BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Muslim world cannot be democratic until it reforms its position on women. A central Qur’anic me...

Women are a particularly significant and obvious example of both the interpretative differences of Islamic doctrine and the balance of western and Islamic values. Interpretations differ significantly over the role of women, for example some claim that the Qur’anic refers allowing polygyny makes this contingent on the equal treatment of wives, which being impossible, results in the prohibition of the practice. Conversely, in some Muslim countries women are prohibited from wearing the hijab (e.g. Turkey because of the state’s commitment to secularism). The position of women in Islam is one of the most contentious areas of Islamic thought, and as such, open to interpretation.
Changes in other characteristics of the social structure have still been unable to loosen the grip o...

Factors such as economic liberalisation are more important in determining the development of a state than its religious persuasions. For example, Turkey (and to a lesser extent) Lebanon, have a growing degree of political liberalism whereas in Syria the impossibility of the evolution of a middle class has precluded the development of democracy. The slow evolution of democracy is not only a product of religious opposition. Factors such as the primacy of oil, elite and tribal politics and foreign intervention have all made the development of democracy difficult, in Islamic and non-Islamic countries alike.
The Coalition withdrew after Liberating Kuwait

After freeing Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, the President Bush declared a ceasefire and the Coalition ended its combat operations. The strength of the Coalition would have allowed it to occupy Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, take Iraqi oil, or pretty much anything else it wished to do. However, the Coalition ended the war after completing its mission of liberating Kuwait. This made the war proportional; Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait was countered by the liberation of Kuwait, nothing further.
The US did not have the right intentions

People believed that the United States was only entering the war because of our own self interests, oil. It was believed that we entered for the sole reason to protect our own oil and gain control over energy resources. One of America’s stated reasons for entering the war was to protect its ally Saudi Arabia. President Bush stated that Iraq had a massive troop buildup near the Saudi Arabian border and was poised to invade, but satellite images did not back up this claim. The Bush administration also used false stories of human rights abuses by Iraqi troops to gain public support for the war.
Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait was unjust

Iraq used exaggerated accusations of slant drilling and oil overproduction to justify its invasion of kuwait. This invasion does not meet the criteria of a Just War, as it was not waged by a legitimate authority, and there was no just cause or right intentions. Traditionally there are 3 “just” causes to going to war: to protect people from unjust attack, to restore rights that have been wrongfully taken away, and to defend or re-establish a just political order. The unjust Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the fact that the invasion was condemned by the United Nations, was President Bush’s main reason for United States involvement.
The US’s choice to go to war was a last resort

Immediately after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 660, which demanded Iraq withdraw “immediately and unconditionally.” It also stated that Iraq and Kuwait should “begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard.” After Iraq obey this resolution, the Security Council implemented Resolution 661, which placed a number of economic sanctions on Iraq. The following were banned by the resolution: “(a) the import of all products and commodities originating in Iraq or Kuwait; (b) any activities by their nationals or in their territories that would promote the export of products originating in Iraq or Kuwait, as well as the transfer of funds to either country for the purposes of such activities; (c) the sale of weapons or other military equipment to Iraq and Kuwait, excluding humanitarian aid; (d) the availability of funds or other financial or economic resources to either country, or to any commercial, industrial or public utility operating within them, except for medical or humanitarian purposes.” Further negotiations failed when Saddam Hussein demanded that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories in West Bank, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon is exchange for its withdrawal from Kuwait. The US demanded that Iraq’s withdrawal remain a separate issue. Another attempt at negotiation failed when Iraq demanded that it be given the Rumaila oil fields, which were partially in Kuwaiti territory. Dispute of the Rumaila Oil Fields, specifically Iraqi accusations of Kuwait drilling across the border and stealing Iraqi oil, were a major cause for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The Security Council implemented a naval blockade in Resolution 665, but this failed to deter Iraq. Finally, Resolution 678, issued on November 29, 1990, gave Iraq one last chance to withdraw by giving them until January 15 1991 to do so, but still Iraq refused. When the deadline passed, it was clear that Iraq would not accept reasonable peace terms, and the coalition had no choice but to use military action.
Iraq could have posed a threat to other US allies in the region, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel

During the lead up to the war, it was accused that Iraq might invade Saudi Arabia. President Bush stated "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." During the war, Iraq launched Scud missiles at targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel, despite the fact that Israel was not part of the Coalition that invaded Iraq. Israel deliberately stayed out of the war, despite these attacks, because of fears that the coalitions Arab nations would not fight alongside Israel. 74 Israeli civilians died in these attacks, and 230 others were injured. Iraq also attempted to invade Saudi Arabia early in the war, but were defeated at the Battle of Khafji.
Iraqi occupation of Kuwait would have driven up oil prices, hurting the US economy

