BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Trade is not Fair Trade: Why countries should abandon Free Trade Agreements (Proposition Summary)

The rebuttal and the argument so far from the opposition has only cluttered this debate. We are lost in their assertion and worst of all, their spanish citation. We would want to read their documents so that we might point inconsistencies as we did in their earlier citation, but alas with their brilliant strategy they have found our weakness. However the proposition's argument till this point remained unchallenged, we have stated documents (in english) that clearly reflects the current situation in Mexico yet they still claim that "There is null intervention from any other country regarding our water and electricity". From then it comes to our conclusion that they will only read documents written in spanish [[http://instantrimshot.com/]]. In summary, what was our case? Deregulation of markets forces medium and small business from different industries to compete in equal terms with big corporation. These will inevitably causes many business to shut down as they cannot compete with the much bigger corporation that already has an existing big markets to support their operation (as oppose to their smaller counterparts). Free Trade is not Fair Trade. These liberalization of markets has caused unemployment, increase in trade deficit, account balance deficit, decrease in growth, and rampant abuse by foreign presence in the country. Case in point, Mexico (A warning to the global south – EU – Mexico Global Agreement [[http://www.tni.org/reports/altreg/eumexicofta.pdf]]). It is the labor, the middle, and lower class, the wheel of the economy that is being the worst hit by Free Trade. Free Trade is not Free Trade. What has been our point? Obviously; Free Trade is not Fair Trade, and Free Trade is not Free Trade. Repetition is indeed tedious, but it does deliver our message. Why is this bad? Well obviously, FTA brings more harm than good to the economy (everyone should got this point by now) and it did not show any impact to development, and more importantly because the opposition failed to prove otherwise. When the opposition release an argument such as "agreements are to be respected" it only shows their desperation in maintaining existing FTA. Why then should this be abandoned? Well most importantly, because they CAN abandon it and throughout this debate our examples have shown how FTA caused more harm than any benefit. Although we doubt that world leader will be persuaded after reading our arguments, because of their obvious intelligence in managing economies, the debate goes as follow: "poorer countries should abandon FTA" and our two points (Yes, Free Trade is not Fair Trade and is not Free Trade) has shown that if FTA is signed for the sake of economic development, this debate has shown how reality beg to differ. Having remained unchallenged, we beg to propose this motion.
Free Trade is

Free trade is the process of liberalization of market from governments’ interventions. Under free trade policy, all economic resources from all countries involved are subject to price as a reflection of supply and demand, thus making price as the sole determinant for resource allocations. The characteristic of free trade are: 1. Trade of goods without taxes or any kind of barriers 2. The free movement of labor between countries involved in the agreement 3. The free movement of capital between and within countries involved in the agreement 4. Free access to markets Free trade ensures the same playing rules for a competition, although does not necessarily ensures a fair competition for all the parties involved.
Limited trading capacity as a result of not being part of a free trade agreement.

As promised, we will now talk about what happens to poor countries which do not take part in free trade agreements. First things first, we must recall the basis of international commerce mentioned in our previous point: “The principle of exchanging national exceeding product for the national needed product”. Starting from this statement it would be important to remember that production involves a cost. This cost is nothing but the total money, time and resources associated with the purchase of materials or activities required for the setting up of the product[1]. The cost of a product is of great importance at the time of determining its price. Applying some simple logic principles we can assume that if the cost rises the price will rise too, so our point takes into consideration two things: First, that not being part of a free trade agreement elevates the price of a product by elevating the cost of production. This because of the extra expenses and taxes that companies have to pay in order to get their products into another country; second, given that consumers tend to choose the cheap between the convenient, companies which are forced to increase their prices, because of the extra money they had to invest, will suffer a decrease in the demand of their products, which obviously will lead to the firm into a not so prosperous economical situation. Summarizing, chances are being taken away from poor countries by the mere fact of not being part of a free trade treaty. We believe this is not fair. Why are we taking away from developing countries the chance of exporting competitive products in costs and prices!? Doing this is like drawing a vicious circle, the surplus of product is not sold, it stays in the country, firms start to crack, the government stimulates economy by injecting capital, the surplus of product is not sold... Some examples that show us the veracity of what is told before are found in the embargos applied by nations in the past years, we can mention the 1973 oil crisis. It was produced by the Arabs during the Yom Kippur War, and in the following oil glut in the 1980s, the occidental countries were forced to buy oil which price had increased in a three times proportion, while the Arab countries stopped their economic development centered mostly in the trade of oil[2]. Isn’t it a high price for not being able for free trade? 1http://www.investorwords.com/1148/cost.html 2http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/75/11/Controls_Nov1975.pdf
Free Trade is not Free Trade

