BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
EU expansion is good for current members economically.

That there were immense trade increases during the period when the new member states were joining does not necessarily show causality or that these same increases would not have been created without EU membership. Development and economic integration is something that will occur regardless of whether applicant countries join the European Union or not.  There would likely have been a similar growth in trade if these states had joined the network of free trade agreements such as the European Economic Area instead of full membership of the European Union. The 0.3% of GDP figure for the financial transfers from the old to new member states the proposition gives may be accurate but 0.3% of GDP per year is not insignificant. Germany paying 0.3% of its GDP would still be almost 7.5 billion Euros. It is also questionable whether further expansion would be as beneficial as the most recent expansions as the new members would be getting progressively poorer and poorer compared to current members. Macedonia’s GDP per capita for example is less than 10% of the 15 pre enlargement member states. They are therefore going to benefit current member states through trade less while costing more.
Expansion furthers EU ideals.

While an argument for cooperation (including logistic and financial support) between the EU and neighbouring states, it is not an argument for granting full EU membership to these states. While the prospect of membership may motivate countries to introduce reforms, premature accession can cause this progress to grind to a halt, as seen with the corruption in Bulgaria still affecting government and there being very little chance of prosecution.[1] This is because once a state joins the European Union the EU no longer has much influence over that state. Once a state is a member the methods of punishing that state are constrained. This is because where previously their path to membership could be slowed of halted once they join this is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to impose effective economic sanctions against these states. For this reason some kind of association outside of the European Union itself would be more effective at encouraging states that are outside the European Union to become fully functioning democracies. [1] Novinite.com, ‘WikiLeaks/Stratfor: Corruption in Bulgaria is Part of Society’, 28 February 2012, http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=137084
Expansion will create conflicts of interest between members.

Conflicts of interest between member states are inevitable. Britain has consistently been one of the outlier states even though it has been a member since 1974 and has many interests in common with the other old members of the EU. It has remained outside the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement and disagrees on policies such as a tax on financial transactions. New members in the Balkans for example are unlikely to be less cooperative than the UK. Moreover these conflicts of interest are most acute in foreign policy, such as the conflicts of interest over policy towards Russia, where so far the EU does not demand a common position from members so this should not be a concern.
The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members.

First of all while many members of the EU are experiencing low or even negative growth the bailouts don’t actually make Europe poorer as they have so far been loans that will have to be paid out. Even if current members are unwilling or unable to give large subsidies to any members that may join the European Union in the future there will still be large economic benefits to joining. The principles of European integration, such as free competition or free movement of goods and capital, will foster the transition from a post-socialist economy to a free market economy in  any new member states. The removal of custom barriers will enable producers to cut production costs, which will result in export increases. In addition, integration into the EU will encourage foreign investment. It will create new jobs and will bring new technologies and experience into East-central European industry and trade. New member states inevitably engage in a catch up phase where grow rapidly. The ten new members who joined the EU in 2004 grew from having an income per capita of 40% of the EU15’s average in 1999 to 52% in 2008 with most of the growth coming after membership where GDP growth was 5.5% from 2004-2008 compared to 3.5 % in 1999-2003.[1] [1] European Commission, ‘Five Years on an enlarged EU – A win win result’ Press Conference, Europa.eu, 19 February 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/5years/documents/enlarg_5_years_almunia_...
There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.

According to the principle of free movement of people, citizens of EU may work and study anywhere in the EU. This is a very important chance for every individual and should be embraced. By spending part of their education or training in another EU country, they acquire an insight into other work environments and gain skills that are invaluable in later life. Closer cooperation and sharing experience with other European countries will bring democratic traditions and modern way of living to the society of new member states. Indeed there have been suggestions that far from their being a brain drain in the long run such migration results in a brain gain. The possibility of migrating to a richer nation means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces.[1] [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf
Expansion would be unpopular.

Previous enlargements were unpopular as well with support in the low 40s percentage points in 2001 however this rapidly increased to above 50% as enlargement approached before falling back, possibly as a result of media attention towards the possible negative consequences such as immigration.[1] Therefore basing policy on public opinion years, possibly decades before a country would actually be joining the EU is not helpful as opinion is fickle and could easily change in the intervening period. Moreover public opinion is likely to be based upon prejudices, for example with Turkey opposition is based on it being a Muslim country but this ignores that Turkey is in fact secular with an Islamic culture in a similar way to France being a secular state with a Christian culture. [1] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3 http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1632.pdf
EU expansion is right.

It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours.  Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.
EU expansion is good for current members politically.

Expansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target[1]and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9.[2] [1] Defence Dateline Group, ‘As Europe Wakes to Defence Spending Shortfall, NATO Risks Losing US Investment’, Defenceiq.com, 14 March 2011, http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/as-nato-wakes-to-de... [2] Eufocus, ‘The EU and Peacekeeping: Promoting Security, Stability, and Democratic Values’, Stacy Hope ed., November 2008, http://www.eurunion.org/News/eunewsletters/EUFocus/2008/EUFocus-Peacekee...
There are very few areas in which advanced study is genuinely necessary. For most, post graduate degree is simply an expensive bauble.

Side opposition’s argument is a good one for requiring academics to be more closely in terms of their teaching, but has little to do with this debate. Further, the reality of university level study is that members of faculty act as resources for student to use rather than didactic educators. A research degree is provides the opportunity for semi-autonomous study and in-depth reading, with a light hand on the tiller provided by members of staff to ensure that a student’s investigations are not going in completely the wrong direction. Indeed, one of the attractions of a Master’s degree for employers is that it demonstrates that someone can work on their own. This demonstrates a far greater level of reliability than the capacity to regurgitate a set syllabus.
In many areas of work, a year’s experience of the job is far more useful than another year or two spent on campus

There is much more to acquiring additional qualifications than simply learning skills and memorising curricula by rote. Unlike undergraduates, postgrads are likely to spend time working with their peers at other institutions, attending conferences and generally building networks that will serve them well in their chosen careers. They also establish a far closer relationship with members of faculty who may remain guiding figures for years to come. Those graduating with a Liberal Arts or Social Sciences degree are unlikely to have an obvious career path ahead of them. A Master’s offers the opportunity to specialise in a particular area or field. A degree in Sociology may not mark a graduate out from the crowd in the ways that an additional Master’s in Social Work or the implementation of social policy would.
The majority of graduates never actually use their first degree in the workplace let alone a second, widespread prevalence of Master’s degree just creates an ‘academic arms race’

Opposition is once again making a strong argument for reforming the way that education is funded but that has little to do with the merits or otherwise of pursuing an additional degree. Most universities determine scholarships for Master’s programmes on the basis of academic merit as they do for Bachelor’s degrees. It is entirely possible that this system needs expansion or greater support or stronger regulation – but that can be said of the entire education system from kindergarten to post-doctoral research. Indeed, the fact that a Master’s allows one to buy a competitive advantage would seem to be an excellent reason for doing one. It may not be nice, but it is simply the logical conclusion of not dropping out of high school to go and get a job.
A Master’s increases employability and gives graduates an added edge in the employment market

A Master’s degree helps candidates stand out from the crowd – especially in professions where a first degree is commonplace. As well as demonstrating greater knowledge, research Master’s in particular, show that the candidate has the ability to motivate themselves and deliver a project largely under their own supervision. Furthermore in some areas, such as education, the possession of a Master’s is now so commonplace that a failure to have one simply moves that application to the bottom of the pile[i]. [i]  Natalie Morris. "Three Smart Reasons to Get Your Master's Degree Now" WorldWideLearn
Higher study increases peoples’ understanding of their chosen field and therefore an increase in the total number increases the productivity of that sector as a whole

A Master’s degree increases knowledge- both in terms of quantity and quality- as it allows for a more refined study of the field. However, a Master’s also enhances many of the softer skills that employers routinely say that they want. Attributes such as critical and creative thinking are developed by higher study and requirements such as giving presentations or tutoring junior students help with communication skills. This benefit that an MA or an MSc provides for an employer is rewarded by a higher salary to the employee.  Between the ages of 25 and 64 Americans with Master’s degrees earn around $250,000 more over the course of their careers[i]. [i] Minauti Dave. "Do master's degrees really pay off?" Colleges.com
Advanced study encourages deeper thinking and enhances research and critical skills, leading to a more informed citizenry

Life is not entirely about the world of work, and society as a whole benefits from a more educated citizenry. Equally, a Master’s degree provides benefits to the individual in terms of a deeper understanding of both their subject and the world around them[i]. There is compelling evidence of the relationship between education and areas like civic participation as well as personal; benefits in terms of health, life expectancy and family stability. Although participation in the labor market is a primary concern for most, it is far from to the only reason to engage in post graduate study. The increasingly business and industry led courses that many UK universities are opting to run often understate the benefit to society that results from promoting learning for learning’s sake. [i]  Todd Pheifer. "Why pursue a master's degree?" Helium.com
There are very few areas in which advanced study is genuinely necessary. For most, post graduate degree is simply an expensive bauble.

