BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Your definition of market is too narrow. For example, your definition *seems* to exclude me trading some of my free time to watch a movie with my g/f in return for her letting me hit that later on in the day. /// I would say that it does, because I personally don't think that that your quest to have sex with your girlfriend falls under the scope of the market. Also, it is not 'my' definition. It is the most contextually appropriate of those that I found, and none of the others would include your scenario either. ~ /// [Second Paragraph] /// Here you're saying that the market can not have a goal because it would be impossible to make sure that every person participating had the same goal, but when you think about it my goal would fit perfectly with my definition of the market. The seller sells to the buyer, and that seller then gains a specific revenue. If that revenue generates a profit he/she can continue to sell their product. If it does not generate profit then the seller is losing money and will eventually pull out of the market. The fact that the individual may or may not want to make money is irrelevant. A goal's motivation for achieving a goal has no bearing on the contents of that goal. ~ ///The problem with your GD example and your second to last paragraph/sentence is that you're ignoring that value is subjective. /// True, value is ultimately subjective, but that does not mean that there is no objective way to gauge a thing's worth. For instance Precious metals such as gold and silver have values. A person can then choose to base their purchase price for these items based on their value. ~ I await my opponent's response.
"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase

Your definition of market is too narrow. For example, your definition *seems* to exclude me trading some of my free time to watch a movie with my g/f in return for her letting me hit that later on in the day. (trades/exchanges don't have to be explicit, nor does the scope have to be limited). The problem is that without a stated goal, which you've PROVIDED for these purposes, market inefficiency is a fragment. You can contend that the goal of "the market" is to get products into the hands of customers...but there's no way to prove that. Have you surveyed every individual actor in this market? Mises would say that the goal of every individual in the market is to achieve a higher value at the expense of a lower value. And when you take into account that value is subjective even Mises's more apt description of the goal of the market is almost meaningless because we'd still have to go about surveying every individual actor in the market at every single moment to know what higher value that individual was pursuing at that moment. And even at that point, unless every individual was pursuing the same goal at every moment then what kind of label could we give to a shmorgishborg of individual pursuits? The problem with your GD example and your second to last paragraph/sentence is that you're ignoring that value is subjective.
"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase

First off I will begin with a few clarifying terms, some of which conflict with my opponent's understanding of them: Market - the world of commercial activity where goods and services are bought and sold. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Efficient - being effective without wasting time or effort or expense; or the most effective way. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Effective - able to accomplish a purpose. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Securities - a tranferable financial instrument entitling the owner to specified types of financial benefits. It may take the form of shares of corporate stock or mutual funds, bonds issued by corporations or governmental agencies, stock options or other options to buy and sell, and other kinds of formal investment instruments. http://www.financingwaterforall.org... ~ Using these terms I would contend that the goal of the market is to get products into the hands of customers in a way that would allow the producer/seller to continue to sell their products. This goal is undermined when the market is performing inefficiently. Market efficiency is a term that basically means that the value of a company's securities accurately describes the price of those securities. The inverse of this, market inefficiency, occurs when the price of securities does not accurately reflect the value of those securities. A great example of an inefficient market would be that of America during the years directly preceding the Great Depression. During this time many speculators were purchasing the stock of various companies which drove their prices high while their values remained almost universally lower than than this price [1, 2]. Therefore market efficiency does not refer to the actions of those involved in the market, but the prices of securities effectively representing their value. ~ I conclude my opening argument with the contention that 'market inefficiency' is a completely coherent term and await his response. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.gusmorino.com...
"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase

Efficient is a term used to describe a course of action taken to achieve a goal. I don't personally know what the goal of the market is. Considering the market is a term given to a bunch of free individuals pursuing their values, it is unclear that their goals would overlap in a way that a coherent term can even be given to the "aggregate goals of free individuals". So we don't know what the goal of all free individuals is, we don't know all the actions that free individuals take to go about achieving those goals, therefore market inefficiency is incoherent. I've never heard an argument made for "market inefficiency" that amounted to anything more than: "Free individuals aren't acting in a way that I would personally prefer for them to act."
Outsourcing

