BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Supervising and protecting a monarchy is an unjustifiable public expense

There are three counter-points that can be used to challenge the proposition. Firstly, the opposition maintain that the Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Secondly, Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, the Monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits. There is also evidence to suggest that the nation actually benefits financially from the Crown Estate. Figures suggested by Professor David Flint[1] are that in 2009/10 all payments to the Crown came to about £30 million. But the British government received £211 million from the Crown Estate. So the government made a very substantial profit from The Queen – about £181 million. [1]    Professor David Flint, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, available at http://www.norepublic.com.au (accessed 31/05/2011)
There is no divine right to leadership or privilege

On the other hand, the Monarchy could instead be seen as an institution that retains an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity. The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.[1] Since they are unelected figures which are above political conflict and can therefore help countries to avoid the political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies, for example within the U.S.A. between the Republicans and the Democrats. Not only does the Monarch provide a symbol of National unity but also a symbol of world-wide unity. Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of 16 independent countries and the Head of the Commonwealth of 54 nations across the globe. [1]The official website of the British Monarchy, The Role of the Monarchy, available at http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx  (accessed 31/05/2011)
The head of state should be a position that is separate and distinct from politics

Monarchs are not always above politics either and often become national embarrassments who also cannot act as a unifier for the nation. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned.
Separating the positions of the head-of-state and prime minister of the government makes great practical sense

There are others who could carry out these duties apart from the Prime Minister, for example, Deputy Prime-ministers for this exact purpose. Some of the key responsibilities of a Deputy Prime Minister involve both home and foreign affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister has significant responsibilities in other key Cabinet Sub-Committees, notably chairing the Home Affairs Committee which coordinates domestic policy issues including those relating to constitutional and political reform, migration, health, schools and welfare. The Deputy Prime Minister has an important foreign policy role, with responsibility for building a range of strategic relationships in Europe and across the world and for championing the Government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. He is also Deputy Chair of the National Security Council which oversees all aspects of the nation’s security.[1] Those in favour of a Republic also argue that Britain has a professional diplomatic corps to represent the interests of the country both at home and abroad. [1]Deputy Prime Minister, Role and Responsibilities, available at http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/deputy-prime-minister/role-and-responsibilities (accessed 31/05/2011)
The monarchy is an important preserver of a nation's cultural heritage

Conversely, it could be argued that instead of protecting the Nation's heritage, the Monarchy has largely become an embarrassment. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned. One key example from the U.K. member of the Monarchy Prince Harry, was his decision to attend a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi. Not only was this a horrific lack of judgement but it also under-minded the fact that opposing the Nazis was arguably one of the finest moments of British National Heritage.
The monarchy can serve as public role models.

This could be contested due to the fact that these issues and many more like them were being campaigned for long before the Royal family was involved. While they did provide a focal point for the eye of the media, the media prefer to focus on celebrities fighting for causes. Prime examples are campaigns such as Comic Relief with involves a great deal of celebrity involvement to promote a cause. For example, in the 2011 Comic Relief which raised £102 million, a series of high profile challenges took place including Chris Moyles and Comedy Dave’s 52 hour non-stop radio marathon which raised over £2.6 million and won a Guinness World Record. While nine celebrities took part in the BT Red Nose Desert Trek across the Kasuit Desert in Kenya and raised over £1.3 million in the process. The official Comic Relief mentions that the government contributed £16 million and that the public raised £86 million, however, nowhere does it mention any contribution made by the Royal family.[1] Supporters of the Republic UK also make the point that the Royals could continue to do charity work in a republic. They do not need the official 'royal' statute to raise money for charity. The Republic UK also points out that there is a big difference between simply turning up at engagements and being an engaged patron. [1]Comic Relief, News: Record breaking £102 million total, available at http://www.comicrelief.com/news/2011-05/record-breaking-%C2%A3102-million-total  (accessed 31/05/2011).
Monarchies, no matter how vestigal, are undemocratic

The concept of Monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers, as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example, these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections or call a government. Legally, in the UK the Monarch has the power to; choose the Prime Minister, dismiss ministers and governments, dissolve parliament, refuse to agree to legislation passed by parliament, pardon convicted criminals, declare a state of emergency and raise a personal militia.[1] And in some countries like Saudi Arabia they have much more absolute power. A recent example where the Monarch had a role in the United Kingdom was within the 2010 elections where no party achieved an overall majority, the Queen therefore had to sign her approval for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. [1]The Monarchy in Britain, What power do they have? Available at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon2.html  (accessed 31/05/2011)
Supervising and protecting a monarchy is an unjustifiable public expense

