BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rebuttal: On contradictions

Opposition’ s response to our second point accused us of contradiction (we’re not quite sure what it was, but hey). In an act of magnificent poetic justice they then proceeded to contradict themselves. Before examining their own internal awkwardness, let’s look at the charges laid against us. First, opposition suggests that the real problem in risky loans is incorrect risk assessment. Sure, we concede that in many cases this is the case. Happily our policy does actually help in these cases – if the risk assessment model is wrong, reducing the number of loans at the risky end of the spectrum (20 per cent plus) will reduce the overarching risk problem! More importantly, we know that a lot of excessively risky loans (with very high interest rates) are actually caused by selfish and greedy bankers trying to make money. And here, of course, our policy helps tremendously. It prevents risky loans from being licensed – they *cannot* be made because they are institutionally not viable. Crucially, and we must stress this over and over again, we do not believe that our policy is an exclusive one-size-fits-all solution - it’s part of a bigger solution. Second, opposition believes that we will be encouraging a society that lives on credit. We have a couple of responses. The first is that this is a cap at 20 per cent, not a cap at 5 per cent – we propose a responsible cap that weighs up the importance of self-set interest rates and the danger of excessively risky loans. The second is that we have stressed, consistently, that we will be discouraging lending, not encouraging lending at low interest rates. And it is here that the contradiction in opposition’s case becomes so evident! In one breath they are arguing both that (a) the number of loans will remain constant at lower interest rates, and that (b) most people will suddenly no longer be able to borrow. Well, which is it opposition? This tension runs throughout their case, and they had best resolve it as soon as possible! Finally, we are happy to note that the opposition agrees that banks are not harmed by our policy (even if they don’t agree that they are benefited).
The cap would impose a burden on people with good credit

The opposition's argument here is a lot of words and very little substance. They talk about competition and pricing mechanisms (note, we are not controlling interest rate setting, we are capping it!), but effectively the argument is this: (1) A bank might need to charge an interest rate of more than 20 per cent to allow some people to loan. (2) Instead of just denying these borrowers credit or cash the bank *might* offload the risk on to people with good credit (3) Those people with good credit will lose out. The first point is true, and we endorse it fully from proposition. This is exactly what we have outlined from the start - there are many risky loans that need interests rates of more than 20 per cent to be licensed. The second point is rather silly. First, it contains a very big *might*. The reality is that banks are far more likely to just deny credit. Why on earth would the bank begin to charge regular good borrowers more instead of simply turning off the 'bad taps'? Second, the premise is somewhat inconsistent with what opposition has been shouting about all along - the amazing competitiveness of the banking sector. Assuming but not conceding that opposition is right, banks won't be able to offload risk onto those with good credit records because they will simply lose them to their competitors.
The cap would impose a burden on people with good credit

On the side of the opposition we believe that it is beneficial when banks are able to set the interest rates freely. Since the lending sector is characterized by intense competition, it ensures the most efficient pricing of assets. Those who have good credit can have loans at low interest rate, while those possessing bad credit have to pay extra for their risk. This encourages market discipline – as an individual you will be striving to improve your record over time to get better borrowing conditions. The pricing mechanism has been like this for quite some time and has been efficient – pricing of personal loans is relatively easy. Once you introduce the cap, there will be a burden on clients with good credit. It should be realized that the most likely real case when interest rates may be above 20% is that of short term borriwing when using credit cards. Very often, the agreement implies that the credit card interest rate changes whenever client’s credit worthiness changes (could be decided upon various objective factors such as repayment of other loans, loss of employment, salary decrease). Such flexibility is indeed crucial because it allows to evaluate the default risk of a client whenever she decides to take a credit. Potentially there are customers whose credit worthiness may drop to such extent that they should be charged more than 20% interest rate. Once the cap is put (according to the government's plan), the banks won't be able to charge approapriate interest rate to ofset the high level of default risk. As a result, two scenarios are likely to occure. First, if agreement allows, a bank may simply deny lending to its customer (consequences of this scenario are analysed in the argument below). However, under second scenario, it is very likely that banks may not be able to throw their existing credit card users away and should provide them with a possibility to borrow. If the banks are not able to charge enough so as to reflect the risk, they will have to charge somebody else to compensate for potential losses. As a result, the averege interest rate charged from all customers will be increased. This will affect people with good credit, the ones who have been prudent and careful in spending.This is exactly the scenario that could be observed in insurance industry, whenever an insurance provider is not allowed to have full flexibility in setting different level pricing for customers having varying levels of risk. We do not see this as fair; in fact, we see this as especially unfair, because prudent behavior is punished and imprudent is rewarded.
The plan leaves out every person without a credit when central bank interest rate is high