Following the Iran Iraq War, which lasted nearly 8 years, from 1980 to 1988, Iraq was deeply in debt to a number of different countries. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were the two countries owed the most money, and Iraq refused to pay back the debt. Kuwait began exceeding OPEC oil production quotas, in part to earn back some of the money it was owed by Iraq, which contributed to low oil prices in the 1980’s. There were other factors that caused the low prices, including lower demand from the US and Europe as a result of the 1970’s oil crises, and the rise of alternative forms of fuel, such as Nuclear and Natural Gas. The low oil prices were great for western countries like the US and UK, but harmed oil producers like Iraq. Kuwait, according to Iraqi accusations, was also slant drilling across its border into Iraq controlled parts of the Rumaila oil fields. During the failed negotiations leading up the the war, Iraq demanded full access to all of the Rumaila Oil fields, even the parts located within Kuwait. Adding Kuwait's oil fields to its own would have given Iraq a huge chunk of the worlds oil reserves. Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait also put it in position to possibly attack Saudi Arabia, and if they were successful taking over Saudi Arabia, and their oil fields, Iraq would have held the majority of the the worlds oil reserves. This would have given Iraq tremendous influence over the global economy, given the worldwide dependence on Oil. Given Iraq’s volatile history, this could harm not only the US and other western powers, but also other oil producing countries neighboring Iraq. Iraq could have dramatically reduced its oil exports, while building massive reserves, which would have drove prices up, harming oil consuming nations. Or it could have increased exports, keeping prices low and harming other oil producers, especially its fellow OPEC members
The Coalition had far superior equipment

The utilities and tools that the Coalition had compared to Iraqi forces were much greater. The Coalition forces in the air campaign had access to roughly 2,250 aircraft, whereas the Iraqi air forces had access to roughly around 500 aircraft; in addition the aircraft of the coalition was more advanced than the aircraft of the Iraqi. The land forces of the coalition had access to more vehicles and in greater variation than the Iraqi ground forces. These vehicles include Main Battle Tanks, Humvees, Anti-Artillery Craft, LAV’s, and other utilities. The Coalition’s forces also had access to more weaponry, which was more accurate, precise, had less recoil, and was simply more efficient than the weaponry of the Iraqi forces. Some of the technology and artillery that the Coalition had, also heavily favored them. The Coalition had access to the newly developed Tomahawk missiles and had used this war as a test for the missiles; over 280 were launched, and 256 had been used effectively. The Coalition also had access to Hellfire missiles; it has multi-mission, multi-target precision-strike capability, and can be launched from multiple air, sea, and ground platforms. The Hellfire missile is the primary class air-to-ground precision weapon for the armed forces of the United States and many other nations. The United States forces had also brought several naval ships to aid in the war against the Iraqi forces, even though Iraq had no existing naval force. In contrast to the utilities available to the Coalition, the Iraqi army was limited to Main Battle Tanks and old French fighter jets. This lead to the Iraqi forces having great disadvantages during battles, making the battles heavily one-sided, in favor of the Coalition. This is one of the reasons to why it was not justified for the United States to enter the First Gulf War.
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life....

Self-protection. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
A new era for USA

Gun companies fund elections. Leaders in America, need support from gun companies(financial as well as Gun-loyalist) to get votes. [[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t261437/]] The provision for gun ownership in the US was originally created to allow the common person to stand before his government and defy it should it become tyrannical. While many make the claim that tanks, mines, drones, and technology make the guns a private citizen own seem useless, I would point out both Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples where superior technology failed in the face of superior morale. While the US in such a scenario would be fighting a war of extermination, the defenders would only have to demoralize the loyalist US forces to cause US defeat. As such, firearms still stand as a bulwark against tyranny today. As a citizen, firearms allow you to remain free and capable of providing your own defense against the potentially tyrannical US. For those who bemoan the criminal elements that exist in the US and not in countries where guns are outlawed I would suggest looking into the skinheads of Russia or the chavs of Britain. Both countries have much more strict laws against gun ownership than the US and both still have crime. Switzerland has the largest number of militia owned firearms on Earth yet has one of the lowest crime rates. A better predictor or gun violence (and violence or crime in general) would be the gap between rich and poor in a country - the bigger the gap the greater the violence (check US GINI of 51 as compared to Switzerland's GINI of 34 according to World Bank statistics). In short, firearms are a red herring for the intellectually lazy - this is statistically born out by looking at the statistics available.
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic ...