"The measure of the wealth of a nation is indicated by the measure of its protection of its industry; the measure of the poverty of a nation is marked by the degree in which it neglects and abandons the care of its own industry, leaving it exposed to the action of foreign powers." - Congressman Henry Clay. The price for a free trade is more expensive than the benefit it brings. The practice of free trade agreements will undoubtingly give market access to much richer country. This then will, so they claim, give chances for poorer countries to attract investment and improve growth prospects, and in some cases, even expand their own corporate sector - a fine answer for all the problems in this world. However perfect it may sound, the hypothetical condition can only be valid in a circumstance where particular industries in the poorer countries has comparative advantage. In truth, most of the companies does not have (if any) comparative or competitive advantages. Being so, these companies whenever a free trade agreement is applied, left alone to compete without government’s protection, will never develop and then in the long run will die. Harsh reality portrays that after a country opens their market, the first sector to suffer is the employment sector. Poorer countries will find their skilled workers moving to greener pasture (Seeking higher wage) thus leaving the workforce inside the country being cheap labor (the main attraction for foreign companies) [[http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0103dollar.html]]. Meanwhile foreign corporations will also compete for commodities with higher financial capital and stronger purchasing power, raising the living standard of the whole poorer country's society. No matter how beneficial it might seem by getting access to the new market, the practical thing can differ so much because free trade premise is based only on the potentials that can be reaped, but not on the technical requirements that need to be fulfilled before it can reap the potential.
Agreements are to be respected

Even with any amount of debating time that we can have, the opposition time wants to stress how ridiculous, illegitimate and unthical would be to leave free trade agreements, not only by a "poorer country", but any given country. Imaginea day whee suddenly anyone can break laws, treaties and conventions. It would be a total disaster. Treaties exist to be fulfilled. They are a subject of international law and they are expressed on the maxim "pacta sunt servanda", which means "pacts must be respected". To suddenly one say say that all agreements (in this case, free trade agreements) are terminated is a ridiculous dream that deserve repudiation from any country that doesn't want to fulfill its obligations...Much as criminals. According to the (Article 65(2)) of the the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) states the following: 1.A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim... 2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.[1] That means the free trade agreements do not meet the criteria set above, so it is impossible to say all free trade agreements are withdrawn worldwide, since it would affect 2nd and 3rd parties and it is completelly illegal. To abandon an agreement like that is simply an action degradant to the levels of Marco Junio Bruto. 1. ^ http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
Free Trade equals to Fine Fate

We want pace the opposition's centre of attention; the economic growth. If we compare Mexico's and Myanmar's (Burma) GDP, we can cut false assumption, case in point[[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2003&ED=2007&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=273-518&S=NGDP_RPCH-NGDPPC&CMP=0&x=59&y=8]]: 1. Mexico's GDP in 2003-2007, varied from 1.4% (2003), to 4.2% (2004), while 2. Myanmar's GDP, from 2003-2007, varied from 3.0% (2004), to 13.8% (2003) Comparing current conditions between the US of A's "enemy of democracy" and a country that shares 2,000 miles border with US is unfair, but if we really want to take the growth rate into account, then it is clear that the free trade agreement does not give a significant upperhand.
Free Trade is not Fair Trade

