BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allows economic aid

At the heart of foreign relations between Egypt and the Gulf states from 1974-77 was the issue of the scale and conditions of economic aid.[[Gad G. Gilbar, ‘One Arab state, Many Arab States: The Impact of Population Growth and Oil Revenues’, in Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim (eds.), Essays on the Economic History of the Middle East (London, 1988), pp.196-211, p.201.]] The total aid to Egypt form Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE between 1973-8 accounted for 4.7% of their total oil revenues some $11billion. Oil revenues can effectively be used to buy friendly relations. Oil money has allowed the Gulf States to expand their influence and can be used for their own interests. For example Saudi Arabia paid Siad Barre of Somalia $200 million to eject the USSR from the port of Barbera advancing both Saudi and US interests.[[Saïd K. Aburish, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of The House of Saud (London, 1995), p.167.]] Oil wealth for Saudi Arabia has gone hand in hand with its assertion of leadership in the Islamic world allowing it to provide for the millions who attend the haj as well as establishing funds such as the Islamic Solidarity Fund.[[Hermann Frederick Eilts, ‘Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Policy’, in Brown, Diplomacy, pp.219-244, pp.231-32.]] Saudi Arabia bankrolled Islamic groups, what Huntington calls kin rallying for which he gives the example of Bosnia in the mid 1990’s. In Bosnia Iran and Saudi Arabia competed with each other to provide most support to the Bosnian Muslims with Saudi Arabia giving $650 million in humanitarian aid and $300 million for arms from 1992-95 as well as providing training, men and equipment.[[Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (London, 2002), pp.285, 288.]]
Interdependance

Oil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will damage the producers by reducing demand.[[Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), p.703.]] Higher prices can also can also cost oil producers, as in the case of Iran currently facing the possibility of “petrol rationing…it can only satisfy about 60%” of demand meaning imports of expensive petrol.[[All hands to the pump’, The Economist (March 24th 2007), pp.64-65, p.64.]] This forces cooperation from both sides; the consumers have to listen to Saudi Arabia and the gulf states whereas they often don’t for poor countries in Africa who would otherwise be no different. Interdependence helps to prevent wars as each side cant do without the other meaning that if they fight then both sides will suffer resource shortages.
Oil = Rentier economies = weak internal cohesion

Irrespective of political conflicts between governments in the Middle East. OPEC has always remained united. Israel is not a member of the O.P.E.C and its behavior to destabilize the region, has not deterred the cohesive bond between the members.[[http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KKkQvG1q1hRQyc9M23qC1DnrtYvbBfpZ4CpqwnkFkpCWn7knVwr2!-1700054516!766828861?docId=94295954]] [[http://www.jstor.org/pss/20039536]] The solidarity between O.P.E.Countries is intact.[[http://www.opec.org/home/]] Besides, most Middle-Eastern Countries use solar,wind and hydro-power, on a very large scale. They would never have the 'need' to fight over fossil fuels.[[http://www.scidev.net/en/news/middle-east-and-north-africa-ideal-for-solar-powe.html]] As far as the global political dynamic is concerned, IF Countries want oil, they should/will be nicer to O.P.E.C members, not fight wars. President Obama has pioneered a possible positive change in this attitude. It is likely that others in the West will follow suit. America has many untapped oil reserves and again, since they won't need oil , they won't be compelled to fight over it(many say that they fought the Iraq War for oil, but it didn't get them oil and it got them a worse economy)May the Iraq War, be set as an example that keeps Countries from fighting over resources. [[http://www.alternet.org/world/79988/]]
A weapon

