You said a point that I wanted to include in mine for me pretty much, cheers :)

No petrol should not be banned, there are other sources of energy that the oil companies literally have ready as soon as petrol runs out, so we may as well use it all and not save any for future generations. The price of petrol will go up and up till we finally run out, but that's how the world works, people will complain about the prices, but that's what happens with anything rare, the quicker we get through this petrol, the quicker we get to the renewable and hopefully cheaper energy resources.

War is good. The quote "All is fair in love and war" Shows that all is in actual fact fair In love and war. As there are two sides fighting for "love" And their families back home. As both sides are doing this, is shows that war is fair, as long as it is fought for the love of your home country and family. Thus, as war is fair this means that war is not only good, as anything that is fair is good, but that without war lots of things wouldn't have got resolved as someone has to write history and claim victory, as it is the apparent (As nature vs nurture is still heavily debated on the subject of the human race fighting one another.) nature of humans, to dominate and claim territory, and to claim territory there must be a fight over it. Thus causing war. Making war fair, making it needed, therefore making it good. War itself is in my opinion, a good thing. However the outcomes of it are bad.

Hitler was a very powerful man yes , a leader. He fought for what he believed in, yes. But my argument for this is simple. Leaders are supposed to as their responsibility fight for what the "majority" believe in, and as far as I know the majority of Germany at the time, weren't actually fighting for what he believed in, as they were either fearful of him, or simply obeying the laws of the present leader, which does not necessarily suggest the majority believed in what they were fighting for. So in some small respects yes, he did fight for what he believed in, but he gains no respect because no one else believed in it.

I believe that children under the age of 16 should be allowed to join and use social networks, as it is a part of modern society today. Admittedly not doing so, can reduce cyber bullying. But in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the bad things, as not doing so may cause children who reach 16, to misunderstand the language and so called "banter" used on the Internet used today, which may highlight even worse one of the worst social networking problems today; Bullying. In letting children under the age of 16 use social networking sites, they may learn to be able to adapt to today's current "teenage" society and whilst at it, improve their functional ICT and Internet safety skills.