It is quite obvious that certain competing industries among countries will not have the same means (ranging from economical to technological) to compete with those of other countries and so, that is why certain policies and measures can be taken by countries under the free trade zone but recognizing national sovereign policies regarding competition policies. The Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) gives a clear example on how their agreement contemplates certain disadvantages from one nation’s industry to another and so respects sovereign right to enforce own competition laws. Recalling Article 1 of its Chapter 14: 1. “The Parties recognise the importance of co-operation in the promotion of competition, economic efficiency, consumer welfare and the curtailment of anti-competitive practices. 2. The Parties recognise the significant differences in capacity between ASEAN Member States, Australia and New Zealand in the area of competition policy. 3. The Parties respect the sovereign rights of each Party to develop, set, administer and enforce its own competition laws and policies. 4. Nothing in this Chapter requires a Party to develop specific competition related measures to address anti-competitive practices, or prevents a Party from adopting policies in other fields, for example to promote economic development. “[1] Taking into consideration that industrial structures of states in the same region are similar, there will always be a fluctuation on export and import even when it is minimum, but not having a variation is practically impossible whether there is a free trade agreement or not. As a clear example of the same ASEAN region we have Thailand, which after a bilateral FTA with China, “increased on 117 percent for apple imports, 346 percent for Chinese pear imports and 4,300 percent for grape shipments. However, they also experienced an increase of 986 percent for fresh longan exports, 21,850 percent for durian exports, 1,911 for mangosteen and 150 percent for mango.” [2] This statistics show that a free, international, competitive market will produce a productive specialization and these enterprises “would become globally competitive with their own niches in the world market”. The income in Thailand has been greater than the outcome and Thailand has thus, increased its Gross Domestic Product. Other countries in this position will obtain a greater income and that money could be invested in less competitive industries and the investment on education, infrastructure and a further creation of jobs in the same and other markets, including those where they have a comparative advantage. Manchester United will beat the Malaysian national football team, but Lee Chong Wei will beat the full British Badminton team all by his own. The gains from free trade outweighs the costs, by far. 1. ^http://asean.fta.govt.nz/chapter-14-competition/ 2. ^http://www.aseansec.org/17310.htm
The evidence of limited trading capacity as a result of not being part of a free trade agreement.

The opposition tried to rebut our argument by labeling us both absurd and false. We quote “ In a desperate attempt to rebut our argument, the proposition managed to identify three vital issues which to their broad view are false and in some cases just absurd.” This message of our absurdity is supported by the so called economic theory from the opposition, as we quote “ They failed to mention that the model of supply and demand is part of microeconomics, & that it hardly interferes drastically in macroeconomics matter.” In the opposition’s view, there is hardly a connection from microeconomic behavior to macroeconomic matters, thus there’s no case for abandoning FTA because there is no harm thanks to no connection whatsoever. Let’s clarify this. Indeed we failed to mention that for several reasons as listed below: 1. Of course there is relationship between microeconomic matter and macroeconomic matter. The most common macroeconomic indicator is GDP, and it is a sum of all products and services from all sectors, microeconomic, over a period of time. 2. The relationship can go both ways. Eg.: “The monetary policy from federal reserve which economist believed to have fueled the consumption binge in American housing sector by providing cheap credit for extended period of time.” Or using the opposition example of free trade in ASEAN region that the increase in export for certain products is the responsible factor in boosting the area’s GDP. 3. Both fiscal and monetary policy, governments tools in dealing with macroeconomic matters, are measures to control inflation, minimum wages, investment rate in regards to sustain growing GDP and hence employment. As we can see the existences of both policies, fiscal and monetary, is due to the acknowledgement that microeconomic policy can lead to unwanted macroeconomic situations, hence government initiatives are often required. In other words, we didn't mention that simply not because we do not believe that microeconomic matters won’t interfere with macroeconomic matters. Instead we do believe it does interferes closely with each other. On the other hand, how will the opposition defend the case for the benefits of FTA when the innovations in microeconomics won’t result in any improvement whatsoever in macroeconomics situations? What is the purpose of doing FTA then, when there’s hardly relationship between those two economic disciplines? That is why we believe what the opposition labeled us as absurd with their arguments only shows the ambiguity of their arguments for defending the case of FTA. When there is no correlation, what’s the purpose of FTA? We on the other hand believe because there is obviously clear correlation, hence there are justified risks and harms of doing FTA.
Free Trade is not Fair Trade (opposition example)

First of all, we have to recall that this agreement between China and Thailand was only in charge of a free trade related to agriculture and so, it is the agricultural market the want that we have to analyse and it has been on this sector that the exports have been larger than the imports and the industries have grown. Inflation rate and the GDP change are altered due to many different factors, but the trade balance is not the only macroeconomical factor to which we can attribute gains or losses on the GDP, but it is the necessary measure to take if we want to activate the possibility of having exports. Thailand's economy is largely based on agricultural products and their Free Trade Agreements have been succesful on this market (where Thailand is the World's number 1 rice producer) and that was one of the main reasons that lead Thailand to sign further free trade agreements with Australia, India, South Korea and Japan and they have all been very succesful: The 2008 Thai shipments destined to Japan were valued at 625 billion baht, a great revenue por Thailand.[1] This free trade agreement made Japan Thailand's second export destiny...And Thailand has a lower GDP than Japan, by far. It is not our objective to analyse Thailand's economy as a whole, but as for what FTAs are concerned, Thailand is now an advocate of free trade agreements and that is because this treaies have been very succesful. 1. ^ http://www.business-in-asia.com/asia/fta_thailand.html
Free Trade is not Fair Trade: Corporations reaps the benefit more than host country