In modern economies, central banks have a high degree of power over the interest rate in the economy. By being able to manipulate the money supply, they can either decrease or increase interest rates in the economy. If the central bank of a country pursues a very contractionary monetary policy to control inflation or for another reason (high real interest rates and high inflation are not mutually exclusive), the obvious result is that the base interest rate in the economy will be very high. One needs to understand that rates of commercial banks move in accordance with the base interest rate (ceteris paribus). The commercial banks can either put deposits into central bank and enjoy high interest, or give out commercial loans that would need to have higher interest rates (more risk as compared to the deposit within the central bank). As the base interest rate approaches 20%, the banks will be automatically prevented by giving out any loans to customers of any risk and they will put everything into deposits within the central bank. Even if we would accept the notion that banks should be controlled, a more reasonable approach would be to control the spread between central bank interest rate and personal lending. Our example includes central bank interest rate approaching 20% which occurs quite rarely. However, a situation when the base interest rate is 1% at one period and 6% in the next period is more than common. Hence, the clients that have a risk profile which approximately corresponds to 20% interest rate will be sometimes eligible to take loans and sometimes not. So, if a person got a loan of 20% when base interest rates was 1%, she will not be able to get it anymore when it will be 6% (25% would be required for her riskiness). In these cases getting a loan depends simply on economic conditions in a country.
Rebuttal: Understanding the problem outlined by Proposition

There are a few challenges that opposition has laid down here. First, they argue that banking sectors are broadly very competitive. Second, they argue that banks are homogenous and only act sensibly. Third, they misunderstand our use of examples, and thus misunderstand our argument. Right, so let’s deal with the three points. First, as we will show later, banking sectors in many countries are *not* competitive and are in fact oligopolies which exhibit collusive anticompetitive behavior. They extract massive profits from clients, and are not in any way a paragon of free market perfect competition. Second, it is absurd to think that banks do not need to be protected from themselves. The economic crisis has engulfed a number of financial institutions who were implicated as part of the initial problem. The mistake that opposition makes is that they assume: (a) banks are omnipotent, and (b) banks are homogenous. The reality is that banks, just like most businesses, have highly constrained information sources. This implies that they often make decisions that appear silly in hindsight. Banks are also not homogenous, but incentivize bankers to make high paying risky loans. Of course banks need to be protected from themselves – all of the new regulations proposed by the Obama, Merkel and Brown administrations, speak to this fact. Third, our examples were not intended to show the burgeoning risk of rising interest rates, but to show that the people who are targeted by high interest rates are invariably the poor. That is all! Our argument was *never* that this policy will prevent another Great Depression. We were very explicit right the way through – this is a small issue that affects a small number of cases, but it is a crucial issue in *those* cases. *** Furthermore, despite opposition's boasting about 'knowing economics' they evidently showcases the motto, ' a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. To claim that the point of interest rate is to compensate for the risk of insolvency on the part of a client [ which is correct ] but to then persist that prop's characterisation of the *vulnverability* of borrowers lacking power when both 1) in desperate need to borrow (as in current climate) and 2) being suspectible to whatever interest rates a bank sets, smacks of naivety at best, and dishonesty at worst. It is PRECISELY because the otherwise legitimate aim of compensating for the potential insolvency risk that it may suffer, that a bank can overzeaolusly set unduly high interest rates. Hence opp's exposition of economics 101, if anything, underscores the legimitacy of the problem that prop's mechanism goes on to solve.
Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. The sole p...

Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is false that it serves no redeeming purpose. Even irreverent humour or mockery has to make a point in order to be successful. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to the free marketplace of ideas; it’s up to the individuals engaged in that exchange.
Such statutes promote social cohesion, which is an important purpose of the law. In a diverse socie...