1. The reason why many of these companies are able to save money from outsourcing jobs is because in other countries, it is perfectly legal to pay workers hardly anything, and in some there is even slavery and child labor going on. ( https://img.washingtonpost.com... http://www.globalmarch.org... ) So I argue it is not a good idea to rely on other countries that use such inhumane conditions for their workers. By keeping jobs in America, we can ensure people are properly compensated for their work and that slave labor or child labor is not used in the making of the product. When we outsource jobs and trade with those nations, we are essentially encouraging those nations to continue these work practices. 2. I would argue that promoting your own product in that country is not a good thing. Sure, it may help that company grow, but it makes that other nation dependent upon another nation. If we really wanted to help a developing nation, we would make them self-dependent. The old saying "give a man a fish, feed him for a meal, teach a man to fish, feed him for a life time" comes to mind. In addition, it makes our country dependent upon that nation too in some ways since that company has much of its growth dependent upon people in that nation now as well. 3. I would say subsidies are only good during times in which a specific sector of the economy is failing. Otherwise, I agree that we shouldn't use government subsidies. Nonetheless, we shouldn't trade with countries that treat their workers unfairly. We should only trade with other nations who treat their workers as good or better than we do ours. Doing this will pressure those other nations to improve their workers' lives. 4. Sure, it may help the economy, but is it really moral to profit at the expense of workers in other nations? The only reason why outsourcing or free trade helps the economy is because it provides lower priced products. The reason these products are lower-priced is because these nations we trade with treat their workers poorly, paying them very little, or in the case of some people, not paying them at all through slavery.
Outsourcing

1.Some people are against outsourcing because they feel like they are losing local jobs to overseas. While companies like outsourcing because they are able to save a lot of money in hiring costs. 2.The United States outsources a lot of their customer service jobs from major companies to overseas countries like India for example. Companies can outsource to smaller developing nations to promote their products in that country. An example of this would be outsourcing car industry jobs to the Caribbean Island to promote the use of cars in the islands. 3. A common barrier to trade is a government subsidy to a particular domestic industry. Subsidies make those goods cheaper to produce than in foreign markets. This could happen between the US and China if they decide that they can produce the goods cheaper in their own country. 4.I believe that outsourcing is good for the economy, it can help the American economy grow and become more stable. it allows other countries to raise their pay, which in term, raises our own pay.
Legalizing abortion

The woman should have the right to make her own choices. She doesn't have to have an abortion if she doesn't want to but the option is and should be there. 70,000 pregnant teens die each year during childbirth and the babies have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. Adoption is not an option for them. If they had an abortion, they would still be alive. Also, outlawing abortion would cause an increase of unsafe, illegal abortion which 78,000 thousand women die from each year. Outlawing abortion does not take every form of it away. Abortion is a safe medical procedure where less than 0.5% of abortions give women serious complications. 88% of abortions are in the first trimester so why should we completely outlaw it when the fetus is completely dependent on the mother in the uterus at this time cannot think anything or feel anything on its own. A 15 year old should be able to get an abortion if it is her choice. Abortions do not cause any harm to the mother so her parents should support her decision. Parents who don't allow their kids to have an abortion will make life tougher for their daughter and themselves. Teen mothers will have a tough future. They are more likely to leave school, develop health problems, end up divorced, and rely on public assistance to raise the child. Just because Jane Roe ended up being against abortion does not mean we should take the option of abortion away from everyone. And Margaret Sanger being racist and a eugenicist has nothing to do with the abortion debate and is an irrational and ignorant argument. Most people against abortion will allow an abortion if it saves the woman's life. If they allow that, then why can't they allow it when a mother is deeply at risk of going bankrupt. They will not be able to feed themselves or their children so why can't they have an abortion. It may end up as the same result except the children they may already have may die too. People that are pro-choice do not support abortion, you must realize that. They believe a woman should have that choice given to them. And can we all agree that the people making these laws in Washington should be a bunch of dumb, middle-aged, white men!
Legalizing abortion

