BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debt cycles and the curse of microfinance

Africa’s microfinance schemes can be different, and are fundamentally different. Across Africa there is a history of informal lending. Microfinance is not new, but rather embedded in traditional practices. This means communities are aware of the obligations, rules, and practice of microfinance. Additionally, the path taken by microfinance lenders shows stricter controls are being taken to ensure that the loans are not subprime. In a bid to ensure the safety of the poor the Bank of Ghana has set up minimum capital requirements for the borrower and new regulations to ensure money-lent is repayable.
A livelihoods approach

The livelihoods approach provides a useful model to understand how poor people live[1]; and remains important to recognising the benefits of microfinance. The provision of microfinance reduces vulnerability to shocks and changes such as losing a job; enhances people’s access to assets that they use and need (such as finance, friend networks, and land); and this fundamentally acts to change the lives of the poor. Microfinance provides social protection through tapping into social capital. Further, microfinance means aid is not simply provided, but the individual is taught valuable financial skills and given the means to sustain themselves for their lifetime. [1] See further readings: IFAD, 2013.
Small is beautiful: community empowerment

Microfinance is empowering the communities that are using it - showing in development, small is beautiful. Communities are empowered to change their conditions. For example taking the case of savings - microfinance allows for savings. Half of the adults that saved in Sub-Saharan Africa, during 2013, used an informal, community-based approach (CARE, 2014). First, having savings reduces household risk. CARE is one of many organisations working in innovations for microfinance. At CARE savings have been mobilised across Africa by working with Village Savings and Loans Associations. Overtime, CARE has targeted over 30,000,000 poor people in Africa, to provide necessary finance. Savings ensures households have financial capital, can invest resources in education, health, and the future. Savings is security in livelihoods. Second, microfinance is providing key skills. Oxfam’s Savings for Change Initiative provides training on savings, and lending, to women in communities in Senegal and Mali. Evidence from Mali indicates startup capital provided has ensured better food security, women’s empowerment in the financial decision-making of households, and crucially, a sense of community bond among the women (Oxfam, 2013). Gender based violence within households may also be reduced[1]. [1] See further readings: Kim et al, 2007.
Ending poverty through entrepreneurialism

Introducing finance provides communities with access to startup capital. Access to financial capital is vital in several respects for initiating capitalism. Firstly, access to capital enables entrepreneurialism. The poor have business ideas that would benefit both themselves and their community they just require access to capital to invest in such ideas. The Initiative ‘Lend with Care’ is providing access to capital to empower entrepreneurs[1]. Secondly, the cumulative effect of small-scale savings and borrowing, enabled through microfinance enables individuals, families and communities, to enter markets - of land and property. Being able to buy property and land can enable personal security, dignity, and increasing returns. [1] See further readings: Lend with Care, 2013.
Rebuilding agricultural systems

Africa is faced with an agrarian crisis. Microfinance is providing rural communities a chance to gain food security and reduce vulnerability to risks such as climate change, unstable demand, and political tensions. Microfinance supports small scale agriculture – which is more sustainable, effective for growth, and beneficial for communities than larger scale agriculture. In Zimbabwe, small scale farming has the capability to improve production, benefiting households, communities, and the Nation (IRIN, 2013; Morrison, 2012). Kiva, a microfinance NGO, is providing affordable capital to remote communities. Loans have been provided to small-scale farmers and a rental system has been set-up enabling farmers to borrow tools and resources needed.
Microfinance and protection

Access to a small loan provides benefits for the poor’s ability to access high quality health care. A lack of access to banking facilities - loans and credit - may mean the poor are left excluded from health care services as these are usually not free. Microfinance institutions accept the irregularities of the poor’s income, so enabling health care to be affordable to the poor by providing access to finance. As Ofori-Adjei (2007) shows the integration of microfinance institutions within healthcare systems in Ghana is required to resolve the issue of inaccessibility. Ill health should not put a household into a state of poverty - microfinance provides this protection. Microfinance schemes not only provide loans to access health care but are now integrating non-financial services, such as health education, within their finance schemes.
Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art

Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.
We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art

Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual. An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily. For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact  is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.
The power of the visual

Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect. In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street). In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget.
Social disgust can be central to artwork

Some forms of art rely strongly on the provocation of disgust or other strong reactions. For example, conceptual artists often rely heavily upon the provocation of strong emotions in the viewer as a way of drawing attention to important, taboo areas (e.g. death, religion and sexuality). If they are banned from doing this, then we lose an entire branch of art: we are left instead with forms of art that choose not to engage with these areas at all. Particularly in cases where people want to draw attention to what they see as unnecessary taboos, shock is integral. For example, the work of Sarah Lucas explored taboos surrounding sexuality and gender: her work drew attention to stereotyping and taboo in a way that (necessarily) many people found disgusting. Further, it is possible to critically engage with that disgust. It is wrong to assume that the end point of a provocative piece of art is “oh, I’ve been provoked”. Rather, this emotional first response is only the beginning when it comes to the contemplation of that work. Thinking about the reasons for your disgust, and its context, allows us a greater insight into the work, which if you believe ideas are central to pieces of art (which conceptual artists do) is vital.
Freedom of speech

Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it. Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional. The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits.
Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing

Great, socially liberal movements have always been controversial, and always been supported, encouraged and propagated by art. Art is a realm wherein an artist’s expression is less limited by social structures (like the necessity of pleasing your box; of being ‘commercially viable’). Subsequently it has easily, and often, been utilised as a means of changing public opinion. Some of these movements, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes and norms surrounding sexuality (in particular female sexuality) and gender that Sarah Lucas, Tracey Emin and others contributed to in the liberalising 80s and 90s, attract social disgust. In any situation where a taboo is being attacked, this will happen. The converse however, is not the case: it is almost impossible to provoke social disgust by maintaining the status quo. As a result, restriction of art that provokes social disgust will disproportionately attack the socially liberal, and thus help to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is worthy of such protection.
Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art

Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible. Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica).
We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art

Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if one piece of art is censored, another on a different topic may be produced, when looked at in a wider context this is not the case. If we restrict artists in all cases where someone is disgusted, an enormous quantity of subjects will be off limits. This will have, not only a negative impact on that artist, but a deleterious effect on whole branches of art. Further, restricting any art that could cause social disgust is an unreasonable restriction to place upon society (or gallery curators, or grant allocation committees). It is difficult to know at what point a piece will cross the line from simply ‘provocative’ to ‘disgusting’. Consequently, people will be forced to err on the side of caution, leading to an excessive caution and restriction: overcensorship. When weighed against these harms, it is far from clear that individual disgust can be elevated to this extent!
The power of the visual

We are no less able to consent to art than we are to every other manifestation of individuality in society. We are similarly unable to consent to, but strongly impacted by, all sorts of things, from music videos and adverts to people dressed strangely on the street. However, as a society we accept that people’s core values ought to be robust enough to survive challenges in the public sphere: we allow debate, art and music on many topics that have enormous personal ramifications, from euthanasia to deportation. As a consequence, it is only legitimate to restrict the worst excesses, whose impact can be measured objectively, before display: we set rules in this regard restricting the worst instances of, for example, exploitation and pornography. Further, those who are worst affected can self-limit their exposure: it is rare that people are entirely unaware of the existence of a controversial piece of art, and as such people can choose not to view it, or to view it only briefly. They should not have the right to prevent everyone else from seeing such a piece.
Social disgust can be central to artwork

First, it seems implausible that there are ideas that can only be conveyed by instant, emotional responses. It must surely be possible to convey these ideas in other ways. Second, it is unclear why it is so important that these reactions are provoked: surely if something is incredibly shocking it is that way for a reason? Something cannot provoke social disgust without taking a clear stride over the line of what we consider to be acceptable in society. The taboos that exist in society are not meaningless: rather, they express inviolable values that are present throughout time, and in many different societies.
Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions. We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit  in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art.
Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing

Social change does not come from pieces of art. It comes from real, concrete political action and struggles, over time. It is unclear, therefore, why it should not be the case that we ought first to campaign for changes to society, and then display (newly) acceptable art reflecting upon the changes we have made. To do otherwise is to suggest that artists should be allowed special dispensation to run ‘ahead’ of the norms the rest of us feel bound by: note that it is not always the case that disgusting art later becomes acceptable. Not all transgressions are for the sake of future changes to society; some simply remain transgressions.
Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.

  You will rarely get the chance to interact with those intelligent individuals, either in Law School, where most of your time will be spent in the library, or at a Law Firm, where any discussions will detract from your ability to bill hours. The legal business model effectively incentivizes long-hours, with most of it going to research. You will rarely if ever see a courtroom, unless you work as a public defender and even there you will spend most of your time on research.
The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.

Law School, especially at the elite level is an opportunity to enter an environment where intellect is valued above all else. Whereas in school or university athletic ability or other talents sometimes trumped academics, in the legal world, academic and mental skills are all that matters.   It is therefore an opportunity to succeed or fail on one’s own merits, and to meet others who are equally interested in intellectual or academic pursuits.
Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.

It is true that there are opportunities that could stand you in better stead down the road, but those listed by the opposition are both involve a gamble on the same odds as that entailed by a legal career.  For every 10 interns in a congressional office or for a lobbying firm, perhaps one gets a job offer. By contrast you will receive a Law Degree if you spend those three years on Law School.   Furthermore, financial aid can be provided for Law School whereas the jobs listed by the opposition would require a large initial investment.
Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.

Law school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments.
Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.

Law Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates.
The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.

Legal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions.   Of every ten junior associates hired, one will be lucky to make partner at a major firm, and the rest will often be faced with a career dead-end at 35 or need to switch careers. For those who do make partner, the opportunities to enjoy the benefits will be limited by pressure to work even harder.
Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.

Law School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school?   This is an especially important consideration for those interested in careers outside of the legal profession. Spending some of that tuition subsidizing an internship on Capitol Hill or with a Think Tank or Lobbying firm would be far more likely to lead to later employment in politics than earning a JD and likely offer a politically interested potential law student a far more entertaining and enjoyable experience. Joining the Peace Corp or working for an international non-Profit would both impress the State Department more and be far cheaper than a law degree.
A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.

Correlation is not causation. The fact that a number of individuals with JDs are working in fields unrelated to the law does not, in and of itself, imply that they gained those positions because of a JD. A JD may help, but it has to be factored against the opportunity cost of everything else you could be doing over three years with the tuition money.   A Harvard Law degree might impress the State Department – but spending a year and a half in South Sudan and writing a book on your experiences would impress them far more. A UCLA degree might impress a movie studio, but producing your own movie, or gaining work in the field as a production assistant would likely impress them even more.   The fact is that for every individual with a JD or GDL who occupies a senior position in a non-legal field, there are many more high achieving individuals in similar fields who do not have a JD, a BPTC or an MBAs.
Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance

Pay in most fields is, to some degree or other, correlated with the cost of entry into that profession or occupation. Because becoming a Lawyer requires up to seven years of education, it does tend to pay more than many other fields. But there are many lawyers who, despite working long hours, do not make vast amounts of money, and there are, furthermore, a dozen part-time associates for every globe-trotting partner at most major firms.   Furthermore, it is unclear how correlated success within Law School is with pay. The highest paid lawyer in America for most of the 1990s and early 2000s went to the University of Mississippi, rather than an Ivy League institution, while software developers and investment bankers regularly make more than lawyers without having to pay exorbitant tuition costs.