Blasphemy laws can also escalate social tensions which may already exist between groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. What is more, if before words were preferable to violence because they incurred no criminal sanctions, anti-blasphemy laws would eliminate that comparative advantage and therefore make it more likely that more people would resort to violent acts against groups they scorn.
Blasphemy is dangerous. It directly or indirectly incites violence. The proposed law aims to close...

The argument about incitement of violence is wrong. You shouldn’t make something illegal just because the recipient of a type of speech can’t control himself. You should expect and require people to moderate their behaviour. It’s not acceptable for someone to resort to violence in response to words, and no society is well-served by permitting it. Plus, this assumption about violence essentially removes people’s agency; it says they had no choice but to react violently. It would mean that they couldn’t be punished under our current legal standards. Yet, we certainly would not want to excuse such violence.
Blasphemy will tend to target marginalized groups. People will tend to commit blasphemy when they f...

Blasphemy laws can equally be used to oppress minorities, as they are often used in totalitarian regimes around the world to victimize religious minorities, intellectuals and artists, reporters and human rights defenders, as well as opponents of the ruling class. It amounts to state censorship. It is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimising others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time - their books banned from libraries, their paintings from art galleries.
It is reasonable to guard the sensibilities of the public. We do it all the time. There is no intr...

Simply because we also use criminal law to protect people’s sensibilities in other cases, it does not mean there is a good reason to do it in the first place. It is not offence but harm which should guide the criminalization of behaviour in a free society. Harm can be objectively established; we have ways of knowing with reasonable certainty what is likely to cause it. Those are solid premises on which to set up a law which is meant to guide the behaviour of our citizens. But there is no such objective way of establishing offence. If offense is defined in terms of displeasing activities, its potential scope is vast. Anything you choose to do might irritate or exasperate me. But Simply telling someone not to say anything which might cause any offence falls short of providing good guidance, which is what any law should do.
Establishing a legal definition for a crime is never a simple matter. It is an intricate and compli...

“Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Denmark in 2005 were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Some may find a remark truly offensive and some might not find it offensive at all. Where would we set the bar? We would have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. And it would only arbitrarily offer succour to the alleged victims of blasphemy, depending on whether the remarks fall on either side of this arbitrary line.
Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. The sole p...

Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. The sole purpose of blasphemy is to offend. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, the best ideas will out and society will be enriched by the discourse. Free speech therefore should have redeeming value. It should contribute to the free marketplace of ideas. But language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to the free marketplace of ideas. It does not further any discussion. It does not admit of discourse. It does not appeal to reason. In other words, none of the justifications of free speech apply in the case of blasphemy.
Such statutes promote social cohesion, which is an important purpose of the law. In a diverse socie...

Such statutes promote social cohesion, which is an important purpose of the law. In a diverse society, people of different creeds and viewpoints need to coexist. These laws are instrumental in making that a reality. They signify a welcome society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious.
Blasphemy is dangerous. It directly or indirectly incites violence. The proposed law aims to close...

Blasphemy is dangerous. It directly or indirectly incites violence. The proposed law aims to close a subtle loophole: if you were to incite hatred against someone because of the colour of their skin that would be a serious crime. But if you were to do so because of their religious beliefs - that would not, although most often a group’s religion is attacked as a proxy for its race. Many free democracies already prohibit the incitement of violence, or do not protect such speech. For example, even the United States, which has broad protections of free speech enshrined in the Constitution, does not protect fighting words, which are designed to invite a violent response. When you’re insulting somebody’s religion - something that is fundamental to their character, and which they value above all else - you can expect a violent reaction. There is a strong social purpose in a law that prevents the cause of that violence.
Blasphemy will tend to target marginalized groups. People will tend to commit blasphemy when they f...

Blasphemy will tend to target marginalized groups. People will tend to commit blasphemy when they feel that they will not receive opprobrium from society. Thus, blasphemy will disproportionately attack the religions of minorities, such as newcomers, or those from faiths that have not been moderated over time by the full panoply of progressive values. A modern multicultural society will aim to offer a welcome and protection to all of its members, and so will use blasphemy laws to prevent groups within it from being targeted in this way.
It is reasonable to guard the sensibilities of the public. We do it all the time. There is no intr...

