My basic argument: Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split up the money it generates between investors, lenders, and workers. And when you take a look at where shares of Wal-Mart (WMT) are trading, it seems to imply that the company could pay its workers more, and investors less, without upsetting Wall Street. So what’s holding management back?

Bloomberg writer Matt Levine said not only that my argument was wrong, but “with a pristine Euclidean wrongness unusual in financial commentary.” So, basically, he was impressed. Levine and I took to Twitter to hash out our views on the issue. I think I won out. But you decide for yourself.

MORE: Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

(Note: Two of the tweets are out of order. Once we got going, replying to each other’s tweets, our debate at one point broke into two conversations. I put those two tweets in the order that I thought made sense in the context of the larger conversation.)

[cnnmoney-iframe src=”http://money.cnn.com/.element/ssi/stories/6.0/storify/twitter-fight.html” w=620 h=5200]