BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers.

Loss leaders do not help lower-income customers because they are aimed at people who will buy a lot of expensive goods at the store. Patrick DeGraba of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argues that, when retailers act strategically, loss leaders are aimed at highly profitable customers1. Retailers have no interest in targeting less well-off consumers, because they won't then spend a lot of money in the store. Therefore, they are more likely to offer a high-quality item below its true cost; this will still be too expensive for many people, though. For example, stores will offer discounts on high-quality turkeys at Thanksgiving, because people who buy them are likely to buy a lot of food. Loss leaders may provide discounts for some consumers, but prohibiting the strategy would not hurt lower-income customers. 1: Patrick DeGraba, "Volume Discounts, Loss Leaders, and Competition for More Profitable Customers," Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics (Working Paper 260), 2003.
Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society.

It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing. improve this
Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell.

There is a good and a bad side to loss leaders for consumers, but prohibiting the practice will always be worse. The obvious benefit to consumers of loss leaders is that they are inexpensive goods to buy. While it is possible that some people will then buy more expensive products because they have entered the store, every item has a price tag, so the customer is always aware of his decision, which means this is not a predatory practice. Banning loss leaders, on the other hand, is catastrophic for consumers, as it will always result in prices rising. When announcing the repeal of Ireland's loss leaders prohibition, Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment Micheál Martin said, “Very simply, the [law] acted against the interests of consumers for the past 18 years.”1 Loss leaders have positive and negative effects on consumers, but a ban is all bad. 1 Ireland Business News, “Groceries Order abolition.”   improve this
Banning loss leaders would help suppliers

The use of loss leaders in marketing campaigns can benefit both retailers and producers. Below-cost price offers are typically used at the introduction of new products in order to encourage consumers to try something for the first time. Whether it is a new vegetable or cheese, a different breakfast cereal or an improved type of soap powder, it is in the interest of farmers and manufacturers to build consumer awareness and market share quickly. In the long run, if consumers like the new product, prices will rise and both producers and retailers will profit from it, so it is quite reasonable that producers are asked to share in the costs of launching it at a discount.
The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.

If retailers need to unload an item, it is totally within their rights to do that, as long as they don't use that item to trick consumers into buying more expensive items. Selling off goods at a low price, when not planned, would also not harm producers because it would not be a case of "retail price management (RPM)," in which producers agree to sell the product for less to the retailer. improve this
Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.

The use of loss leaders allows greater competition in the retail sector. It helps to drive the overall level of prices down by allowing much greater variation in pricing than would be possible if all goods had to be offered at cost price plus a small profit margin. Loss leaders also allow new entrants to make an immediate impact upon a mature marketplace dominated by a small number of entrenched incumbents, and so they are a valuable tool in maintaining price competition over the long term. improve this
The prohibition of loss leaders would promote competition in the market.

Selling items at a loss is a predatory strategy used by large retailers to drive out smaller businesses, and so prohibiting them would protect competition. The practice is especially bad for small businesses, which cannot compete with the massive retail firms behind huge hypermarkets. These dominant corporations have the deep pockets to make a short-term loss in order to increase the volume of their sales. The whole basis of this policy is to drive smaller firms that cannot afford to offer loss leaders out of business. France has regulated its retail sector to prevent this kind of abuse of market dominance, in order to preserve its traditional shopping streets with family businesses. Other countries should follow the French example and ban loss leaders to protect small business and boost competition. improve this
Places unfair burden on students.

Year-round schooling doesn’t place extra burdens on students; the whole point is that it reduces the stress and strain of school life by allowing learning to take place at a gentler pace that is dictated more by the needs of students than the timetable. Holidays of two or three weeks are plenty of time to recharge the batteries for another few weeks of school. Children will be better off mentally and psychologically if year-round schooling is introduced.
Damaging to extra-curricular activities.