The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
A new era for USA

USA constitution allowed for guns at a time when tanks, landmines and jet fighters did not exist. Sould USA citizens be able to have this new type of guns? You must hold into account that you have nothing to do with your gun if the federal government comes against you with tanks. The far west times is gone. Your culture should change. You do much more damage to yourselves and the world by having guns. It grows a culture of fear, need for protection and violence. Compare yourselves with other countries. What does this ability to buy and hold guns do for you, as a citizen, in practical terms?
Gun Control Leads To More Crimes

This would simply lead to more deaths. Of course you cant rely on the police getting there in time, this is perhaps even more the case in Britain where we do not have many police officers with firearms. But still do we want to have situations where people are regularly shooting people who robbers? If you have a gun, and even more so if they have a gun too you increase the chances of a confrontation whereas if you (or better both sides) dont have a gun then the confrontation is much more likely to be avoided. Having firearms encourages people to reklessly take the law into their own hands.
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from...

Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which to protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture...

Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection.
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because...

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.
cut guns = escalation in knife crimes

Sacrifice the one for the many: Warning:Parental advisory Content: certain murder-method- descriptions are graphic and might cause readers to regurgitate: It is disgustingly defeatist/fatalist to claim that murders are inevitable or that being shot is relatively painless. Gutting(or death by laceration) takes time(either for sufficient blood loss or to cut the right organs) ; mass gut-tings(or throat/wrist slits) are virtually unheard of and physically impossible to carry out (unlike 'mass' shootings: spraying/splaying ricocheting/streaming bullets alternatively bombing massacres from bombs set off in crowded public places.) While the humanity of passing onto the other realm, is important (certainly suicide by barbiturate overdose is a lot less painful than being shot/bombed/burned/dying-by-laceration) ; the general rule is 'sacrifice the one for the many' we are interested in reducing numbers of murders/attacks/fatal-injuries and gun control is effective in this regard.
Gun Control Leads To More Crimes

-This post is based on laws in the USA- Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime. A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time? In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture...

Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because...

There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.
cut guns = escalation in knife crimes

Let's face it, murders happen:bombings/shootings/guttings/poisonings all occur and have occurred historically often. Gun control will only lead to a reversion to ubiquitous knife crime. Yes; we look to America and think racially/penury motivated high-school shootings, muggings,mobsters, shootouts ; more specifically Columbine, V.T killer etc and also that Britain didn't have this problem until guns were legalised/legalized. Now, we aren't trigger happy Texas rangers and certainly not attached to guns but let's put it this way: If say, you had to be killed would you rather be shot or gutted with a sharp kitchen utensil? Personally, I prefer the former. In fact, being bombed thus dying instantly is probably the best way to be killed.
History repeating itself

Everybody knows about the small period of time were the United States banned alcohol. Now, putting aside personal opinions, lets look at facts. In that time, crime rates skyrocketed. Now, I'm not saying that we should just legalize everything society doesn't like, however, there are many highly opinionated factions who are waiting for an opportunity to snap at gun control laws strengthening. that, and the fact that our constitution permits defense of freedom, leeds me to believe that gun control should be left alone.
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic ...

Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather than being stolen from registered owners.
Catholicism has become too corporate

Whilst the Catholic Church has always had money and valued nice looking churching with expensive décor; the Vatican was not originally seen as a corporate power house the way that it is today. Currently what the Pope says is given primacy. This kind of papal dominating power is alluring to all those who witness it. Therefore the Vatican has become a business with everyone clawing each other to become the Managing Director; the mere followers (the laity) are nothing but customers. But this is a modern twist on the Vatican. If the Catholic Church wishes to enforce fundamentalist ideas such as a ban on contraception, then they need to de-modernise their power structure. Take it out of the corporate sector and make it more fundamental in its approach.
To expect everyone to believe the same on every marginal issue is un realistic and inhumane

Currently, with the papal domination of all belief, all followers and clergymen are expected to believe as the Pope does. Everyone is expected to have the same opinion on every matter in hand. However, this is impossible! Relativism comes into play. Everyone in the world has had a different upbringing in a different culture and so they would have different views on marginal issues even if their core beliefs are all the same. For the Catholic Church to avoid complete dissolution it should localise the beliefs. Have smaller leaders who set the marginal issues based on the prevailing conditions of the area. The core beliefs would remain, but relativity would be taken into account.