Obviously when the baby's brain starts developing is important to you so allow me to share a fact A baby's brain, spinal cord, and other vital organs begin forming at week 5 of the pregnancy. Unless women are expecting to get pregnant most women find out from week 4-6 that they are pregnant. Week 13-16 the brain is fully developed. By week 28 the baby has eyelashes, and can blink. There is always adoption. Always. If you don't think you can love and care for your child the way you should, let another set of parents who desperately want a child. Abortion is an easy way out, it is by no means responsible to end a child life to make yours easier. I think the child would rather have the chance to live in not an ideal environment then not to live at all. So do you think a 15 year old should have the right to get an abortion without parental consent? Again this isn't about conservatives or liberals. Answering your question again the fetus begins forming it's brain at week 5 Some facts: "Jane Roe" (Norma Mcorvey) from the Roe v Wade trial is a pro-life advocate. "All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion " at any point " was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear." Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood was a eugenicist and a racist "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Legalizing abortion

I believe life begins when the brain develops. I don't think you can call a fetus a child when it doesn't have its brain. I know it will end up being a child but if you take away someone's brain, they die so I don't know if a fetus is a human being when it doesn't have a brain. I don't think you're necessarily killing a child in that case. Let's take it from a women's point of view now. She's raising three kids on minimum wage and gets pregnant. She can't afford a fourth kid. I think she has a right to abort it. It's the best move for herself and the rest of her family. She is keeping her other three kids alive by getting that abortion. Now, I know you'll say she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and she needs more personal responsibility but isn't getting an abortion a personal responsibility? That's the move she feels is right and responsible so she should be able to do that. And you end up at the same place if you get an abortion or not get pregnant. You end up not having a kid. It's not like the women wants to have an abortion either. It's a tough choice she has to make and there's definitely no joy involved when it happens. Now I agree that some abortions aren't handled correctly, but that doesn't mean we should take that option away from women altogether. They can fix those problems and come up with reasonable abortion laws like none after 28 weeks like I said before. I don't believe it's right that a 15 year old can walk into an abortion clinic and not a dentist's office either. I believe a 15 year old should have the right to get an abortion but with an ID. Also, conservatives are specifically against these programs. If they were given a choice to, they would definitely take away all of them. If you listen to these people and know their ideology you would know they are against them. I have seen pictures of aborted babies and they are gruesome but most of them are late-term. This is the third time I've said this but 28 weeks should be the deadline. Aborted babies born before this are quite a bit smaller than your hand. And I want to know why the fetus would be considered a living, breathing, full human being, and no different from a baby or child or even adult. I know it will end up as one but I'm talking about the fetus in its current, physical form without a brain why it is a human being.
Legalizing abortion

1) Just because society accepts something does not mean it's fact. Just a couple of decades ago society thought it was ok to judge someone by the color of there skin. They were so very wrong. I think that we celebrate birthdays on the day of birth because you can't always know for sure the date of conception (well a doctor can approximately) and also that the day of birth is just as much a celebration for the mother as it is the child. The first time holding and seeing the child outside the womb. Usually when miscarriages occur there is some form of funeral or ceremony given just as closure. 2) A child and a fetus are not the same thing but in the end it's still a human being. An adult and a baby are not the same but they are merely humans in different stages of life, as is a baby and fetus. With that in mind people don't say "I'm pregnant with my first fetus" they say "baby" or "child". Putting a scientific term helps make the situation easier because your not ending a babies life you are terminating a fetus which has no value. Every life has value and it is quite unfair to abuse the power of "women' rights" on a helpless voiceless child. 3)Now I myself am against the death penalty but I do understand the argument and I would love to get into that a different time. To say they are against "school lunch, health care, daycare, food stamps and welfare" is a bit ignorant because they aren't specifically against all those things. Just the way in which they are handled. In the same way most pro-choice liberals are against the choice of being able to own a gun and all that entails. I could go on but lets not get into the conservative and liberal side of things. 4) Back on topic, the way that some abortions are handled and the clinics are gut wrenchingly horrible. Absolutely horrible. I'm sure you've heard about the Gosnell case, and the details are disgusting. Now, when it comes to abortions I feel that it is all done shadily. A fifteen year old girl can walk into an abortion clinic lie about her name, age, any health issues she has, and still receive an abortion. Yet a fifteen year old girl can't walk into the dentist she's gone to for years and receive a simple sealant on her teeth that requires no anesthesia without parental consent! It's outrageous. It has been proven that abortions can kill, and affect fertility in the future but a young girl can go get one without her parents ever knowing. Why hide something if there is nothing to hide? P.S If you have never seen pictures of an aborted baby I would advise you to, although it is graphic and gruesome you can clearly see developed hands and feet. Then tell me that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby.
Legalizing abortion

