BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted.

  Arranged marriages are seen as a very important aspect of the identity of lots of Euro-Asian communities. At a time when tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims in Europe are high enough, for example there were protests in London against the film innocence of Muslims,[1] targeting a practice carried out by many Muslim families could help extremist tendencies to flare up. It is important not try and cloak laws that are little more than blind intolerance with terms that make them seem like secular liberalism. Attempting to ban practices like wearing the veil in the name of inclusion have been proven to only inflame tensions, not improve integration.[2] Banning arranged marriages outright would therefore not only be intolerant, but potentially dangerous. [1] Walker, Paul, ‘Anti-US protesters in London condemn controversial film’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/anti-us-protesters-london [2] Younge, Gary, ‘Europe: Hotbed of Islampobic Extremism,’ 14 June 2012 - http://www.thenation.com/article/168384/europe-hotbed-islamophobic-extremism
The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters

Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages[1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults.   Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place. [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina & More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-netherlands-argentina-more.html
Individual Freedom

Such understandings of arranged marriages are insensitive and misleading. The reality of many arranged marriages is far from the one presented here. Often individuals do have a say in who they marry, and although parents may make the first move in introducing the potential bride and groom, many would not insist the marriage go ahead if the two personalities do not sync.[1] Parents often see it as a partnership between themselves and their children to decide who would be a future suitable spouse, with all sides having a say in the arrangement.   Arranged marriages are also a cultural norm in many societies, and to impose an outright ban on such an entrenched practice with so many nuances and variations would be a deeply insulting and ignorant gesture. [1] Acharya Ingrum, Pri, ‘The Reality of Arranged Marriages’  - http://www.chaicafemagazine.com/the-reality-of-arranged-marriages/ (accessed on 21 September 2012)
Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important

Different systems of matrimony can easily co-exist. Arranged marriages encourage family over individualism, placing emphasis on a more considerate view of relationships that encourages development and patience rather than Hollywood romance. It is however not a rejection of western values to practice arranged marriages.  As pointed out by those who have written extensively on arranged marriages,[1] people in them often have a view of relationships that sees their spouse as a companion and source of support, but not as their only source of happiness. Learning to love a spouse as opposed to being with someone with whom there already exists a romantic interest can mean learning to value smaller gestures rather than having overblown expectations from a relationship.   The notion that all marriages have to be based on clichéd and unrealistic notions of love is delusional and deeply flawed. The fact that so few marriages measure up to the conventional Western ideal could help to explain why divorce rates are so high upon non-arranged marriages. In societies that claim to be plural and tolerant, contrasting views of marriage existing side-by-side should surely be encouraged. [1] ‘Would you be happier in an arranged marriage?’ Redbook.com - http://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/advice/relationship-advice-arranged-marriages (accessed 20 September 2012)
Women in arranged marriages in Europe are disproportionately likely to suffer abuse

Domestic violence is hardly exclusive to arranged partnerships. Surely focusing exclusively on arranged marriages is missing the point somewhat. Domestic violence, especially against women, pervades many relationships across many European countries. There are just as many arranged marriages that are abuse-free, just as is the case with non-arranged marriages.  To be logically coherent, the natural conclusion of the proposition’s argument would be to ban every kind of relationship so as to completely eliminate the risk of domestic violence.   One can find numerous examples to illustrate this. One is that of Sai Srinivasan and Uma Viswanathan, who were brought together by their families, each with the choice of rejecting the other if they felt there was no fit, and have had a happy union ever since. [1]   More resources should therefore be channelled towards addressing violence against women (and men) in relationships of any sort – not simply targeting those that have more uninformed ‘western’ prejudices attached to them. [1] Black, Lisa, ‘Arranged – not forced - marriages a good match in many cultures,’ Chicago Tribune, 27 July 2011 - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-27/news/ct-x-0727-arranged-marriages-20110727_1_marriages-family-traditions-stephanie-coontz
It’s impossible to police such a law.

The new laws can set a precedent, even if it takes time.  Bringing into practice such a law would arguably help send a message that certain practices do not sync with the sorts of societies European countries try to forge – this includes cases of Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings and forced marriages. Although the law is likely to be hard to police initially, in time it could allow for greater respect for values about the rights of individuals to be adopted by diaspora communities in Europe. ­­­­­ Other countries have adopted measures that are equally as far-reaching, such as the banning of wearing religious symbols in French schools.[1] Countries outside of Europe demand that ex-patriot Europeans within their borders comply with specific laws that arte designed to benefit the whole nation. It is therefore hardly unreasonable for EU countries to do the same. [1] ‘French Scarf Ban Comes into Force,’ BBC, 2 September 2004 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3619988.stm
Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons

It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens.[1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation. [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).
All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons

While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian objects and military targets.[1] Indeed, the use of nuclear weapons could well constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity.[2] Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too the international community generally acknowledges the dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation.[3] It is unfortunate that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement and to prevent their use or acquisition by terrorists and the like. It is also essential for States to fulfil their obligation under Article VI of the NPT ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control’.[4] Nuclear weapons cannot lawfully be employed or deployed and there is a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith for, and ensure, their elimination.[5] [1] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226. [2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998. [3] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. [4] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226. [5] Grief, Nicholas. 2011. “Nuclear Weapons: the Legal Status of Use, Threat and Possession”. Nuclear Abolition Forum, Issue No 1.   improve this
The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons

The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.”[1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict. [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8   improve this   COUNTERPOINT If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States. improve this
Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage

Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. improve this
The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them

Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failing and failed states, which do not retain the same legitimacy of states that can provide the baseline of security to their people. Furthermore, the openness created by the public recognition of the right to nuclear weapons will allow advanced countries to offer assistance in security and protection of nuclear stockpiles, making it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. improve this
Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states

It is true that most states will not develop nuclear weapons, whether they are recognized as a rightful possession of states or not. The important thing is that those states that do want nuclear weapons can have them, which will likely be only a handful. As to arms races, it is unlikely that they will occur, as the defence pacts between many states, such as NATO defend non-nuclear states without requiring them to possess such weapons themselves.[1]Furthermore, if a state feels vulnerable due to the nuclear armament of its neighbours, it should absolutely have the right to defend itself. [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons

The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another.[1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles.[2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use. [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs. [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs.   improve this
Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage

The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other.[1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage.[2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons. [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2). [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.   improve this
Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally

When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs.[1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles. [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.   improve this
The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them

There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours.[1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption.[2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse. [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4). [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states

Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence.[1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy. [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise

The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict.[1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war. [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist.   improve this