During Sadat’s surprise attack upon Israel in the Yom Kippur war oil was used as a weapon to put pressure on the US not to support Israel. Sadat had persuaded King Fisal to unilaterally increase oil prices. Previously the western oil majors had had control of the oil price through their oil concessions such as Aramco, although this control had already been reduced before 1973 to prices being set by negotiation between OPEC governments and the oil companies.[[Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), pp. 595, 606.]] In response to the US sending arms to Israel the Arab members of OPEC “decided to reduce their oil production forthwith by not less that 5% of the September level” each month while “reductions in output should not affect any friendly state which has extended effective concrete assistance to the Arabs”, thereby severely hitting states not considered friendly.[[Communique Conference of Arab Oil Ministers Kuwait, October 17, 1973, Jordan J. Paust and Albert P. Blaustein (eds.), The Arab Oil Weapon (New York, N.Y., 1977), p.42]] This would create uncertainty, tension and rivalry over oil among industrialised consuming countries. This was followed a few days later, on October 20th by a complete embargo of all oil shipments to the USA. A communiqué of 5th November stated, “the halt in oil supplies… will continue until such a time as Israeli forces are fully withdrawn from all occupied Arab territories.”[[Communique Conference of Arab Oil Ministers Kuwait, November 4-5, 1973, Paust, Oil Weapon, p.46.]] The embargo was ended after 5 months having caused immense damage to the world economy by forcing up oil prices, although the wealth created by this did eventually have the knock on effect of inflation in oil producing countries of between 15-35%.[[Jahangir Amuzegar ‘Oil Wealth: A very mixed blessing’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.60, No.4 (Spring, 1982), pp.814-835, p.823.]] Oil can therefore be used as a weapon, particularly by the swing producer Saudi Arabia and when supply is tight. However it is more likely to be used as a threat or a deterrent. The US has to support the Saudi regime to support itself.
Brings in external powers

Although having oil has allowed the gulf states to have alliances with the most powerful state in the world this is not necessarily a good thing as this draws them into the US’ global conflicts such as the Cold War and the War on Terror. Having an alliance also constrains the actions of the Gulf states, they cannot afford to be too critical of the United States or stop the supply of oil for fear of being dubbed a member of the ‘axis of evil’ and put on the list for regime change.[[Eric Watkins, ‘The Unfolding US Policy in the Middle East’, International Affairs, Vol.73, No.1 (Jan., 1997), pp.1-14, p.6]]
Oil = Rentier economies = weak internal cohesion

On a spectrum of socio-political cohesion between civil society and the institutions of government the Middle East is towards the weaker end.[[Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers The Structure of International Security (Cambridge, 2003), pp.22, 194.]] Oil and the rentier economies it has helped create are part of the reason for this. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations become subservient to political considerations.[[Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262]] This occurred because of the small size of Middle Eastern private sectors forced the creation of state centred development programs.[[Timur Kuran, ‘Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.18, No.3 (Summer, 2004), pp.71-90, p.87.]] The most obvious example of this patronage-based economy is Saudi Arabia perhaps best exemplified in the use of oil revenues to keep the armed forces loyal through purchases of equipment. The armed forces consequently have more equipment than they can use, with published annual hardware expenditure per person in the services of higher than $113,000. Concern over the Army’s loyalty means the National Guard is relied upon while the Army is stationed far from the cities to prevent any coup attempt.[[Saïd K. Aburish, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of The House of Saud (London, 1995), pp.187, 185.]] For these states perpetuating the resources that give their regime its legitimacy, as a provider, is absolutely vital, the regime needs to be able to fulfil its side of the bargain with the people. This forces these regimes into more extreme positions than they would otherwise take, for example they find it very difficult to move towards recognising Israel.[[Gerd Nonneman, ‘Rentiers and Autocrats, Monarchs and Democrats, State and Society: The Middle East between Globalisation, Human “Agency”, and Europe’, International Affairs, Vol.77, No.1 (Jan., 2001), pp.141-162, pp.146-147.]]
Cause of conflicts

However there are some potentially positive impacts on foreign policy making. If countries that are involved in water disputes can effectively build security regimes then cooperation over such a basic commodity as water could well be a spur to further integration just as the European Coal and Steel community was. In order to get maximum benefit the states in disputes will have to agree to divide the water resources equitably, only then will they be able to gain external funds for the development of hydrological infrastructure.[[Natasha Beschorner, ‘Water and Instability in the Middle East’, Adelphi Paper, No.273 (Winter, 92/93), p.64.]]
Economic security

