BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Multilateral aid arrangements tend to avoid unnecessarily coercive conditions. One of the strongest...

Multilateral aid has the potential to be equally or more coercive than bilateral aid arrangements. The history of World Bank and International Monetary Fund austerity programs and structural adjustment policies in the developing world has amply demonstrated that sometimes multilateral organizations can impose potent and harmful conditions on recipients, interfering with the internal affairs of other nations and doing long-lasting harm. These agencies have also been heavily criticized for their focus on economic concerns at the expense of more basic human needs, such as health, education and the alleviation of poverty.
Multilateral aid arrangements develop a sense of cooperation among nations with the additional advan...

Bilateral aid has the potential to help in the war against terrorism, or with other security concerns, in a way that multilateral aid cannot. The United States has learned that it can help reluctant regimes to cooperate in the war on terror through financial incentives (most notably Pakistan). Moreover, direct aid from the United States can help improve America’s image in societies whose people might currently have negative or mixed attitudes toward the United States.
It is wrong for the IMF to demand Structural Adjustment Programmes in exchange for a loan, because i...

If the IMF hands out loans to countries without any extra conditions, the IMF would face the problem of “moral hazard”. In this case the moral hazard would be this: since countries know that the IMF will always be there to bail them out whenever they get into trouble, they would engage in more risky monetary behavior. So, by adding the extra cost of temporarily taking away a bit of sovereignty, the IMF will make it less likely that this moral hazard will occur – in this case: less likely that member countries will engage in risky monetary behavior and thereby reduce the chance of a national or even international monetary crisis.
It is wrong for the IMF to demand Structural Adjustment Programmes in exchange for a loan, because i...

It is wrong for the IMF to demand Structural Adjustment Programmes in exchange for a loan, because it intrudes on the sovereignty of the country in question. This sovereignty is the fundamental principle of international relations, and it states that countries have the right to set their own policies without outside interference. Moreover, no country or government would willingly set a self-evidently wrong monetary policy. So, when countries do get into monetary trouble, it is either due to “honest mistakes” or factors beyond their control, like natural disasters or problems in the wider global economy. The crisis itself (often short-term and acute) is punishment enough, and to get out of it, they need help, not someone taking over their autonomy (often for a long period) and dictating policies they will only half-heartedly implement.
Structural Adjustment Programs harm the economy of the countries they are applied to. The reason: t...

SAPs do exactly what they’re supposed to do: create monetary stability. The IMF does not focus on economic development: that is the goal of its sister organization, the World Bank. Measures of monetary stability are macro-economic variables like low and stable inflation, no budget deficits, and the freedom of capital to flow where it needs to go. Running into budget deficits to supposedly create demand for employment, the typical Keynesian approach, might be politically expedient in the short-term, but always hurts more in the long run. An example of this is the Latin-American debt crisis in the 1980s. In the 1960s and 70s, many Latin-American countries had overextended themselves, borrowing more and more internationally to invest in industrialization and infrastructure domestically. The goal was to create domestic employment, essentially gambling that by the time the countries had to pay their loans back, the economy would have improved enough to generate the money to pay off debts. It didn’t work: the centralized governments operated state-run enterprises which, without true market-incentives, often wasted the money. To make matters worse, when recession hit in the early 1980s, these countries had to admit that they would have to default on their loans. The result was capital flight, and the risk of a global financial crisis. Only after debt restructuring negotiations, involving privatization and liberalization of Latin-American countries, did confidence of investors return, thus lifting the crisis of the 1980s.
Structural Adjustment Programs harm the economy of the countries they are applied to. The reason: t...

Structural Adjustment Programs harm the economy of the countries they are applied to. The reason: the economists of the IMF confuse certain measures of monetary stability with the end of monetary stability itself. The IMF forgets that in many poor countries monetary stability is best created by developing the economy first. One example of this is Jamaica, where the SAP removed anti-dumping restrictions, with the result that dumping from U.S. companies choked off local industries. Another is post-Soviet Russia, where the IMF-recommended approach of “shock therapy” – rapid liberalization - first led to hyperinflation, then a deep depression. The result was more inequality and poverty then before the collapse.
Structural Adjustment Programs also hurt monetary stability directly. SAPs usually demand the openi...

