BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would create demographic imbalance

In current world, most of polygamous marriages are polygynies, which includes multiple wives to one male. Number of these families is limited because of psychical barrier of doing illegal things and having mindset of monogamous family. With recognising polygamous marriage, the barrier will be removed and there will be an increase of females living together with just one male causing surplus of unmarried men, who will be unable to find a free partner [[http://goo.gl/n8VCu]]. Natural sex ratio of born children is around 105 born males to 100 born females [[http://goo.gl/g3uqY]] , causing similar number of each gender, which creates harmony in worlds partners market. If this demographic balance is broken, it can have fatal consequences on individuals as well as on entire society. Unmarried individuals have much higher chance of health problems caused by stressful searching, lack of female care and depressions [[http://goo.gl/SD6xt]] Secondly, unmarried men will be excluded from the society because of fragile social status which can be seen in India [[http://goo.gl/ABDdK]], which harms their personality as well as possibilities of social functioning. Society will be influenced on economic level, because parents are accumulating wealth to make their sons more attractive, which is reducing their market position as we can see in China with sex ratio 1.18, in some rural areas 1.4. [[http://goo.gl/vwsQV]]. Moreover, unmarried men will be excluded from society, which will cause tensions between married and unmarried individuals. Secondly, there will increase competition among free individuals for remaining females, which can lead to conflicts. Moreover, willingness of sex partner can cause higher gender-based violence, including rising demand for sex work and human trafficking. At the end of the day, recognition of polygamous marriage will make great number of men unmarried, which does not help nor country, nor individuals.
ROLE OF STATE

The role of state is to protect its citizens.It creates laws regulating people´s behavior in order to prevent harms to the state and population. Recognising polygamy would harm citizens of a state. Recognition of polygamy would cause international marriages with the purpose of becoming a legal citizen of a more developed country with all the benefits it offers. State intervening in marriage would mean violating the rights of an individual because of the rights and responsibilities bonded to the institution of marriage where the spouses shall have the right to live in one country. We can see the problem even in monogamous families obtaining spouses permits resulting in fraudulent marriages, menacing both the immigrants and receiving country [[http://goo.gl/Dvr3h//]] Since the harms like social friction with immigrants, job insecurity for natives and decreasing living standard could be prevented it´s the state´s main responsibility. It is also not fair to natives, taxpayers, who have to bail out the disputes then. By banning polygamy we would prevent the problems which stem from fraudulent marriages - huge number of immigrants that would not be legal under normal circumstances. Secondly, state should protect families and children from potential harms. We see drugs being banned with the goal of protection and eventhough we cannot prevent every harm done to children (mother died) state should not support actions which can cause mental frustration and destroy their mental development. This occurs in polygamous families where inequality or oppressive atmosphere prevail.[[http://goo.gl/0L2Jk//]] State already intervenes in monogamous families preventing domestic violence or during divorce. The chance of such problems in polygamous families is extremely higher and would make the state’s policy of fighting domestic violence counterproductive. By official recognition state would send a message that these actions are acceptable in modern society; that is fundamentally
Freedom and rights

Each and every citizen, man and woman have a right to choose who they want to spend their life with and how they want to. By legalizing polygamy in independent countries to fit into the society people will have this right as well. Polygamous marriage allows a person to marry more than one spouse. With this they feel more comfortable with their partners. If all the spouses agree on term that they will all be living under the same roof then it doesn’t go against they’re human rights and will be accepted. Currently people think that polygamous marriage takes away the woman’s right but there will be conditions allowing each wife to have an equal right amongst the others. Of course each country will have its own set of conditions and terms, but if they approve and act accordingly they will be a polygamous family. Though there are countries that allow polygamy but in a different manor will not be like this one. The countries that allow it are either because of development, tradition or religion requires them to. Though polygamy is rare and a few religions like Christianity require people to be monogamous. Even though they believe in god, it still their right to choose whom they want to marry. But this doesn’t mean that we encourage people to be polygamous, but rather we give them a better understanding. Recently in the US the LGBT has been approved, so why can’t polygamous marriage be approved in other countries. Many people are either biased or stereotyped against polygamous marriage. Though polygamous marriage has already been approved in some Independent countries but they all have a civil law condition. By having polygamous marriage recognized people will have the choice to marry whosoever they please. But this doesn’t mean that we encourage many monogamous marriages to shift to polygamous marriage.
Having a way better beneficial impact on society