If a country has the resources it requires then it gains economic security from this, it can’t be threatened with having oil cut off, its people won’t go hungry etc. Even if a country does not have all the necessary resources to gain economic security from its resources control of a key resource means it can be traded for other necessary resources. However a lack of resources is not necessarily an impediment if economic and security policy are integrated. Brand argues that the drive for economic security can be successfully integrated into foreign policy, as has been the case for Jordan. Economic decision-making was highly centralised, the same people who made economic policy were involved in foreign policy. Jordan’s strategic position allowed it to build a foreign policy based upon external sources of support. For example from 1974-77 close relations with Syria allowed Jordan to approach the oil states as a united front allowing both to get as much as they needed to prevent budget crises. Jordan was not interested in the political integration the Syrians wished for; rather they preferred greater economic integration. Similarly with Iraq, as aid from the other gulf seemed to be decreasing Iraq stepped up its support for “confrontation states” from 1978 causing a shift to cooperation with Iraq despite the negative impact this had on relations with Syria.[[Laurie A. Brand, ‘In Search of Budget Security: A Reexamination of Jordanian Foreign Policy’, in Brown, Diplomacy, pp.139-158, pp.141, 145, 147, 150.]]
Brings in external powers

There has been extensive penetration of the Middle East by external actors with both the USSR and the USA drawn into the region as a major front in the cold war.[[Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers The Structure of International Security (Cambridge, 2003), p.198.]] Some resources such as water have little impact on foreign policy making at the global level, oil on the other hand is very important. Oil is the main reason for external penetration; some of the strongest alliances in the Middle East are built with oil as their foundations.[[Eric Watkins, ‘The Unfolding US Policy in the Middle East’, International Affairs, Vol.73, No.1 (Jan., 1997), pp.1-14, p.1]] This in turn affects foreign policy decision-making. The producers of oil are as constrained by their relationship as consumers. The US creation of CENTCOM and the basing of the fifth fleet in Bahrain give the US the capability to enforce the Carter doctrine: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”[[Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address, 23rd January 1980]] This allowed the US to protect its allies; The Gulf There is a fine line in the Middle eastern states foreign policy as their foreign policy cannot be seen to follow the US line too closely for fear of provoking attacks by Islamic militants, possibly on oil installations.
Consumption

On the other hand domestic resource constraints can be a primary reason for an alliance[[Michael N. Barnett and Jack S. Levy, ‘Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt 1962-73’, International Organisation, Vol.45, No.3 (Summer, 1991), pp.369-395, pp.372-373.]] as with Egypt’s change from a conflictual (having previously invaded Yemen) to a cooperative relationship with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s.
It was the song that made me do it!

To say that music has no influence on people behaviour and attitudes towards society I think is naive. It underestimates the effect all media related messages have on the mind. I agree that music alone would not cause someone to commit a crime or offence against an individual or society, but as part of a wider problem of negative messages being sent to young people about how to live their life, and about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, it has to take it's fair share of the responsibility. What is required is a change in attitudes proliferated through all media. A ban would be an effective method of starting this change in attitudes that is definitely required. In addition to this, why do you think advertisers pay huge sums of money for the music on their advertisements? Of course music influences people.
ban music that glorifies crime because of the influence it has on children

A lot of young people don't even realize how much they are influenced by music. But sometimes it is singers that dictate what is cool. In addition, research [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224410.800-bad-influence.html]] by the American Psychological Society has concluded that violent films, computer games and other media (music included!) has a negative influence on children. The opposition's argument that "children are simply not that gullible" seems simply incorrect.
A partial ban would not work

Imposing an age restriction for instance would be impossible to police. Only a full ban would be able to protect children from music that glorifies crime. We would never dream of only placing a partial ban on inciting racism for instance, because we know it is incorrect in any situation to glorify racism. Isn't murder, rape and theft equal if not more vile than racism? The prospect that anybody, regardless of age, could be influenced to commit such atrocities is morally reprehensible.
Music can change who our children become

Music can change who are children become later in life. Children who listen to rap music often turn to crime and drugs. People who listen to rock music often become slackers with no ambition other than destroying society. For example, there is a new album coming out on Valentine's Day called Mass Debate by a punk rock band called Anarchists Pogo Party. They promote terrorism and violence against women, as well as using prostitutes, rioting, abortions, and satan worship. How is this good for your children?
Pupils cannot decide for themselves what is important. Most do not realise that knowledge of another...

Young people have to learn to make choices. If they do not realise the benefits of learning languages, these benefits should be explained to them. It is better that pupils choose to do languages. If a pupil chooses to study a language, they are more likely to be keen and interested than if it is something they are forced to do. In any case, many adults do successfully learn new languages through evening classes or distance-learning courses. So choices made at school will not limit someone’s options for the rest of their life.
A pupil may have a hidden talent for languages. If languages are not compulsory, they would never f...