Year-round schooling would necessitate a change in the way extra-curricular activities are structured, not a reduction in such hobbies. Shorter breaks of two or three weeks are more than sufficient for most extra-curricular activities and by spreading them throughout the year, instead of ring-fencing them into a couple of summer months, their beneficial impact might well be greater. If year-round schooling reduces the necessity to send students for extra tuition, as is common in some countries, then this should be considered a positive benefit of the change, not a problem. Families whose children are being educated year-round will have less reason to spend their hard-earned money on expensive and often unnecessary private classes.
Reduce “summer learning loss”.

During long summer holidays, students completely put aside learning and forget all about their studies for up to three months. In this time, they inevitably forget quite a lot of what they have learned. Teachers then have to spend the first weeks of the new academic year bringing them back up to speed. By eliminating the long summer break and replacing it with year-round learning punctuated by shorter vacation times, this problem would be much reduced.[1] [1] Davey, Martin, “The Case For Year-Round Schooling”, Toronto Star, July 14th 2008. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/459031
Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents.

For many parents, particularly those with more than one child, summer vacations can be a stressful and difficult time. Without the structure provided by school attendance, children become bored easily and parents struggle to cope. This is especially true for mothers who may be bringing up children without a father present, or those who wish to continue or resume their careers after the first few years of motherhood; trying to combine a full-time job with the rigours of motherhood is hard but trying to do so during a three month school holiday is almost impossible. Year-round schooling makes such a work-life balance easier for young parents and allows women to return to the workplace on their own terms.[1] [1] Schulte, Brigid, “The Case For Year-Round School”, Washington Post, June 7th 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501971.html
Importance of education to national economic performance.

A nation’s most important resource is its human capital, and in the modern world it is vital to have a skilled, educated workforce in order to remain competitive. Many nations have already adopted year-round schooling. By following their example, we will be giving our young people an important advantage in the employment market and thereby improving the country’s economic prospects.[1] [1] US National Educational Commission on Time and Learning, “Report: Prisoners of Time”, April 1994. http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/PrisonersOfTime/Lessons.html
Places unfair burden on students.

Many children don’t enjoy school. Even those who do still look forward to summer holidays as a time when they can relax and stop worrying about work for a while. And for some students, school life is difficult in other ways – social awkwardness or bullying being a common problem. Taking away summer holidays would mean that students have to work hard year-round, and short small breaks don’t offer the chance to relax as a proper summer holiday does. For those who dislike school, year-round schooling would mean year-round stress and unhappiness.[1] [1] “Academic Performance Top Cause Of Teen Stress”, Associated Press, 23rd August 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20322801/ns/health-childrens_health/t/academ...
Improves student achievement.

In actual fact, the evidence on year-round schooling is inconclusive, with other studies suggesting that there is no educational benefit from holding classes year-round[1]. Indeed, you could argue that some students prefer to concentrate the bulk of their learning into a shorter time frame and leave time for a long summer break to take their minds off school for a while. [1] Ohio State University, “ Year-round Schools Don't Boost Learning, Study Finds”. Science Daily, August 14th 2007. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070811151449.htm
Damaging to extra-curricular activities.

A lot of extra-curricular activities take place during summer holidays. Summer camps, trips abroad - even debating competitions. Summer holidays are a sensible time to hold such activities, partly due to the weather but also because different regions or school boards often have different vacation schedules and summer is the only time when students are all likely to have free time. Year-round schooling would reduce the opportunities for such activities. Some families use long holidays to arrange extra tuition in certain subjects, either as remedial education or to give their children an advantage[1]. Year-round schooling would make it harder for families who wish to exercise this choice, too. [1] “Summer School”, US Education Commission of the States, 2011. http://www.ecs.org/html/IssueSection.asp?issueid=121&s=Overview
Reducing inequality.

It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment[1]. [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998. http://www.auburn.edu/~enebasa/html/atrisk_.pp.html
More efficient use of school resources and premises.

