BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Final exams in law school are brutal

"Top Ten (10) Reasons Not To Go To Law School." Karemar. July 19th, 2007: "10. FINAL EXAMS ARE BRUTAL - Generally, for most courses, your entire semester grade will depend on one final exam right before Christmas and one final exam right before summer break. Imagine the stress that will ride on your back as you prepare and then await your grade with no indication as to where you stand. Additionally, all your professors will be traveling and unreachable."
The bar is very hard; you might not pass

"Top Ten (10) Reasons Not To Go To Law School." Karemar. July 19th, 2007: "6. THE BAR EXAM IS BRUTAL - This beast is two or three days, depending on your state of hypothetical hypotheticals and nonsensical nonsense questions that you will never be confronted with again in your life let alone career. You will study like an animal for three months, only surfacing from your dungeon to eat and feel some sunlight on your face for one insane exam. Plus, if you fail and 40%of you overall will, you have to do it all over again in six months. That's six months of telling your family and friends that you will pass it next time and you have it all figured out. Don't fail it again as 33% of you will and then become suicidal. $120,000 in school loans, holding off on the $36,000 job and no bar certification. Damn! [...] I failed the California bar on my first attempt and though it was close, the excruciating three months between the first bar and the next bar were brutal. Also, I was overly confident after my first attempt, thus maybe I deserved to be humbled by the almighty bar. Happy to note, that I passed it the second time and thus didn't hit the suicidal mind state."
Alternative law schedules less time consuming, more flexible

Hindi Greenberg. "So What Else Can You Do with Your Law Degree?" GPSolo magazine. July/August 2005: "In lieu of changing jobs, some practitioners are staying put in their practice areas but are seeking alternative work schedules to allow time for cultivating interests both in and outside of law. As this phenomenon grows, the demand to accommodate part-time lawyering and alternative work arrangements will escalate. This bodes well for those who desire quality time in and out of the law office. [...] For those seeking to use their legal background in a less intensive, all-consuming style, the part-time and contract practice of law have become hot topics both for individual lawyers and for law firms. With the downsizing of some firms and influx of work in others, there is a growing demand for both contract lawyers, who work on a temporary, hourly basis, and part-time lawyers, who work as permanent employees on a reduced work schedule. [...] Lawyers also are exploring alter-native work arrangements such as telecommuting (where the lawyer works with a phone and computer from a location other than the law office, hooked up to the office by modem and fax) and job sharing (where two lawyers each work a reduced schedule, either sharing cases or maintaining their own caseload, and share office space and support staff). In a job-sharing arrangement, the two attorneys often prorate benefits so that the firm is paying only benefits, such as health insurance, vacation, and sick leave, as if for one full-time lawyer."
Work hours at law firms are insane

"Top Ten (10) Reasons Not To Go To Law School." Karemar. July 19th, 2007: "4. INSANE HOURS - Practicing law is far from a 9-5pm job, in fact at the bigger firms it's far from a 9-7pm job. I personally don't have a problem with work but the mundane paper pushing you will be doing isn't necessarily inspiring. Prepare to spend nights in the office, weekends in the office and holidays in the office. All for what? So your managing partner who has gone through this in his past can spend the next week in the Bahamas. When does your time come to be that managing partner? Approximately 22 years from your start date. Good Luck."
Billing system in law firms makes for long hours

"Top Ten (10) Reasons Not To Go To Law School." Karemar. July 19th, 2007: "5. BILLING. For those of you who don't know, Attorney / Lawyers bill each client per hour of work or even bill for partial increments of time spent on the client. Therefore, if you spend 10 hours at work, most firms require you to bill 8 hours a day. That's 8 hours of work for a client in which your firm is billing that client $200 to $750 an hour. Even if you were to account for every hour and actually spend that time working for the client, every client will complain! You are in a lose / lose situation. The hours you bill are always too much for your client, but never enough for the firm. This is why extra hours and Saturday's and Sundays become important days in the office so you can do more billing."
Lawyers are always beholden to clients' demands.

Denise Doty. "Is being a lawyer worth it?" Helium. January 23rd, 2008: "The law is, as they say, "a jealous mistress". You are forever beholden to your client's wishes and demands, as they are the ones that pay your salary. You become adept at speaking to clients whether you are at your desk, in your kitchen, or on the soccer field. The advent of e-mail and personal communication devices have only increased the ways in which you can be contacted."
Lawyers empowered to check large companies, govts.

Jamison Koehler. "On the True Value of a Law Degree." Koehler Law. January 16th, 2011: "Other benefits are specific to the area of law you practice. As a solo practitioner armed only with a legal degree and a deep-seated commitment to the rule of law, my wife has been able to hold multi-national companies accountable for dumping their waste on foreign beaches. She is currently suing the private contractors accountable for human right violations in the Middle East and Asia. I went to one of her hearings a year or so ago to find a scene right out of Erin Brockovich. One side of the room was filled with the defendants, lawyers from three or four different firms, company government relations and press people, and so on. My wife sat on the other side of the room with an associate, a paralegal or two, and a couple of law students who had been volunteering their time."
Law school offers chance at high pay; other paths don't.

David Lat. "In Defense of Going to Law School." Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: "Second, it increases the appeal of the possible options after law school. Sure, your chances of landing a $160,000 a year job at a major law firm may be slim. But how many non-legal career paths even given you a viable shot at that kind of pay (and prestige), just three short years down the road?"
Law school teaches you how to "think like a lawyer"

"Is law school a good investment?" Law Student blog. July 22nd, 2007: "A law degree is more than a degree. The law degree represents years of learning how to analyze intangible thoughts and concepts (often called “thinking like a lawyer”). A law degree also involves years of training in legal writing, research, and studying the writings of some of the brightest minds in history. These aspects will benefits students for the rest of their lives whether they are a lawyer or not."
Successfully defending innocent clients is very rewarding.

Jamison Koehler. "On the True Value of a Law Degree." Koehler Law. January 16th, 2011: "For me as a criminal defense attorney, there is nothing more gratifying than the moment in which you walk into the cell block and see the look of relief in your client’s eyes. There is also that stunned moment of silence after a not guilty verdict has been announced and your client turns to you and says, you mean that’s it, I am free to leave now? Nothing I did in my previous career comes anywhere close to that in terms of sheer satisfaction."
Many do "win" at law school and with lucrative careers.

David Lat. "In defense of going to law school." Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: "1. If a law degree is like a lottery ticket, remember: some people still win. [...] let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Biglaw is the pinnacle of the profession, and that your goal in going to law school is to wind up an Am Law 100 or Vault 100 firm, or maybe a National Law Journal 250 firm. Is law school a wise idea? If you go to a highly-ranked law school, then the answer is “probably yes.” As we recently discussed with respect to Cornell Law School, which is #13 in the influential U.S. News rankings, around 40 to 50 percent of their graduates will end up at NLJ 250 law firms. A 50-50 chance of getting a six-figure salary — probably while you’re still in your twenties, in the worst recession that most Americans have ever experienced — is not a bad thing."
Practicing law is more art than science.

Inside law school. LSAC: "Law is more an art than a science. The reality lawyers seek in analyzing a case is not always well defined. Legal study, therefore, requires an attentive mind and a tolerance for ambiguity. Because many people believe incorrectly that the study of law involves the memorization of rules in books and principles dictated by learned professors, law schools often attract those people who especially value structure, authority, and order. The study of law does not involve this kind of certainty, however; complex legal questions do not have simple legal solutions."
Lawyers are part of important advocacy system, rule of law

"In Defense of Lawyers" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks: "Our legal system was designed as an advocacy system for a simple reason: No other system of law delivers true justice on a consistent basis. An advocacy system requires, by definition, advocates. The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed, self interest, lack of objectivity, and ignorance of the law. Thus, lawyers were born."
A handgun ban serves to weaken US military preparedness

Handguns are an important part of combat. Training in the use of handguns, therefore, is important to the combat readiness of individuals. It is also true that individual handgun owners, whom take handguns to gun ranges and become familiar with them, acquire training and experience in the use of their weapon. The civilian possession of handguns, therefore, increases training that could be useful to the military in the event of a draft. In so far as this is true, any reduction in the ability of citizens to own, use, and train with handguns will reduce the battle readiness of the military.
A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, "Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms."[3]
1st and 2nd clauses of 2nd amendment guarantee militia and individual gun rights

Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. Justice Scalia. March l8th, 2008 - "JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2nd amendment combines right to militia and individual arms

Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. Mr. Dellinger: "Now, what I think is happening is that two different rights are being put together. One was a textual right to protect the militia. I think the better argument for the -- for the other side, for Mr. Heller, is that the amendment's purpose is militia protective, but it was overinclusive in the way that several of you have suggested, and that is that, as the court below said, preserving the individual right, presumably to have guns for personal use, was the best way to ensure that the militia could serve when called.
Handguns would be of little use to a militia fighting the US military.

The notion involved in the "militia" clause of the 2nd amendment is that it is important for citizens to have the right to form a militia in order to combat a tyrannical government, and presumably its army. In the modern day, this would require that a militia be capable of mustering powerful firearms, including tanks and bazookas, such that they could combat the modern power of the US military. Based on this interpretation, what use would handguns be to a militia, whose inherent purpose is to combat or check the most powerful military the world has ever seen? The handgun would provide negligible use to such a militia, and so has little value in upholding any right the 2nd amendment offers to individuals to form a militia. This makes the banning of handguns in Washington, DC of little consequence to the integrity of the 2nd amendment's militia clause.
A DC handgun ban is a reasonable measure against high gun violence

"Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of University of California, Irvine, believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose." In the case of Washington, DC, the legitimate purpose at hand has been the extraordinarily high crime rate of the city, at the time when the ban was implemented in 1976 through today. By 1991, DC was considered the murder capital of the country, with 479 deaths that year, 81 deaths per 100,000. As such, it constituted and continues to constitute an exceptional case in the country, warranting exceptional measures, such as a handgun ban.
2nd amendment could not exist solely to uphold militias as Congress has power to disarm them

Congress has the power and authority to disarm a militia. This is necessary to uphold the monopoly on military force in the state and to protect the integrity of the state. It also should be recognized that a militia could take a form that is entirely "inappropriate" and contrary to the interests of the vast majority of the citizenry. Such a militia might claim that the state is acting "tyrannically" because it is acting "democratically", instead of according to the prescript of God. 99% of citizens might oppose the existence of this militia. Is the Second Amendment meant to protect the existence of such a militia? No. Congress has the authority to disband it. Therefore, the right to form a militia is in question, making a ban on hanguns more appropriate, as it does not conflict with any supposed right to form a militia.
A constitutional right to bear arms is not subject to reasonableness standards

A right to bear arms is constitutionally enshrined. As such, it cannot be qualified for the purpose of practical considerations. Legislatures cannot regulate parts of it according to some "reasonableness" standard; the right is immutable. The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker, also known as The American Blackstone. He authored a set of law books in 1803 that annotated Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (discussed at length later, under Colonial Rights), for American use, and that formed, in many cases, the sole legal written works read by many early American attorneys.[44] Tucker, the leading Jeffersonian constitutional theorist, was widely read, even by those who rejected his interpretation of the Constitution. In footnotes 40 and 41, he wrote: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."[4]
A handgun ban deprives citizens of the most commonly used weapon for self defense

The handgun is used more commonly than any other weapons in self defense in the home. Roughly 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns, according to some sources.[9] This is because it is small, can be easily stowed in a house where it may be of need, and because it is easy to wield and fire. To ban a weapon that is so important in self-defense would reduce the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, making citizens more vulnerable, and possibly inviting further robberies.
Banning one class of arms does not violate an individual right to bear arms

An individual right to bear arms can be interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to bear arms of some kind, but not necessarily every kind. Most would see bazookas as a class of arms that should not be widely held. But, this does not limit the right of individuals to bear other arms. Similarly, banning handguns will not limit the ability of individuals to bear a rifle or shotgun. Therefore, a ban on handguns only limits the right to bear arms, but does not seriously impair it.
The DC handgun ban did decrease crime immediately after passing.

The DC handgun ban did decrease crime and murder rates directly after the ban was passed. According to CBS news, "Homicides in the district did ebb over the next few years, largely following a national trend. In 1977, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen sharply in D.C. and concluded the ban was working. However, the results were challenged even by the city's police department, which said police tactics had contributed to the drop."[5]
Since other gun classes have been banned, so too can handguns for reasonable ends.

There is a precedent for banning citizens from purchasing specific gun classes, such as fully-automatic weapons and heavy weaponry such as grenades and bazookas. It is, therefore, not reasonable to argue that it is unconstitutional to ban a class of arms such as handguns; it has already been done and is not disputed in many cases (such as with bazookas). The question, therefore, is simply whether banning handguns fits the reasonableness standard in the District of Columbia.
The DC handgun ban has produced a marginal decrease in crime and murders.

A 1991 University of Maryland study by criminologists in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, even despite the fact that the number of deaths in the city had risen to 479 that year, 81 deaths per 100,000, earning it the title of the murder capital of the country. They argued the ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders.[6] The point of the study is that the handgun ban has had a marginal impact in reducing crime and murder rates. Any such decrease is important and valuable, however small the impact may be. D.C. Council chairman Sterling Tucker said in 2008, "We knew there were problems we couldn't wipe out. But we had a little more control over it [with the handgun ban]."[7]
To maintain the handgun ban a change in the constitution is imperative

The constitution is the basis for allowing gun possession within the US society. All court decisions go back to the Second Amendment text and interpret it either by the spirit of the law or by the letter of the law. The actual possibility of possession of guns within the US society is guaranteed through the existence of the amendment per se. Constant interpretations and different conclusions drawn upon the same text mean that any radical decisions regarding banning guns can always be argued against based on the same text of the amendment.If consensus is reached about enacting such a change within society such as banning guns than it must be legitimized by a change in the constitution .In this will reflect a common will of the people in the foundation of all the legal system within the US i.e the constitution.
"Arms" falling under the 2nd Amendment can be regulated but not banned

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. March 9th, 2007 court decision against the DC handgun ban. - "Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
If the 2nd amendment was to protect an individual right it would have clearly expressed it

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this was the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".
The DC gun ban does not violate 2nd amendment because DC is not a state

In the opinion of the dissenting judge in the DC handgun ban court decision, the Second Amendment cannot apply to DC, since DC is not a state. Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion - "To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion." In other words, DC residents do not have the protection of the Second Amendment, as citizens of other states do, making a ban on handguns acceptable. This is even if we conclude that the Second Amendment provides protections to citizens of states that would make a handgun ban unconstitutional, which is debatable.
Rifles and shotguns are as effective as handguns in self-defense

There is little evidence that a handgun is a more effective as a means to self-defense than a rifle or a shotgun. At a minimum, there is nothing to suggest that a shotgun and a rifle are ineffective as self-defense weapons. Some suggest that a shotgun is actually a superior choice for purposes of self-defense as it is a more devastating weapon to an assailant than a handgun, which may only slightly impair an intruder.
Constitutional right to bear arms applies to DC residents as much as citizens of other states.

Some argue that Washington, DC is not a state, and so the constitutional right to bear arms does not necessarily apply. Yet, DC residents are United States citizens, even if they are not citizens of states. The constitution and the second amendment apply to them as much as to other citizens. The right to bear arms is a right conferred to all US citizens equally, including DC residents. If we assume that the constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, then we should assume that US citizens residing in DC receive the same privilege to exercise this right as do other citizens.