The two cases mentioned by the proposition are isolated ones, we believe that the still ambiguous case of 13 workers out of 4, 500 000 people (the economically active population of Ecuador) [1] is not representative, the same goes for the Mexican case: unclear and imprecise. What is clear is that the proposition is just looking at a small part from the whole, or at least that is what can be inferred after revising all tales of success linked to the FTA. Take as an example Colombia, which economical development has been strongly marked by its free market politics. By 2007 the GDP grew over 8%, and is actually among the highest in Latin America, we have of course to consider that Colombia is a much more poor country than the United States of America (its major trading partner) or many others, but this seems not to have affected such amazing progress. [2] The proposition says that “Corporations reap the benefit more than host country” but in none of the two examples shown in this section they achieved to demonstrate how do this “Machiavellian intentions” affect the finances of a country, and if this does not hapen then we may say that both instances lack relevance. Instead the Colombian case constitutes a wonderful contribution for showing that no mattering how long is the breach between two countries, free trade brings good news. [1] http://www.argenpress.info/2009/07/panorama-economico-de-ecuador.html [2] http://www.dane.gov.co/files/comunicados/cp_pib_Itrim07.pdf
overwhelming

Obviously homework should be unregulated. Children are a dangerous species and deserve to suffer at the hands of adult society. Too many children now adays spend their time going out and 'shanking bare manz'. It is a well known belief that children should spend their time doing homework, for example look at Nick Clegg, he obviously never did any homework that's why he ended up as a lib dem, but because of this he can put forward idiotic views in every conceivable area and hinder the progress of Britain as the worlds most powerful nation. God save the queen.....
Yes because....

Yes, but some may disagree, schools should limit homework because kids don’t have time. They are busy. Kids grades drop because of too much homework. Also, it’s way better to do class work then homework. It would just be better if schools limited homework. My first reason is that kids don’t have time, they are busy. Homework is important, although too much homework is unneeded and stressful and it also puts pressure on the brain. My second reason is that kids grades drop low because of too much homework. Believe it or not, if kids get to much homework, they get lazy & eventually don’t want do it at all. I researched......
Yes Homework Should Have A Limit

Yes. I do think that homework should have a limit because sometimes homework can be overwhelming and you spend a lot of time on the computer or with a sheet of paper doing homework instead of spending time with your family and doing things. You do need to do homework but there is a point where you just have to stop. You can't have piles and piles of homework isnt good but having some homework is good. Having no homework at all would leave you bored. Overal I think that having some homework is good but having a lot of homework isnt the greatest. So yes i think homework should have a limit.
Yes, kids need to balance out mental and physical exercise.

Homework till an extent is good. Keeps the child busy and interested in studies. But however an excess of homework definitely leads to over burden on the mind of the child. I believe that their should also be plethora of time time given to the child for his physical development. If much of homework is put on him\er there's less time for him\er to go out and play outdoor games. If the child after school is also busy with his homework, he finds less time for discovering himself , his capabilities and hobbies. Therefore I would like to end and say anything in excess is bad, everything should be balanced out in life for a better living.
Yes, it should.

Yes homework needs to have a limit because the children do have lives and don't do work all the time. They come home and they do chores for their parents. They go to parties and family affairs and maybe even host their own. Some might be in sport leagues and will be very busy and they might have clubs. So they might not have enough time to work on their homework. Also if they do, they will spend at least a little bit of it in enjoyment. I mean, everyone does this. Even the teachers who assign the homework. We all spend time enjoying ourselves once we come home after a long day of working. Therefore, the children might not have enough time to complete massive amounts of homework. Another point would be that, if the children have that much homework they will be extremely stressed with the stress of completing it and making sure it has good quality. This stress is definitely not good for their health, and in turn they might just give up. They just will go like i just can't do it and they won't do it. This would decrease their grades. if teachers give so much, they will get worse quality work and there would be less effort put in. So they might as well give less homework, so we will all do better and do our absolute best. All resulting in better quality work for in which both teacher and student will be happy about.