Year-round schooling will probably mean increased administrative costs, as well as ensuring that overheads such as catering, heating and security have to be paid year-round rather than for just part of the year, as at present.[1] Education funding in many countries has been under pressure for many years, and most schools have explored all sorts of ways of maximising the effective use of their resources and facilities. The best solution to strains on resources is to make more money available to schools, not to stretch them ever thinner. [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/16/year-round-schools-could-fac...
Improves student achievement.

Studies show that students in year-round schooling tend to get perform better on many assessment metrics than those who do not[1]. Schools operating a year-round calendar do not have to cram so much course content into a 9 month schedule, but can space out learning better. This allows teaching to proceed at a more logical pace, helping students learn better. Furthermore, by giving students frequent short breaks (instead of two or three long ones), pupils are refreshed and ready to learn when school resumes. [1] Palmer, Elisabeth A. and Bemis, Amy E., “Year-Round Education”, University of Minnesota College of Education, 24th October 2000. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/reports/docs/year-round.pdf
Reduce social problems from disaffected, bored youth.

The structure of the school year is often one of the few fixed points in young people’s lives. For many children, particularly those from poorer families, long summer holidays don’t mean summer camps and foreign holidays, but day after day sitting in front of the TV or hanging around in their neighbourhood. All the evidence suggests that boredom is a major factor behind social problems like drug use, youth crime and antisocial behaviour.[1] Year-round schooling would not get rid of problems like these, of course, but it might help to reduce the level of such behaviour by giving young people something to do. [1] “Youths bored in school holidays”, BBC News, 11th July 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6288962.stm
Reducing inequality.

Evidence suggests that children from lower-income families tend to “fall behind” further during long summer vacations. These children are less likely to read books, pursue additional studies or take part in useful extracurricular activities compared to their peers from wealthier families.[1] This has a knock-on effect on their academic achievement, and once they have fallen behind it is very difficult for them to catch up. (This is the logic behind government-funded programs such as Head Start in the US or Sure Start in the UK)[2] Year-round schooling would remove this important driver of inequality, give students a level playing field on which to learn, and help create a more meritocratic society. [1] Johnson, Alex, “Year-round school gains ground around U.S.”, MSNBC.com, 27th October 2010. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39748458/ns/us_news-life/t/year-round-school... [2] “Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families”, US Department of Health and Human Services, April 2006. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/reports/disseminatio...
More efficient use of school resources and premises.

Year-round schooling often goes hand in hand with multi-tracking, where different groups of students at the same school are on different schedules. This has the advantage of allowing school rooms, facilities and other resources to be used more efficiently, thus providing a better education without putting even more strain on government budgets.[1] [1] “Year Round Education Program Guide”, California Department of Education, 25th July 2011. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/yr/guide.asp
Imposes extra costs on education system.

Many schools are simply not set up for year-round use. In particular, most schools are not air-conditioned and often use older, poorly-ventilated buildings and classrooms. In many parts of the world, opening schools during summer would either involve expensive retrofitting and renovation, or sweltering hot classrooms with distracted children. There would also be increased overheads and costs associated with year-round catering, security, heating and administration.[1] [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/16/year-round-schools-could-face-academic-calendar-sh/
Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents.

Again, there is nothing intrinsic to year-round schooling that makes it easier for families with several children. A single mother who struggles with young children will not be any better off having to take care of their children every six weeks instead of six months. Year-round schooling is unlikely to be applied in exactly the same way in different schools, and different classes or groups of students may well be on different timetables – thus, parents may find themselves having to take care of children almost year-round rather than having time off, as at present.
Governments have a responsibility to ensure that their own citizens have a competitive advantage in a global job market