SAPs are designed to create actual monetary stability, not just “goodlooking measures”. This means honest monetary policy, where the measures reflect the underlying economic fundamentals. An example is the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The cause of this crisis was local: Thailand’s capital market lacked transparency, it had its currency “pegged” to the dollar, and was experiencing a bubble in asset prices. Thanks to this policy, Thailand’s economy seemed to be growing on accounts of the monetary measures, but what wasn’t growing were the economic fundamentals, most importantly the total factor productivity. As soon as investors sensed that the perspectives for growth were not as good as the Thai government painted them, they withdrew their investments, causing a credit crunch in Thailand. Since the Thai Baht was pegged to the dollar, it immediately came under severe speculative attacks, forcing the Thai government to float its currency, and to spend heavily to prevent massive devaluation and bankruptcies, thereby running into huge deficits. That’s when the IMF stepped in: it bailed out the Thai government (and later similarly, the Indonesian and Korean government) but also demanded that Thailand would not use its monetary policy to achieve “fake” growth to make up for lack of real economic growth – this was the only way to restore investor confidence and attract money again.
Structural Adjustment Programs also hurt monetary stability directly. SAPs usually demand the openi...

Structural Adjustment Programs also hurt monetary stability directly. SAPs usually demand the opening up of domestic capital markets. But when money can flow in easier, it can also flow out easier, which is why this policy usually attracts speculative, fast-moving capital flows rather then real, long-term investments, bringing with it more capital volatility (big rises and falls in the availability of money). When all this “hot money” suddenly flees out of a country, it won’t be held accountable to the incredible socio-economic damage that comes with its leaving. Also, by demanding budget cuts in SAPs, the IMF prevents countries from pursuing an essentially Keynesian approach of running a short-term deficit to prevent a longer term economic recession. An example of this is the Asian financial crisis in 1997: in a classic case of investors’ panic, international banks withdrew from Asian economies after some original but small mishaps starting in Thailand, despite sound fundamentals on inflation and a healthy government budget. Normally, public institutions would step in to limit capital flight, pumping money into the market to prevent defaulting banks and bankruptcies, buying more of their own currency to prevent a too sudden devaluation and adding a PR-strategy to calm investors down. This is what countries like Thailand, Indonesia and Korea tried to do - until the IMF stepped in, and demanded budget cuts and immediate bank-closures. The result: an previously containable, local panic became a global crisis, and the Asian countries involved still face bankruptcies, lower growth and higher unemployment rates today.
The IMF is basically an institute of neo-colonialism, and SAPs are its instruments. This is reflect...

The IMF is an economic and financial institution, not a political one. This is reflected in the voting rights of the member countries: they are not distributed according to population size of member countries, but according to the size of their economy, and the risk of monetary instability. The bigger the economy, the bigger the contribution to the IMF, and therefore also the more votes. The bigger the risk of monetary instability, the higher the chances that the country will need the funds of the IMF. To ensure that those countries do not determine IMF-lending policies to generate unfair advantage, they get fewer votes than they otherwise would have. This also determines how “controlling” the IMF is towards member countries: the risk of default of the huge US economy is marginal, whereas the risk of default of the shaky Ethiopian economy is a lot higher. In the case of Ethiopia the money used to repay the debt should, according to the SAP the IMF and Ethiopia had negotiated, have gone to the reserves of the Ethiopian government. At the very least, the Ethiopian government should have notified the IMF why it departed from this agreement.
The IMF is basically an institute of neo-colonialism, and SAPs are its instruments. This is reflect...

The IMF is basically an institute of neo-colonialism, and SAPs are its instruments. This is reflected by the distribution of voting rights amongst the member countries: it is basically the U.S. and Europe who run the whole show. The countries who need the funds the IMF provides the most (poor and at risk of default) are also the ones who have the least say in its policy. By “tradition” the Managing Director of the IMF is always a European, and the President of its sister-organisation, the World Bank, is always an American. This explains why the IMF didn’t react in the 1990s, when the IMF prescribed measures to the USA to curb inflation, and the US decided not to listen, but did react when Ethiopia decided to repay early a loan it had taken out previously. The early repayment made perfect economic sense – the only problem the IMF had was that it had done so without asking its approval first.
SAPs are based on a neo-liberalist ideology and always proscribe the same recipe to every country, r...

Again, the IMF deals with monetary stability, and the IMF’s research trips are based on a need-to-know-basis. Monetary decisions are not made in the countryside: they are made at the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. Therefore, it would amount to corruption to send its officials to trips to the countryside when there is no need to go there – a serious offense since the IMF is funded by public money. As to the drafts-working-method: there are simple standards to the macro-economic variables the IMF researches. For example, for every country, an inflation of over 20% would be considered high - the IMF does not need to research that for every report it writes. In addition, many countries publicize their own statistics on these measures internationally, the IMF can already judge before a visit how that country scores in regards to that standard. The only reason IMF officials still go in person is to get a deeper understanding of how that country measures these statistics, how the monetary policy-making process goes and how strong the financial sector is.
SAPs are based on a neo-liberalist ideology and always proscribe the same recipe to every country, r...