The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies.  The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. In the UK what is officially termed as 'Head of State Expenditure' amounted to £40 million in the 2007-8 financial year. However, this excludes the cost of security for the numerous family members and residences. Although the security costs have not been confirmed, it is estimated that it exceeds £50 million a year[1]. [1]The Monarchy in Britain, How much do they take from our pockets, available at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon5.html  (accessed 31/05/2011).
There is no divine right to leadership or privilege

Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authority was a religious one. Catholic rulers had their legitimacy supported by the Papacy, Protestants rulers often headed their own state churches; in both the monarch’s rightful authority was preached in church every Sunday, while the ruler in turn protected a single national church. Currently, the Monarch is termed 'the defender of the Protestant faith'. She or he is required to be a member of the Church of England and is not allowed to marry a Catholic.  Today societies are increasingly multi-faith, indeed, fewer than 5% of adults in the United Kingdom are practising Anglicans, and many people have no religion at all; hardly anyone believes the monarch has a spiritual right to exercise authority. Indeed, those whose religion differs from that of the monarch (often ethnic minorities) may be actively alienated by the way in which a particular faith seems to be privileged.[1] [1]Centre for citizenship, The Monarchy in Britain, Religion and Race, available at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon6.html (accessed 31/05/2011)
Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.

There are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths.  Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner.  A commentator describes this dynamic very well: “If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher—similar to the ‘slide or avoid’ rule employed in amateur baseball—it would give the advantage to the catcher.  The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would—perhaps more importantly—have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision.  If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond.”[1] Allowing collisions is the fairest, most even match between the catcher and runner. [1] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011, http://www.nesn.com/2011/05/buster-poseys-injury-unfortunate-but-home-plate-collisions-still-have-place-in-baseball.html.
Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.

Ray Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate.  Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011.  In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish.  To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision.  There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate. This high rate of injury should come as no surprise, given the physics involved in this type of play.  A simulation with a crash-test dummy wired with sensors showed that a catcher can get hit by a runner travelling 18 miles per hour, resulting in 3,200 pounds of force—much worse than an American football hit, with much less padding.[1] Teams make heavy investments in their players, paying them millions of dollars a year.  Thus, serious injuries are very expensive, both because of the treatment required and because the player is missing many games.  This is why the Oakland Athletics instructed their top catcher, Kurt Suzuki, to avoid blocking the plate—because their investment in him is worth more than whatever runs he allows by failing to stop the runner from scoring.[2] When players are injured in these plays, it’s also bad for fans, who will lose the opportunity to see their favourite athletes on the field.  As Bruce Bochy, Busty Posey’s manager with the Giants, told the media after he lost his star catcher to injury: “And here’s a guy that’s very popular in baseball.  Fans want to see him play, and now he’s out for a while.”[3] [1] Joel Siegel, Barbara Pinto, and Tahman Bradley, “Catcher Collision Ignites Baseball Rules Debate,” ABC News, May 28, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/catcher-collision-ignites-baseball-rules-debate/story?id=13712229. [2] Buster Olney, “Billy Beane issues home plate directive,” ESPN The Magazine, June 1, 2011, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6613043. [3] Tim Kawakami, “Bochy on Posey’s injury: ‘Hopefully the guys are not happy—I’m certainly not happy,’” MercuryNews.com (Talking Points blog), May 26, 2011, http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/05/26/bochy-on-poseys-injury-hopefully-the-guys-are-not-happy-im-certainly-not-hppy/.
Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.

Baseball is not a contact sport.  It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence.  This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football.  Or hockey.  Or MMA.  There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.”[1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players.  That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed.  Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/its-time-to-end-home-plate-collisions/.
Collisions are unnecessary.

Baseball doesn’t need collisions.  By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions. Unlike in football or rugby, hits at the plate are not a necessary component of the sport.  The game is played quite well at the amateur level without such brutal physical contact.[1]  Collisions occur relatively infrequently, and the complexion of the game will not be dramatically different without them.  Yet the benefits of improved safety are dramatic. [1] See, for example, American Legion Baseball Rules, Rule 1(E), http://www.legion.org/documents/baseball/baseball_rules.pdf.
Collisions heighten antagonisms.

When someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even.  There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him.  When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy....  We’ll have a long memory.”[1]  This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays. Former MLB catcher Mike Matheny noted that catchers don’t forget when they get hit, saying, “I think you just put a mark in the column that that kid took a run at a catcher.  To me as a catcher I know the next time I get the ball I'm going to stick it to him.  You make those notes as a catcher.”[2] [1] “Source: Joe Torre to call Brian Sabean,” ESPN.com News Services, June 3, 2011, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6622575. [2] R.B. Fallstrom, “Matheny critical of Cousins’ hit on Posey,” Associated Press, May 30, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/30/matheny-critical-of-cousins-hit-on-posey/.
Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.

Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons.  Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves.  It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes.  Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so.  Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport.  Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy.  Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.
Collisions are a part of the game.

Collisions are much less a part of the game than people believe.  The notion that collisions have been in the game for ages is a widely held misconception.  In fact, collisions were specifically banned in baseball’s early history, and the collisions we see today came about only since around the late 1960s.  Bill James, one of the best-respected authorities on baseball, wrote: “Basepath obstruction was a major problem in the 1880s and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport.  In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up, and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions.  There was always something of a problem with catchers blocking the plate, but there were always limits....  I think it has changed a lot just in the last fifteen or twenty years. . . . I don’t remember [well-respected catchers] Elston Howard or Bill Freehan doing some of the things that [catchers] do now [in the 1980s].”[1] Clearly, collisions are not a necessary part of the balance between offense and defense.  Baseball did quite well for decades without allowing runners to crash into catchers.  Just because something is now erroneously regarded as a “tradition” does not make it deserving of respect.  Toughness in baseball is better measured by playing hard every day, rather than by meaningless, destructive collisions. [1] “The MLB Rulebook, Bill James, and the Buster Posey–Scott Cousins Collision,” Misc. Baseball, May 26, 2011, http://miscbaseball.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-mlb-rulebook-bill-james-and-the-buster-posey-scott-cousins-collision/.
Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.

Collisions increase the risk of injury dramatically.  Though it’s true that most collisions do not result in significant injury, they result in a higher rate of injury than almost any other baseball play.  And just because a collision doesn’t necessarily result in an injury that derails a player’s entire career does not mean that it didn’t take a toll.  This is especially true now that we’re learning more about concussions, which might be suffered without someone immediately realizing it.  After a catcher on his team suffered a concussion in a collision, Yankees manager Joe Girardi referred to this type of injury as “so unpredictable.  That’s what’s so scary....  You just don’t know what’s going to happen” with a concussion.[1] When catchers are trained to block the plate, they’re taught how to reduce the risk of injury, not how to eliminate the risk of injury.  No matter how a catcher positions himself, there will still be a risk of injury, and it will still be much higher than for any other play in baseball. (Opposition Point #1 elaborates more upon the risk of injury.) [1] Mark Feisand, “Yankees manager Joe Girardi not counting out catcher Francisco Cervelli for postseason roster,” New York Daily News, Sept. 17, 2011, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-17/sports/30186478_1_concussion-symptoms-francisco-cervelli-eduardo-nuez.
Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.

In the match-up between catchers and runners, home plate should be treated like the other bases.  At first base, second base, or third base, fielders are expected not to block the base and runners are expected not to collide with the fielder.  By imposing both of these requirements, neither the catcher nor the runner would have an unfair advantage.  Each player would be required to contribute to a situation that allows both of them to avoid a collision.
Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.

Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re made out to be.  (Proposition Argument #3 is directly relevant here, though it’s not repeated in this cell.)  People remember vivid example of injuries in home-plate crashes, but that does not mean that they happen as often as people believe.  This is a textbook example of the availability heuristic: people believing that an event is much more likely because they can think of an example of it very easily.[1]  Yes, those injuries were quite bad, but it was their very severity that leads people to overestimate the frequency and severity of home-plate collisions in general. Any simulation of a hit at home plate will be imperfect.  In a game situation, a runner will have to make a split-second decision of whether to slide around the catcher or to barrel into him, and this will often reduce his speed or remove the decisiveness of his impact.  The catcher is also wearing protective pads.  The crash-test dummy does not accurately represent reality. If a team does not want its catchers to be involved in collisions, it can instruct them to avoid collisions, just as the Oakland Athletics did.  This is their choice; they have decided that the risk is not worth it.  But this is not a reason for MLB to step in and change the rules. Fans want to see players playing their hardest.  A player is much less exciting to watch if he’s always worried first and foremost about whether a particular action is going to injure him.  Yes, there’s always a risk of injury, but fans understand that, and they still want to see collisions and players giving their all.  [1] See Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, pp. 207-232, http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/tversky_kahn_1973.pdf.
Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.

Some level of violence is called for in baseball.  Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact.  It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all. There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run.  A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective.  In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate.  A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game[1]; no home-plate collision has even come close. [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/08.17.html.