services on its wireless network."
Net Neutrality will raise prices for users

"Want Net Neutrality? It’ll Cost You." Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views.com: "If you want more affordable Internet access, then you have to be concerned about higher prices from neutrality regulation. When Net neutrality emerged in Congress in 2006, a Forrester Research analysis predicted that if Congress passed it, 'Legal costs will shoot through the roof – draining the pockets of everyone involved.' Guess who’ll wind up paying? [...] Net neutrality’s complex pricing regulations would create a legal loophole that pushes the huge cost for tomorrow’s Internet entirely onto the Net user. A net neutrality law would let Google, Amazon and other large online companies avoid paying anything toward the cost of deploying these networks."
W/o Net Neutrality, price discrimination risks stifling start-ups

Robin Chase. "Zipcar-Like Data Innovation Counts on Neutral" Bloomberg Government. March 03, 2011: "Without the Internet (and wireless data transmission), Zipcar could not have become a mainstream service. It would not exist. Incredibly, this fundamental asset is in serious jeopardy in America, putting at risk our ability to innovate and to compete. The U.S. House of Representatives is trying to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a network neutrality order it issued in December. If the House action is successful, it will put small entrepreneurs at a disadvantage because we can’t pay the tolls for faster speeds and quality of service that the big guys can, and it may help them create groups of users that we can’t access at all. We could not compete."
Net neutrality allows some sites to hog bandwidth

"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral." OC Register. September 25th, 2009: "One difficulty with government guaranteeing entitlements at the expense of others is the problem of those who abuse the free ride. Bandwidth-hogging services such as person-to-person file sharing and downloadable video from sites like YouTube and Google strain network capacities. Broadband providers legitimately claim they have a right to regulate such traffic over their networks, which may mean giving priority to their own services or charging varying rates. [...] That's why large bandwidth providers such as Verizon and AT&T have opposed previous 'net neutrality' proposals. Their networks would be abused. And that's why operations like Google want net neutrality mandated by federal regulations. They could offer services without sharing the whole cost to provide them over broadband networks."
Insufficient broadband market choice to deter bad behavior

"There Isn't Enough Broadband Market Choice to Prevent Bad Actors." Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com: "The network owners have argued that Network Neutrality is unnecessary because there is sufficient competition in the broadband market to deter bad behavior. They argue that if Verizon degraded access to a site or discriminated against the use of one service in favor of another, they would anger customers who would move to another network operators in the area. [...] Consumers must have robust competition and multiple choices for this theory to work. But such competition does not exist, and it isn’t likely to exist in the foreseeable future."
Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality

"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment." Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: "Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle."
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem

Arpan Sura. "The Problem With Network Neutrality." FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: "Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution."
Openness of Internet limits network owner control

In the case of Comcast restricting BitTorrent, the CATO Institute argued on Opposing Views.com that, "users took matters into their own hands and began swapping tips for evading Comcast’s interference. Many of them started using an encrypted variant of the BitTorrent protocol that was able to sneak by Comcast’s filters. Even if Comcast had wanted to continue blocking BitTorrent traffic, its efforts would have gotten less effective over time, as more and more users switched to the encrypted version of the program. [...] The moral of the story is that ownership of a platform does not confer power to control how that platform is used. History is full of examples of users using technology in ways that defied the wishes of its creators."
Markets force network owners to play fair and neutral

"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem." March 18th, 2010. Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Internet service providers know their customers are a fickle lot. After all, consumers have lots of choices. If a company decides to sign on more subscribers than its network can accommodate without making corresponding investments in capacity, those subscribers won't stand for having their computers seize during routine browsing and searching. They'll jump ship. Companies have no incentive to hurt one group of paying customers in favor of another."
Existing laws check unfair practices by broadband owners

"Existing Laws Already Guarantee Your Open Internet." Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views.com: "This is one of the most overlooked points in the Net neutrality debate: Existing laws and regulations ALREADY GUARANTEE an open Internet. The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) gives the federal government power to protect consumers from online discrimination. Amazon is one of the strong corporate supporters of Net neutrality regulation but even its spokesman has agreed that this gives the FCC power to take action if presented with unfair business tactics by broadband providers."