Axemeister is a very good debater and has been for some time now.

And yet he provided nothing to prove his views. While I did provide something.

And being biased is not being a good debater.

Debating is about the debate.

Who said it is?

Yes, but people in Estonia may be experts on Finland, but the rest of the world have more important countries to learn about.

The reason we know far more about Finland is because they are right north of us, approximately 100km.

More important? So stupid...

That makes no sense.

I said, "It is rather pointless to give evidence for something that should be obvious to anyone (with basic education). If you disagree with something like that, you are the one who has the bigger necessity to give evidence."

Look at yourself.

I am not biased. I look at facts.

http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/

The British Empire created the United States, India, Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, and most of Africa. At one point Britain even owned the sea. How the hell can you say that the U.S has been more influential?

Britan did not create US... Nor any of the other countries. That is so clearly biased, you think your country is the best because it has some sort of relation to all those. Guess what, Britain has a relation to all of humanity. Did it also create the whole humanity?

Look at the debate heading, you see the word is there? Not was. It no longer is.

Clearly you've suddenly become an expert of the history curriculum of England as well as being an expert on "what should be obvious to everyone"

I definitely am more expert than you are, since I'm not biased as you are in so many ways.

You cannot possibly rule out Britain's contributions to world history.

To move onward you have to look at what currently is. Not be obsessed with the past.

As the debate is about what is, not was, then what was is irrelevant. Not to mention there is no further description other than the heading itself.

Then why didn't you just say what Scandinavia has contributed to the world?

I didn't say anything because your question was too stupid to be answered. You asked it with the tone that they have contributed nothing. If you say something like that you better be certain you are right. And you weren't right.

This is coming from someone in a little Eastern European country who regards Scandinavia as the best nations in the world.

I said originally, "The best countries are Scandinavian (Sweden, Finland, and Norway, primarily)"

Primarily does not mean only they are, it means there are others. Go south of those countries and you'll meet more. Australia is another one. All better in welfare than is Britain.

List of British Inventions

As you can see, Britain's clearly invented many times more inevntions than Sweden has, though you may say that you haven't included the inventions of Finland and Norway I'm going to point out that I might as well include the inventions of Canada and Australia since they are basically the offspring of Britain.

Are all those inventions still being developed? No, they already exist.

Majority of those are done decades and centuries back. Important is whatever someone has done to the rest, not the one who made it (in case that person is dead or no longer in active business) or where they were made.

Offspring of Britain, are you high? They have their own rules and laws. They are independent. It doesn't matter if they came to be because Britain had the idea of expansion but essentially failed because those countries are not really part of Britain, definitely not anymore.

If you're arguing about now, why did you just use a list of Swedish inventions (of which only 3 were made in this century) as evidence for your point?

You went on about what they have done, not what they are doing, so I gave a little something.

Once again, I think you're a hypocrite.

I base my opinions on facts and logic, yet I am the hypocrite? Clearly...

You don't measure scientific advancements by what is superior to another, they are all necessary.

Oh yes, because the major scientists of the Royal Society in the UK, which includes people like Stephan Hawking, sit around all day doing nothing. They certainly don't partake in any "active science" but rediscover things of the past.

Read the above.

And most of the past is completely useless, in fact some is even harmful (religion).

You are an idiot. I did not say my country is superior to yours, I said Scandinavia is not superior to Britain.

You idiot, I'm not talking about my country.

And again you with your superiority. As I said, stupid. All countries are different. If a country has a good basis for a happy and healthy life then it has the potential to be "superior". But why should they want superiority? Superiority is for dictators and autocrats.

You have serious prejudice issues against religious people, I'm wondering whether you should be taking medication of a sort.

Not prejudice, but facts. Religion does not allow science because it questions and contradicts it.

Medication? If you are religious and you deny reality just because you "believe" then you are the one needing medication.

I'm not arguing for these countries I'm arguing against them.

If you argue against something, you need to know, by facts, what you are arguing against, not make things up.

When you learn how to debate, you'll noticed that the person arguing for (that's you by the way) has to open the debate with an argument that includes evidence then the person arguing against (which, in case you haven't realised, is me) counter argues with my own evidence.

The debate gave no evidence, it just said it is. As the debate says "Britain is the Best Country in the World" it must give reasons to it.

You are arguing against me. Yet you gave no evidence in your first "argument". And neither has the debate itself any evidence. As the debate said something with no evidence, so did I.

For "Britain is the Best Country in the World" to be true the claimer has to know about every country sufficiently and if had known that then would not have claimed something like it in the first place. Or had said it in relation with specific categories.

Have I made myself clear?

I've re-read all the previous arguments and no you haven't written anything about them, aside from "Science, peace and welfare as an example for others, as anachronist said mythology, music" which is so generic is nullified.

Because no more should be necessary if you had sufficient knowledge. But you clearly don't, you clearly cannot think on your own, as that was what I gave it for.

I gave you the British Empire as evidence, it is an indisputable fact that they made the modern world.

They did not make the modern world, that is a fact. The modern world is not something that was done by just one country, many countries were involved in it. You are so biased. You could as well say humans made the modern world (they actually did...), since we evolved to our current state and developed language, society, civilization, and all else. The roots were planted thousands of years ago for this all to happen. As organisms evolve, so does society, language, culture, only their evolving is a little different. No one makes them. Unless you're writing a book. Or unless you force people to see your way, and those who resist you kill. Did that happen, by force and death? No.

No you just said, Scandinavia is the best country because they have the best welfare because they are athiest. Which is nothing more than your stupid little prejudice against religious people.

Prejudice right there.

It is a fact that atheists do better, not prejudice. Because they are allowed to think whatever they want, without the fear of going to hell. You are prejudiced, not me.

No, if you're wrong you just insult the other party.

You are the one who insults the other party, because you are so clearly wrong in almost everything you have said.

What does a religious person do when they cannot argue against facts? They begin insulting or just talking further nonsense. I've seen that plenty around here.

You cannot observe me, you cannot even observe "reality". You're too busy being blinded by prejudice.

Says the one who's religious... What irony, isn't it?

Is Estonia still under the regime of Stalin because that's the exactly what the communists taught.

What the fuck are you going about now? Before claiming something know what you are talking about. Communist Russia was religious.

What I said about religion keeping people stupid was not my opinion, it was a fact.

I was born 1990. You know, or should anyway, from history, that that was the year communism officially ended (or was it 1991? either way, 1 year makes no difference...), that was when Russia's military began leaving my occupied country and some other countries. If there is and was no Russia's direct influence here then how could I have been taught communism? I fail to see the logic behind that.

Not to mention that Estonia has been occupied, enslaved, converted, disallowed to follow our native teachings and "religion" to the point that what natively had developed here, our culture, had been suppressed and oppressed so much that our native "religion" (what little is known about it) is followed by almost no one. We were not allowed what was ours, and we have resisted every occupant, and what they brought with them (including religions) the best we could. We have learned to not take any crap from anyone but ourselves, and to survive under the rule of others.

Skype is a Swedish invention, which is exactly what your source says.

Shows clearly that wikipedia has mistakes. Skype is not a Swedish invention.

Skype was developed in Estonia, by Estonians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype