BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.

Applicants should of course carefully consider whether or not they actually wish to become lawyers, and afterwards should carefully consider where they wish to enrol. But it is absurd to claim that individuals cannot decide these things for themselves, and the fact is that many individuals do go to Law School with a clear idea of what they want to do, and subsequently enjoy a highly successful experience in the workplace.   In a lot of ways these criticisms are not unique to the legal field. In fact the same argument could be made for Universities, the number of which is driven by demand for a University education and not by the demand of employers for University graduates. Nonetheless, University graduates almost uniformly make more than non-graduates, and a large number of jobs require degrees. No one could conceivably argue that gaining a college education is either not worth it or a mistake.   In addition, many individuals who have graduated from less prestigious schools can benefit enormously from getting another degree from a more prominent institution. At the point at which the choice is between a Master’s degree in an unrelated field or a law degree, a law degree opens up far more opportunities for its recipients.
The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.

These arguments are less compelling if you have the opportunity to attend a top Law School, in which case the sky is the limit in terms of opportunities. Furthermore, these harms are far from unique to the legal field – they apply to finance and consulting as well, where a good degree with open more doors than a less prestigious one. But individuals still regularly overcome it. One way they do is by going to prominent local schools. In the United States, prestige matters most in New York and Boston. Outside of the East Coast, many firms prefer graduates who attended local schools since they are likely to be more familiar with the area and more likely to be able to move and find housing and a social network in the area. A UCLA degree will take you as far in Los Angeles as a Georgetown one.
A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.

Individuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees. The result is that a large number of students are not actually thinking about the role that law plays in their communities, or what they want to do with their life, when they apply.   The result is that supply and demand in the Law School sector is not driven by the actual demand for Lawyers but instead by the demand for law school places by applicants who may or may not be interested in actually being lawyers, and may or may not have any idea of what the job entails.   The explosion in the number of Law Schools in the last ten years, and the consequent growth in the number of law school graduates has not been accompanied by significant growth in the legal sector. A large portion of Law School graduates are therefore not only unable to find gainful employment within their chosen field, but prohibited by debt from finding opportunities elsewhere.   Graduate employment has now become a buyer’s market. Law firms are now able to dictate the conditions and pay for first year associates and NQs unchallenged. The demands placed upon young lawyers now range from back-breaking to soul crushing.
The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.

Because of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited. This is not in fact  solely due to their actual quality. It is more a consequence of the fact that the legal job market is so bad, that Firms need to use a proxy for removing applicants from the pool without further consideration, and for many, schools work well. US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia had admitted to not hiring Clerks from outside of the top ten law schools, suggesting that he prefers to trust that the admissions offices at these schools did their job properly. He has maintained this policy despite admitting that it would have prevented the hiring of the best clerk he ever had, who had gone to Ohio State University Law School.   While the qualitative outcomes are massively different, the price differential between second and third tier law schools and their first year counterparts is next to non-existent. To the extent it exists at all, those schools on top tend to be able to offer more financial aid.
You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer

This argument is simultaneously both a truism, and beside the point. While it is true that someone will need a JD in order to become a lawyer, individuals pursuing those degrees need to understand that they are investing a huge sum of money for an opportunity to take a difficult series of examinations, which if you pass, allows you to apply for a job in the legal field.  These positions are becoming far harder to find, as each year the number of students graduating from law schools increases, while the number of available positions either shrink or remain static. One has to take account of the entire field and its condition before making a leap.
Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.

Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually  improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School.   Furthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed. Even if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.
Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general

The proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports. The consequences of an impaired sports media industry would have negative effects on both women’s and men’s sport because they will receive less funding. Let us examine how the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is funded, as a case study. The overwhelming majority of the ECB’s funds come from TV rights sales. In 2012 alone contracts were signed with Sky and ESPN worth a total of £385 million. [1] Forcing these media giants to show an equal amount of women’s cricket as men’s would be destructive simply because interest in women’s cricket is nowhere near as high. Consequently, the ECB would see its TV rights value slashed and its income severely lowered. A similar story to this described above would ensue with many other team sports like football and rugby where the men’s sport has a huge fan base. The result would be hugely diminished funding for all facets of sport, most likely including women’s. Consequently, all the benefits the proposition are trying to achieve with this motion would not be achieved, and if anything one would observe a decline in participation and standards of facilities and coaching. This is because the development, facilities and grass roots programs funded by organisations like the ECB and the Football Association (FA) are all funded from the same pool of money, whether the income has come from men’s or women’s sport. Crucially, this explains the proposition’s identification of growing female participation in sport while media coverage remains low.  [1] Hoult, Nick: “England and Wales Cricket Board to step up security in wke of new £125m Asian TV rights deal”, The Telegraph, 17 May, 2012.
The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.

The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not. Moreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical.
Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.

The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1] Crucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3] This is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women. [1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009. [2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2. [3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.
Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.

The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage. If the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable.
Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport

The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable. Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this. [1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.
Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast. The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace. [1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.
Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.

The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place.
Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors. It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting. [1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.
The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.

Sport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects: In terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter  the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport. The media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance. This male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.   [1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009. [2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation. [3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.