It is reasonable to guard the sensibilities of the public. We do it all the time. There is no intrinsic harm to someone walking down the high street naked, but we prohibit it because it offends the public’s sensibilities. The same goes for cursing in public, and an array of other acts. In much the same way, we should prohibit this speech act that will offend so many people’s sensibilities and make things much less pleasant for everyone.
Establishing a legal definition for a crime is never a simple matter. It is an intricate and compli...

Establishing a legal definition for a crime is never a simple matter. It is an intricate and complicated task which requires extensive consideration. And yet we have to surpass this obstacle all the time with the laws we adopt as a society. We frequently have to define nuanced offences like libel or harassment or hate crimes. The definition will never be perfect and will have to be supplemented by a level of discretion on behalf of the judiciary, as with every other law. However, although any law or definition we come up with might never perfectly correspond to the targeted behaviour, it does not mean we should never attempt to create a law merely because it would be difficult to do so. If the social imperative for such a law to exist is great enough, we should do it.
Its a business, a business doing its job

So what if they advertise? Its your self control that says "no i shouldn't have that today". If you don't like it, then don't like it. But lets face, they have hundreds of customers per day. Just because you dont agree with fast food doesn't mean no one does. Should we ban advertisements for cookies? Soda? Energy drinks? other 'junk food'? Besides, eating a big mac, some fries and a drink from mcdonalds is better than eating most dishes you can get at an italian restaurant. In face, pizza is really bad for you too. Should we ban pizza advertisements? Do some research to whats bad for you. Most things contain something that people complain about. From Vitamin Water to Perscription Medications. And yes, Meds that have advertisments could be bad for you too! In turn, with the logic of the "yes" argument, nothing should be advertised.
Fast Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity

Fast food doesn't necessarily make people fat, just unhealthy (cholesterol, starch etc) . See, I'm not fat but I don't feel healthy because I barely have any muscle and I live on fat, sugar and starch mostly. I need to change my diet and exercise. Fast food chains are also offering balanced diets, high protein, salad bowls etc are all on the menu even at pizza hut and McDonald's. It is also the obligation of the parents to police what their children view and how much screen time they get. If parents today took a more proactive approach, spending more personal time and using television less as a babysitter we would see less obesity in children. Also parents today need to remember they are the ones in charge, not the children. There seems to be a trend today where parents are afraid to anger the child by saying no. Perhaps some of the blame for the increase in childhood obesity rates lies with the hands off approach to parenting which has become the norm in modern society.
Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease

There is little to be said against this particular argument for the banning of fast food advertising. The only conceivable rebuttal that could be brought to bear is that of personal choice and responsibility. The sole purpose of advertising is to convince the individual they have a preference or desire for one product over other available options. It becomes a matter of personal responsibility to either abstain from consuming unhealthy foods or use in moderation. All the health risks listed can be mitigated through self control with regards to frequency and portion sizing combined with a healthy lifestyle including exercise.
Fast Foods and Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Another set of health problems associated with eating fast food are called Functional gastrointestinal disorders which include Irritable bowel syndrome, chronic idiopathic constipation and abdominal migraine. A study published in 2016 by the University of Washington in association with the National Yang Ming University in Taiwan investigated the possibility of fast food causing these disorders. The research found slightly more than 88 percent of adolescents suffering with functional gastrointestinal disorders were frequent consumers of fast food. Their findings concluded a significant correlation between fast food consumption and functional gastrointestinal disorders. This study determined the likely cause of gastrointestinal disorder to be high concentrations of sodium, fat and sugars. Also excessive concentrations of trans fatty acids found in fast food contribute to disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. This consumption of fats and sugars coupled with a lack of fruits, vegetables, and sources of dietary fiber lead to imbalance in the natural flora required in the intestines for proper digestion. Abdominal migraine was the most common affliction associated with fast food induced functional gastrointestinal disorder. According to Migraine.com children who deal with abdominal migraines in their youth frequently suffer from migraine headaches later in life. These children are also more likely to develop psychiatric problems such as anxiety in adulthood. These life altering long term effects are further cause to eliminate fast food advertising.