We believe in the fact that more people in one family means a more possibility of cultural intersection. From the time we and state recognize the polygamous marriage, it will rationally become common rather than rare which will prompt the polygamy to be spread out around more places around the world, if not drastically. As we know that even good many people believe in the fact that the racism and the discrimination of caste, the origin such as Asian or Indian in Western countries are already exterminated in great amount, but sadly, as we are sure of, they are not. But by recognizing polygamous marriage and therefore spreading it, we will change the view of society from its inner perspective, the family. Having the member of a black-skinned or a small eyed Asian or a query accented Indian in a polygamous family and living together as partners because some of them not to die of lack of privation and neediness and others live as usually as morning sun- breakfast together, watch TV together, discuss some issues together- as a wholesome family would definitely have its benefit. But certainly, many of the “different ones” would not directly accepted as the reliable family members out of everlasting belief that they are different, but gradually, as they are living together day by day, the members of the polygamous family would subconsciously accept them not far more from a month. If the psychological impact what most triggers opposition, we are also happy to claim: As the days and months go by, it would become common than rare of seeing involuntarily, for example, black and white ones pick up their mongrel children from kindergarten, and hence the culturally diverse polygamous family members themselves would become “raw models” for everyone that psychologically and intrinsically studies from his/her environment. Conclusively, the solution is conditioning and informing them in a taciturn but most effective way that doesn’t cost much nor does demand much ef
Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more ...

1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not in fact show academic improvement. That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, 'boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction'. These can all be present in co-educational schools.
Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more ...

Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of women’s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only 83 women’s colleges left in the States today.
The inclinations of children in the formative years, between 7 and 15, are to gravitate towards thei...

The inclinations of children in the formative years, between 7 and 15, are to gravitate towards their own sex. They naturally tend towards behaviour appropriate to their gender. It is therefore easier to implement an education strategy geared specifically towards one gender. Certain subjects are best taught in single-sex classrooms, such as sex education or gender issues.
conducive to better military service

Wikileaks leaks information about a country's military all over the world wide web. This is an attack on a country's sovereignty; while tax-payers do reserve the right to make sure their money is not in the wrong hands; it's really not the rest of the world's business. counter-to-counter: Then again only the parties(countries) involved in the matter (both victim and abuser) should tab into the info and not the rest of the world. counter-to-counter-to-counter-to-counter: Since most of the military men/women featured in these leaks/videos/photos get off easy with no punishment; bad behavior in the military is accentuated not assuaged : other army officers who would otherwise not break the rules see this as inspiration. When violators go untouched it has the reverse effect of a deterrent.
Not traceable

That it is not traceable is WikiLeaks greatest strength. While it may protect the identity of some gossips and hoaxers, but it also affords protection to people who need or would like to release information about activities which they feel are important but which they cannot discuss openly. For example, reporting a companies' negligent waste disposal management might lose an employee a job. Not reporting it might destroy a local environment. Places like Wikileaks means there is an outlet for information of this sort without fear of reprisal. This can be balanced against potential hoaxers and liars by simple investigation. In my example, investigate the companies' waste disposal practices. If they are not being negligent, there will be no problem.
You take it out of context

Context is important for most things, and if you publish a document that may only be a prediction if, for example, certain economic conditions come to pass, if you don't understand the nature of the economic situation, then you're not going to be able to adjudge anything about the understanding of the situation out of which the policy has been born. So you cannot really see it for what it is, and the extracting of your own meaning from it is dangerous, to say the least.
Safeguards in place.