Proposition has focused on a very limited number of jobs where post-graduate study is already, mostly, required. The issue here is whether a Master’s degree, in and of itself, is anything more than an expensive distraction. It is one of the dirty secrets of research programmes that Master’s students are frequently seen as cash cows to fund the work being undertaken by faculty and doctoral and post-doctoral researchers[i]. Most faculty involved with Master’s programmes have little or no interest in teaching and justify greater time for research on the basis that they meet with a postgraduate student a couple of times a year. [i]  "The Education Bubble." Mark C. Taylor, the chairman of the religion department at Columbia University on the New York Times Room for Debate blog. June 30th, 2009
In many areas of work, a year’s experience of the job is far more useful than another year or two spent on campus

After nearly twenty years spent in the confines of education, the last thing most students need is another stint away from the realities of earning a living, paying tax and getting to work at nine in the morning. In addition to which, very few Master’s degrees are genuinely comprised of original research. Even in the technical fields, where the qualification could be considered most useful, universities are frequently lagging behind other practitioners. There comes a time where study for its own sake is not only self-indulgent but may become increasingly detrimental. For those students- the overwhelming majority- whose degree will have nothing whatsoever to do with their eventual job it is difficult to see what benefit is provided by delaying things, especially when that means more debt and more time without a salary cheque.
The majority of graduates never actually use their first degree in the workplace let alone a second, widespread prevalence of Master’s degree just creates an ‘academic arms race’

There is a real downside to making Master’s degrees the gold standard for educational achievement. If one degree is no longer enough for entry level jobs, then students from poor backgrounds will be further disadvantaged by comparison with student who are able to secure parental support and funding for postgraduate study. Students are already judged on the prestige- and therefore cost- of their first degree. To add an additional layer to the existing hierarchy of university education is doubly unfair. Not only does it require additional debt, but also means that the value of the degree a student has already worked hard to acquire is reduced, as it fails to match up to a new standard.
A Master’s increases employability and gives graduates an added edge in the employment market

It is ridiculously tautological to say that “you need a Master’s degree for those jobs where you need a Master’s degree”, which is prop’s supplemental argument. In terms of proposition’s main argument, it is worth remembering that in some fields having a Master’s may actually harm a candidate’s employability[i]. However, in between these two extremes the reality is that most of the time it makes little or no difference. In the bulk of jobs, employers may want a graduate but beyond that, largely confine their interest to a potential recruit’s character and experience. A Master’s degree speaks to neither issue and may, in fact, suggest that the applicant was unsure about their career when they graduated – and therefore had not devised a coherent career strategy in the first place. [i]  Nick Jackson. "How having a Master's degree may not guarantee success." Independent. June 14, 2007
Higher study increases peoples’ understanding of their chosen field and therefore an increase in the total number increases the productivity of that sector as a whole

This statistic is deeply unhelpful and, frankly, irrelevant to the debate. By definition the category of ‘those with Master’s degrees’ by definition includes high paying professions for which further study is essential such as medicine, law and MBA grads in the higher levels of business. Indeed, once that reality is taken into account it seems unlikely that those professions where it is optional are affected in any significant way. This is particularly true of those graduating in the Social Sciences and the Liberal Arts where the possession of a Master’s brings little benefit in terms of lifetime salary and certainly not enough to justify accruing the debt or missing the extra years of paid work.
Advanced study encourages deeper thinking and enhances research and critical skills, leading to a more informed citizenry

Many of the non-vocational benefits that are ascribed to advanced education have vastly more to do with the sort of person likely to undertake post-graduate study than they have with the qualification itself. The background, class and professional ambitions of Master’s students are far stronger indicators of the value that they will derive from a course of study than the content of the Master’s degree itself. Furthermore there is absolutely nothing that says further investigation of a subject has to be conducted with the confines of formal education, and it is even questionable as to whether a formal approach is more beneficial. In terms of professional as well as personal development, there is compelling evidence that a Master’s degree is likely to be most useful later in somebody’s career once they are clearly focused on a career track rather than when they are starting out.
Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship

Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.
Prevent drug use

Drug users' decisions are influenced by an irrational desire to fulfil the chemical need they feel (to get their 'high'). As a consequence many drug users in schools will simply look for ways to evade drug testing regimes that are put in place. This is a problem as drug testing is most likely to catch cannabis users (the most widely-used drug among teenagers)[1], as cannabis endures longer in the body than other more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine. This can potentially lead would-be cannabis users to switch to these harder drugs, most of which generally have significantly shorter detection times and/or are less likely to be tested for.[2] This harm clearly outweighs the benefits of catching or deterring a few more cannabis users. [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Statistical... [2] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007
School's duty of care

None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for. Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool. Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo.[1] [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/03/blowing_smoke.html
No harm to non-drug users

Students who do not use illegal drugs do have something to fear - the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may well feel that they are being treated as under suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this imposition upon their privacy. Indeed, the indignity of drugs testing may compel children who are already in a position of vulnerability as a result of social marginalisation or personal or family problems to drop out of school entirely.