Most of the arguments against it are unfounded from a scriptural perspective, to the point even mister sola scripture ML couldn't dispute it.
Moral arguments also fall flat pretty badly. The 'strongest' one is "Then degenerate men who just want to collect wives will be able to!"
The problem with that is most men (namely the ones who oppose polygamy) are still collecting wives, just a collection of one. The same exact mentality is already present, of what I call "jealous ownership". Rather than "total partnership".
Anyone who argues "You can't love them as much as you could focusing love on one person!", by that logic people should have as few friends as they can so they can focus their friendship, or STOP having kids past one, because you can never love all your kids totally and equally. Anyone who is a parent can tell you how stupid that would sound to say you can't love your kids as much because you have multiple.
Pragmatically, there are massive advantages in the current western world. That's three incomes, where many logistical cost don't scale (housing is one of them. Increased size in lodging does not scale linearly). Not to mention household activities (cooking also doesn't scale linearly, it's almost the same amount of work cooking for yourself as it is ten people for example). Also other coordinated efforts that you never realized were a pain in the ass become simple.
This all said, you are probably expecting me to argue for the cultural advancement of polygamy.
I do not.
Monogamy has the one major advantage of allowing the "beta" males a chance at reproduction, non-competition with occupied "alphas" (I put these terms in quotes because they are slang terms), and thus gives an incentive for the betas to be economically and socially productive. There have been several studies of this, where they found monogamous societys, ceteris parabis, were just more economically participative than polygamous ones. The reason is obvious: Unless you are at the top of the social food chain, your chance of reproduction drops pretty hard.
Not to mention the threat it poses to people with relationships built on weak foundations: just existing, the alpha threatens your relationship because (at least until he is at max capacity), you are always going to be competing with him.
Think of it this way, if there are 10 men and 10 woman, and all the woman want the top male, in polgamy he might take five of them. Now the other 9 men need to compete for the remaining 5. So you now have to be in the top half of that group in terms of quality to even have a chance if the rest spread out evenly. In reality the next top guy could take the majority of the rest (if he were so inclined).
In monogamy, in theory even the guy at the bottom at least stands a chance. Once everyone takes a wife and the last guy gets the scraps, he simply has to be good enough that she will "settle" for him.
So overall, I think it's something that needs to stay in place as a social convention, for the sake of stability. And, quite honestly, the violent rebuke to it by a majority of men is predictable. It represents an existential threat to the majority of mens relationships. Not just because of the above game-theory threat, but also to the innate quality of their relationship. "I'm fighting with my wife constantly, we aren't sexually attracted to each other, there is no connection, we aren't enjoy able to be around, and then that guy has two or three wives who all get along, grow and do meaningful things together, can support each other, etc".
That's sort of my view in a nutshell.