Wikileaks checks information thoroughly to make sure it is not 'rumour, opinion or other kinds of first hand reporting or material that is already publicly available' - reducing the chance of inaccurate information turning into libel and slander - and is protected by 'advanced cryptographic techniques and legal techniques'. Therefore, it is fairly secure and likely to be true. If the information was leaked in the first place, it was not secure. We already know from the Gary McKinnon case that the US Government cannot store information securely.
conducive to better military service

Quality control. it isn't a threat to national security but rather a measure of how well they're doing. millions of dollars in tax money go into military spending, People should know that their money is being put to good use and if it isn't then wikileaks is a wonderful means to keep the ranks in check. Counter: It is the rest of the world's business when; the rights of the citizens of the rest of the world are at stake. Perhaps tax -payers are happy with inhumane methods used to tranquilize foreigners? counter-to-counter-to-counter: The rest of the world has signed documents and charters defining human rights and how they should be exercised; it is in their/our right to pursue global/international justice even if we/they aren't victims or abusers themselves. counter-to-counter-to-counter--to-counter-to-counter: This only stresses the importance of implementing international justice and in no way justifies censorship.
Can release information that may be dangerous

Although in this case the information poses no threat to anyone and saying it is a threat to national security is silly this does not mean that such a threat might not be more real next time. Suppose wikileaks released information on potential strategies for an invasion of Iran justifying it as showing the US intended to invade. This would obviously both seriously affect international relations and would potentially place soldiers in jeprody should Iran really be invaded. This would also be the case with any leaks on men and material. Similarly there might also be leaks on the intellegence agencies that could have major national security implications. Can we really trust wikileaks to avoid such stories?
No allowances can be made for context

Often, how we feel about our privacy is a reflection of the context in which the information was disseminated. Chris Peterson of University of Massachusetts-Amherst Legal Studies commented on this phenomenon [[http://etc.cpeterson.org/documents/2009/savingface.pdf]]. He stated that whilst we would not mind information regarding our drinking being told around a bar, we would feel that our privacy was breached if that information was delivered in a church. In this regard, how we feel about privacy is a matter of context. Facebook eliminates this context. The default privacy settings now send the information to everyone. Therefore, our 'church friends' and our 'drinking friends' are both able to see all information. We do care about this privacy, but we are unable to see the context which is why we are unaware of our privacy being breached.
Only Criminals benefit from internet Privacy

Whether it is planning the next terror plot or planning a bank heist, the only people who benefit from the internet privacy are criminals. While it does have some benefits for everyone else, criminals benefit disproportionality for it. They are able to manipulate it and thus stay off the radar of law enforcement. As more tools continue to develop for improving internet privacy, so do the likelihood of successful criminal activity. In short, if you have nothing to hide, internet privacy should not be such a concern to you. Law enforcers have enough training to know not to misuse any information they gather about your private life on the internet.
It helps with Innovation

On the internet, you can conduct extensive research and invent something new. This could be an idea or a machine that helps to improve everyone’s lives. Without privacy, it would be hard to engage in any innovative activity on the internet. The reason for this is that your information would be accessible to anyone at all times. No one wants to waste time developing an idea only to have it stolen. People would prefer to have the ability to develop ideas that can be beneficial to them financially. More privacy means more innovation, which equates to a better economy. Besides that, privacy ensures there is no constant judgment from others. It can cause innovators to second guess themselves and abandon potentially lucrative innovations.
employers use the internet for background checks

20% of employers use Facebook to do background checks on potential employees. 60% use search engines. [[http://www.onrec.com/news/employers_use_facebook_for_further_backg]]. This information people do not seem to take into account. Whilst on Facebook in their leisure time, employment prospects are the last things on people's minds. Especially the young, With an ever growing population of academics any compromising photos or status' found can result in people losing out on employment. We should not carelessly wash our laundry in public, we should be more careful with our personal information.
It Ensures Freedom of Speech

When the internet comes under surveillance, you will not be able to express your ideas freely. There is sophisticated software that can be used to extrapolate your activities on the internet. With this data, you can be targeted by the state or a private agency. When you become aware that this is happening, you will be less likely to express your views online. You will also fear to research certain topics. The result is that you will lose perspective, which will affect your ability to make the right choices. This self-censoring can have negative consequences on society in the long term. Besides your freedom of thought, your freedom of movement is also threatened. This happens when your online data is used to track your physical location. This is a major impediment to freedom of association. In some cases, it will affect your ability to protest injustice for fear of being tracked.
People are becoming less private

People are becoming more open about who they are and the lives they wish to live. This is a great move away from the old British attitude of the stiff upper lip. People are becoming more willing to let people know when they are upset, excited or angry. People are revealing more and more of themselves and their lives. The internet is a medium which allows them to do this and people are using it to release their inhibitions. Things they feel they cannot tell people face to face they are spreading on the internet. This is what people want to do; privacy is becoming less and less important to our modern nation.
Increases the chances of identity theft.