The first responsibility of any government is to its own citizens. A large part of that in relationship to, especially, the young relates to ensuring that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to compete in later life. It has for decades been assumed that the state has a responsibility to provide primary and secondary education, now higher education is increasingly necessary as well. That members of the Council of Europe in 2001 and 2003 stated that higher education is a “public responsibility”, shows that many governments agree.[i] It is therefore quite reasonable for governments to require universities to favour domestic students and only take international students once they have met the needs of the domestic market. This then ensures that the taxpayers of that nation are getting what they pay for; the best possible education for their own children rather than subsidising the education of international students.  This ensures that the next generation is as skilled as possible as is required in order to create a knowledge economy.   [i] Weber, Luc, ‘Nature and scope of the public responsibility for higher education and research?’, in Luc Weber and Sjur Bergan eds., The public responsibility for higher education and research, Council of Europe Pubishing, April 2005, pp.29-44.
Governments have to be aware of the implications for national security and immigration of an increase in student visas

A free market in higher education will inevitably result in large flows of people around the world – this may bring some benefits but governments also have to consider its negative implications. It is one of the primary roles of governments to control the number of non-nationals entering the country. This is for a number of reasons, partly this is done to protect the interests of their own nationals but also to take account concerns of national security. For example there were concerns in the UK in 2009 that terrorists could get into the country on student visas leading to a tightening of the rules.[i] Similar worries would mean that governments would be unable to make the necessary relaxation of the rules to truly allow free competition for university places. Assuming that the lion’s share of any change would be seen in students from the developing world studying in the developed world, all of the countries concerned already have problems with migrants ‘disappearing’ into the population. Were universities to significantly increase this, there would, of course be implications both for the job market and for the threat from terrorism. [i] Laville, Sandra, Northn-Taylor, Richard and Dodd, Vikram, ‘Student visa link to terror raids as Gordon Brown points finger at Pakistan’, guardian.co.uk, 10 April 2009.
Universities that can attract foreign universities with higher fees than those charged to domestic students should do so.

The main attraction of foreign students to universities is not the cultural diversity they represent but the revenue. It makes sense that universities where they can should make use of this revenue stream – this money can then be put to good use to make the university a better learning environment so benefiting all students.  Having scholarships available to the brightest helps to mean that even while charging the highest possible prices the best will still be encouraged to the university. The proposition wants universities to compete to attract the best students so must be willing to accept that many of the best will not be able to afford the cost even if it is set at the same rate as domestic students. While this creates level playing field it does not help the poorest. It is not even the most free market option as the ideal in any market is to charge everyone individually based upon what they can afford. Instead a system where there are differing fees and many scholarships means that it should be considered that domestic students be charged less on account of already paying for many of things that the university needs; research grants, infrastructure etc.
Just as with applying for a job, a studentship should go to the best candidate based on academic ability

The state has invested in the individual student and in the university as an institution, it is therefore a stakeholder. A university is, therefore in a significantly different position to a private company which is a more obviously independent actor. Although universities do compete globally they also receive direct support from the state for at least some of their funding. Even in a rich university such as Oxford the state and tuition fees makes up 50% of the cost of teaching a student.[i]  As a result the state has both an interest and a right in ensuring that the university protects its interests first and foremost. The state in turn has a duty to the taxpayers who are, ultimately footing the bill. Even those universities that are self-funded still owe a residual duty to the state. To the extent that they benefit institutionally from the actions of even the most rolled back state in matters such as defence and transport infrastructure – not to mention the secondary education of the bulk of their students. [i] Hamilton, Andrew, ‘Termly message – Michaelmas 2010’, October 2010,
Higher Education increasingly is a marketplace and if governments expect universities to compete in that it is unfair to restrict how they do so

This is simply unfair to nations with less developed tertiary sectors who would lose all of the little advantage they currently have. Even accepting the analogy with a market place, the results would work poorly for education – just as they have for many involved in free markets in other sectors. The reality of a free market is not that it improves standards across the board but, rather, that it produces a handful of global leaders – usually those who had all of the advantages to start with – and the rest of them go to the wall.[i] This would be particularly serious for developing nations as they would not have any obvious way to fund not only the teaching of those students who remain but the research being undertaken by the academics. To remove the research base of a developing nation is particularly unfair. [i] Hotson, Howard, ‘Don’t Look to the Ivy League’, London Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 10, 19 May 2011