I think society has accepted that life begins at birth. If life begins at conception, why isn't date of conception on our birth certificate instead of date of birth? Why aren't fetuses counted in the census? Why aren't there funerals when there is a miscarriage? My personal opinion is life doesn't begin until the brain starts forming. There shouldn't be any abortions after this point (about 24-27 weeks in). So let's say no abortions after 28 weeks like the definition says. It isn't a child, it's a fetus. They are two different things. I'm not as much against the people who just think abortion should be illegal as I am against these "pro-life conservatives." These people support the death penalty and military intervention. They also are against school lunch, health care, daycare, food stamps and welfare. How can they be pro-life with these beliefs? The conservatives irk me the most because they have no consistency. I'm sure you have consistency though and can give me a good, strong argument. I also agree that anti-abortionists don't necessarily hate women. Some do, like Rush Limbaugh, but most don't. I think that kind of answered all three questions.
Legalizing abortion

Thank you for accepting! I will start out in defining abortion. I'm sure you (and anyone reading) knows what abortion is, but I will do it purely as a formality. Abortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Merriam-Webster) Now as my first point I will start out in saying that I think the biggest issue that "pro- choice", and "pro-life" believers have is when life begins. Life begins when the sperm and the egg are joined to form a potential child. Some questions I have: 1. When do you believe life begins? 2. If you believe (like most pro-choice people) that life begins at birth then why aren't abortions done later in the term? 3. If it isn't a child, than what is it? Ok now continuing: The definition of life is-the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (Merriam Webster) Even at that early stage in the womb the child is growing and developing. It is no longer the choice of the mother because it is not her body anymore, it is also the body of a child. I feel that it is un-educated to say that people who are against abortions "hate women" and also that people who are for abortion "hate children". This issue is a difficult matter to understand and discuss so I hope that you will say things to make me think. I'm sorry that this isn't traditional debating style my thoughts tend to get scattered, I look forward to your reply and feel free to bring up any points you would like me to comment on.
Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

My opponent said funding band is unconstitutional and said the Federal Government has no right funding band. He got this idea from the Article 1 Section 8 which he said whatever is not listed in the Article is not allowed to be funded. In Article 1 Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net......) states what Power the Congress can do. The Federal Goverment does not have the power to fund schools but the State goverment those. Schools are not directly funded by the Federal goverment, the money is given to the States and the States distribute the money umong the distrincts[1]. If it was uncontitutional to fund band, then we would not be having this debate right now. My opponent said band should be cut out and students can just play at home. The consiqusies with playing music on your own time and not having band at school is the fact the student does not have a band to play with. Playing in with a band helps students music skills in ways playing by your self or with a few friends could not do. While playing in the band students have to listen to each other to know how loud or soft to play or what tempo to play. Also, if their no band for a student play for a extracurricular activity, their no chance for the student to list this on their college application. Again from my previous argument, partcipanting in extracurricrlar activties shows colleges that you can manage your time, maintain long time commentment, and show they can make contribution for something[2]. Schools across the country are cutting teachers in order to keep their budgets while making class room sizes larger. If students are having old times in classes because the classes are larger than students can do the same thing my opponent said about playing your instrument home. Students can hire toturs in their spare time and study harder and it could help students prepare for colleges where some classes with over a hundred students. My conclusion for why public schools should fund band is 1. students can recive schoalorships to play in band in college 2. playing an instrument increases people intellengents 3. students can take their musical talents and become an muscian to make their living 4. performing in band makes your college application look better a improve your chances getting into college [1] http://www2.ed.gov...... [2]http://www.collegeboard.com......