It is not necessary to learn a language all the way through school to find out if you have a hidden talent for it. A short “taster course” is enough to find this out. For every pupil who turns out to have a hidden talent in languages, there are many who do not. It is bad to force people with little interest or ability to study languages. These pupils are likely to be bored in language classes. They could better spend their time learning other things. They are likely to be disruptive to the pupils who actually want to learn.
Foreign languages are important for the economy. The more languages someone can speak, the more pla...

Foreign languages are important for the economy. The more languages someone can speak, the more places they can work. Foreign language skills help companies do business with other countries. It is especially important that children whose native language is not widely spoken (e.g. Dutch, Danish) learn other languages. However, it is also important for English-speakers to learn foreign languages, since not everyone speaks English. And it is polite to be able to speak some of another person’s language. Governments should try to promote economic growth. Since languages are important for the economy, governments should make all young people learn them.
Pupils cannot decide for themselves what is important. Most do not realise that knowledge of another...

Pupils cannot decide for themselves what is important. Most do not realise that knowledge of another language will help them in almost any job. For some jobs it is essential. It is hard to learn a language in adulthood, because of time pressures and because the brain becomes less flexible. It is therefore very useful to learn a language when young. Young people are often only concerned with the short term and think little about adulthood. Important choices therefore cannot be left to children. They should be made to learn a language.
In the short term, it might be hard to find teachers. However, modern languages graduates could be ...

In the short term, it might be hard to find teachers. However, modern languages graduates could be given extra money to encourage them to become teachers. In a mobile world, it is also easy to attract teachers from another country to teach their native language abroad. In the long term, making languages compulsory at schools would solve this problem. If languages were compulsory at schools, more people would study them at university and more people would become language teachers.
The Argument from Change

The universe exists now. It most (and overwhelmingly) probably came into existence as a result of the Big Bang. Life and, now, humans came into existance as a result of natural selection. There is no requirement in any of this for a 'God' or otherworldly being. The initial cause, perhaps (St. Thomas Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover") could be called 'God' through lack of any other theory but since then His actions are no longer able to explain what we see with anything like the accuracies of science. The Universe that we see is a changing one, yes, but it can not reasonably be said to be changing under the will of a god. Why then is Nature trying to create animals that are better and better equipped to kill humans? Why is the Universe expanding unstoppably into nothingness? The idea of a God is not alone evough to explain this, unless it is acepted that he created the Universe and, to quote the Beatles, let it be. Also why must there be something outside that changes that makes it change for example sunlight, a major thing in the changing of a seed into a plant, is unchanging it simply carries on never changing and never slowing and generally not doing anything except for moving away from the sun, sunlight does not get used up it merely gets reflected.
Religion causes harm. It does no good. It's not needed.

Your right! religion tends to create a slippery slope in the heart. There is a polarization between religions. liberal and conservatives. The definition of religion in the dictionary is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs What you are saying is a religion. A set of beliefs about the universe, cause, nature, purpose. So, if there is no God, then what is the purpose of universe. There is a God who will heal our neurotic impulses!
It doesn't matter!

Whether or not a god or gods actually exist, is irrelevant. What matters are the actions of the people who believe or don't believe. So long as people are doing 'good things', it doesn't matter whether they do that because they believe it will get them into heaven (or not into hell), or because they feel some natural affinity towards other humans, because they both share the same result. Bad things, as well, tend to be done by both theists and atheists. Again, it doesn't matter whether they do it because they believe the people they kill deserve it for religious or political reasons: the fact remains that we can do little to resolve either dispute.
The Ontological Argument

Of course I can think of things that don't exist and they still wont. From Harry Potter to great big freaking leprecaun's with laser guns mounted on space ships (though let's be honest, we all have our fingers crossed on the latter coming true.). And, just like most of the arguments on this page, the Ontological Argument can in no way justify belief in a God of love, miracles, Jesus and the lot. It is time for religious people to accept that their belief is based on faith and experience, certainly not logic, numbers or argument. Don't be shy! I'm one... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kant pointed out that existence is not a predicate. Therefore this argument falls flat on its face.