SAPs are based on a neo-liberalist ideology and always proscribe the same recipe to every country, regardless of the specific problems of that country. The IMF’s working methods reflect this: whenever the IMF writes a report, it first writes the draft, and only then visits the country the draft is about. During that visit, the IMF analysts hardly ever leave their hotels to investigate the country. Instead they only talk to people and read reports from the Department of Finance.
Psychological harms of polygamy

Oppositions point seems to be that in a polygamous relationship the wives suffer more and that the children will be confused. But this argument is very one sided just as the oppositions view on this whole debate is. They have based their whole idea that only polygyny is possible and that polyandry is not possible and further they have yet to talk about why they still support polygamy in the private of the homes but believe that the state should not be involved when the wives and children suffer as they say. Because the state could help society in all ways. Firstly, on the point of raising children, opposition believes that a monogamous, straight relationship is the ideal background, because they equally represent both sexes. But if we realise what world we live in today, this is not the case. You could have homosexual parents they would represent one sex, or maybe the dad died, and the child lives with its mum, which represents one sex. But in both of these cases the child could be a safe and healthy person. Because in the end, representation of sex is not the reason a child is raised a certain way. Just like that a polygamous relationship should not cause any problems. Kids can learn new things and understand that one sex is not different mentally and that one sex doesn’t have to be dominant. Its what the parents do that matters, not what sex they are. Also they say that the wives suffer more. But all the reason they have said all happen in a monogamous relationship as well. We are to make this legal all around the world, so people can recognise it. The women will have all the equal rights. This is a choice. If the marriage goes bad just like a monogamous one, they can leave and divorce. If the spouse marries a person the current spouse doesn't like, they have the right to divorce. And as the state recognises it there will be more support groups and help to deal with problems, just like any other marriages. The problems you said, is the people not polygamy.
It would destroy immigration policies

We, the government, think that this problem will not arise. As immigration policies start to collide with the status of polygamy being legal. We will also have to start redefining our policies. Immigration policies would check, what marital status they have and see the relationships, and will not a allow number of marriages to cloud the judgement of giving a visa. This would mean that no matter how many people you are married to, you wouldn't be given an advantage. Also an one that marries a foreign person would be aware and would check for any signs of other marriages and decide on marry or not. This is a choice. And does not allow anyone any advantages.
More Prosperous Family

The proposition idea of bigger family having less problems seems interesting, but it falls on many levels. Firstly, It is true that bigger family will have bigger income, but on the other hand family being bigger implies more people to feed from the family income, which causes similar income per person. Moreover, taking the fact that polygyny is more common, families will have less male partners, which combining with lower average female wage makes even lower family income per member [[http://goo.gl/kNzmz]]. In addition, there will be more children per male, which causes higher percentage of family members depending on other, which again decreases the family income per person. Secondly, if anyone is not able to manage their family, the possibility of using grandparents, babysitters or friends still exist and there is no need of recognition by state. Moreover, if state would allow this marriage, partners will have responsibilities each other and they will be more likely tide to live together in one household, which can cause even greater tension in family. More partners in a marriage means also more opinions on different issues, therefore the possible cooperation between partners will be much more difficult. It is always hard to achieve consensus. So most important person will likely decide. That makes the other members unequal, creates tensions and oppressed environment. Vote is always an option but some families might be even (not odd) and either way there will be some people who don't agree with the decision. Any of these scenarios does not help in functioning of a family. Moreover, both scenarios will cause tensions in family, jealous behaviour and stress between unwilling partners of the same sex. This will occur particularly by disagreement of accepting other members [[http://goo.gl/tdkth p. 317]]. To conclude, the polygamous family will not prosper more, but even worse thanks to disagreements and lower income which is why state should not recognise it.
REALITY OF THE SITUATION