If we easily disseminate over the internet all of our personal information, we are opening ourselves to the risk of people taking our identity. Internet hackers and clever thieves can use the information that we all too easily post on the internet to access files which only we should be able to access. Often passwords will have a security question attached. With all our blogs and status updates, it would not take a hacker much time to work out the answer to the security question and access email accounts. From here they can apply for things in your name and use them. People do not think of these consequences when they place all their information online; but they should. The more we search for free stuff we are more likely to be attacked, [[http://www.bloggernews.net/125335]] McAfee recently conducted a series of studies determining that searching for celebrities like Cameron Diaz can increase your chances of infecting your PC. McAfee’s new “Digital Music & Movies Report: The True Cost of Free Entertainment” also confirmed that your PC is equally vulnerable when searching the word “free.”
It Protects Those Vulnerable to Exploitation

In this case, we are thinking of a young child accessing the internet. They can do this with or without permission from their parents. When internet privacy is enhanced, it becomes difficult for predators to seek out young children online. These people may wish to manipulate them into doing awful things. Besides that, those with mental disabilities are also protected with internet privacy. People who may wish to use their mental illness to exploit them for money or sexually cannot do that with internet privacy.
It allows People to Avoid Bothersome information

With internet privacy, you do not have to deal with endless emails from online marketers. You will also not be targeted elsewhere with ads trying to get access to your bank account. The result is that your experience on the internet is going to be stress-free. Being nagged on the internet can be a major issue, especially when you have tight schedules to meet. Additionally, you do not have to keep viewing the information you do not like online. For instance, if a friend on social media keeps posting fake news, you can just block them.
The internet is a public space.

The internet is as everyone knows a network where you can meet people and interact. It is a commons area where which we are all free to use. Even in paid areas we should not expect more privacy then you would at for example a resturant or a club that you pay to get in to. While people may well be going online in their own home the internet is not like your home and is as such much more open and accesable to others. This means that everyone should be very careful about what information they hand out and where. You would be worried about leaving your passport or something else that has all your details on a bus so why should you not be worried about having those same details on social networks?
Depending where you are in the world, some of the rules do appear brutal

Although this is could be seen as brutality, it is not a pure form of fighting. One of the Gracie brothers from Brazil retired from the current form of fighting due to the pacification of what he considered pure. There is a movement within MMA to return this sport to its origins. In reference to foot stomps, it is still allowed, at least by the UFC, but only from a standing position and stomping on another's foot.
MMA is Human Cock Fighting

Blood is not always a factor. True, some fighters go out of their way to cause mayhem, but the majority are there to display their courage, and overcome the challenge of an opponent's skill-base. Furthermore, the principles governing MMA were present in the ancient Greek Olympics in the form of Pankration, and were also employed in the Japanese martial society to determine who had a better grasp of the human body and it's limitations. Anyone who has participated in any combative self-defence system will acknowledge the difficulty in handling an aggressive opponent, and can appreciate the discipline, control and training required to defend oneself from an attacker.
This sport is not just about punching somebody in the head. The ground game and submission game is just as important, if not more, and furthermore is extremely difficult to master.

Having a black belt in any martial arts has lost its meaning as schools that teach martial arts are springing up everywhere and modifying the requirements to suit the bottom line. The image of human cockfighting actually is as far back as 600 B.C. where fighting was used to entertain the public. The Romans included Pankrase, a form of martial arts, in thier olympic games as it was recognized as an athletic event. The Gracie family, before the UFC promoted Vale Tudo which means anything goes, in Brazil before Helio, the founder of BJJ under the tutilage of a Japanese Master who settled in Brazil and taught the Gracies, moved to California in order to open schools of BJJ. The Gracies where approached by an ambitious promoter(the first owner of the UCF) who decided to train with the Gracies and promote Vale tudo in which a challange was made to all fighters world wide that Gracie BJJ could be used to take down an opponent of any size and the forum which is known as the UFC was where this challenge would take place. UFC fighters have made the news in being arrested in domestic violence cases, so yes, they do put it to good use until they can no longer fight in the ring. The need to fight is still there, hence the family suffers from being victems of those who need release.