In their "Reality of the Situation", opposition fails to point out how the unmarried men would have an "enormous" impact on society and physical and health problems of their own just because of the women. And, more than worse, they brutally absorbed into their belief that women are inferior to men and actually stated "Greater number of men would not cause huge spread of polyandry", neglecting the women as weak as to have incapability of hosting a home, when they actually stated "There are plenty strong confident women nowadays " And, hidden under the "different" headline, they actually restated their hackneyed statements of inequality, unmarried man by changing their simple repercussions a bit. More sadly, they didn't succeed in differing the attributes of both monogamy and polygamy by saying "Divorce could be a solution but there are intrinsic factors such as having to leave behind a child, economic benefits of staying married or fearing the husband that finally lead to staying married", which statement was, however, common in monogamy not just polygamy. Again they claimed "Each woman has different needs and wishes making it impossible for the man to treat them equally", but we rational people can't see any difference between the "wife" and children' wishes in monogamous family and "wives" and children' wishes in polygamous family to be treated equally. Because in both monogamy and polygamy, the wishes of everyone couldn't be sufficed, would that be right to blame a man of not treating them equally just because he didn't give everyone in the family what he or she wants? If those are really the cases the opposition doesn't want, we infer that they are compromising a very value of monogamy as well. So at the end of the day, in this argument, opposition actually restated and contradicted their former arguments which have been rebutted earlier and again just rebutted.
Flavoring efficiency for limited supplies:

Proposition assumes that with recognition of polygamous marriage, most people would live together, having saved the whole Earth. Before pointing out that this logic is false, we stress that proposition, having agreed that economic situation and prosperity of polygamous families might be worse(“not be considered as a rich or prosperous because the feeding and spending of so many people”), has stopped supporting their 1st argument. First of all, the impact on environment will be minimal. Each family member needs his own cellphone, laptop, room and many other things that can’t be shared. The family needs to feed similar amount of people, which can cause that there would be instead of 4 fridges (because they lived in separated household before) just 3, which are today CFC free. Plus a single person needs a smalll fridge consuming less energy. The difference is rather none.The biggest contributor to the pollution from households is food, clothes and recreation, which will remain constant in every case [[http://goo.gl/NCVPe p. 10]]. The only thing, which may be influenced is petrol and heating, which makes just 17%. This can be decreased by ⅕ maximum, which makes just 3.4%, thus is not such a significant benefit. Moreover, people with lower income are more willing to pollute environment [[http://goo.gl/8LbyB]] because they are not able to buy eco-friendly products which are more expensive. Secondly, with sufficient amount of money, families will start to care about environment and not just about their own well being, causing much bigger impact on everyday life, because it will change their way of thinking and caring about nature. Ascending in pyramids of needs, the impact will be bigger. Taking into consideration that there are many other ways of saving the environment such as electric cars, renewable energies and waste separation, the real impact of polygamy would be minimal. Therefore, it cannot be the decisive reason for such a substantial change in society.
Proposition Summary

The opposition’s arguments are merely grounded upon the assumption that, in polygamous family, the inequality between women and man’s authority and therefore bad impact on children, which factors would also induce futile problems. But those arguments of opposition were the main reasons why we are purposing to recognize the polygamous marriage: as opposition claimed in their “Role of State”, the state’s role is to protect its citizens. But in order to do so, the state should familiarize itself with the problems by recognizing it and take actions against those said problems “within” the polygamous family. That’s why we are not encouraging any abusiveness between the family members and other induced problems, which therefore, as we can easily see, directly rebuts the opposition as a whole. Firstly, in polygamous marriage, we see a reasonable benefit of, for example, at least ,four-partnered family earning more money than the average family. And hence a little possibility of said problems would be induced instead of much possibility of divorcing and therefore orphans : as opposition claimed, the feeding and spending of per members of polygamy would eat the earning money rapidly and therefore it can’t be considered a prosperous family, but “prosperous” doesn’t mean just a rich, but well-being and wholesome family. Also “it’s a way of prosperity to eat and spend much” in polygamous family. Secondly, we see the benefit of two psychological facts to solve the problem of discrimination against racism, caste, origins such as Asian and Indian and so on: First, by recognizing and spreading polygamy, there would be greater possibility of different people being mingled together as a family. After days go by, the family members would accept each other “subconsciously”. Secondly, the said members of culturally diverse polygamous family themselves would become “raw models” for the society that “subconsciously” studies from his environment. Thirdly, it is contradiction itself for opposition saying that members of polygamous family would have “his own cellphone, laptop, room and many other things”, when they actually claimed “family being bigger implies more people to feed from the family income” and implied polygamy as not rich as to have incapability of buying extravagances. As we and they believe, having many members of the family means so much spending and feeding of them, which implies a little money would be left for those things like laptop, cell phone, TVs , computers and so on. Yes, it is a favorable advantage of polygamy for our limited supplies such as fresh air, water, and natural balances if there are a few electronic devices being used and the efficiency in general. Conclusively, we are on the side of freedom and rights of people, and therefore, by recognizing it, we leave the decision for them and will respect their decision.