CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The US and the UK Aren't That Different.
I'm always seeing Brits (not all of course) hating America, but I don't think that we're really all that different... our government's policies aren't wildly different... neither is our culture.... at least compared to most of the rest of the world.
Now, this debate isn't about whether our policies and way of life are right or wrong but rather about just how similar are the US and UK.
I agree. The only massive difference is maybe the weather? I don't know :P I know a few people who seem to have a blind hatred for american the only reasons they hate you guys is that you don't speak proper English yet you now and again still call it English and I've also heard the argument that you're full of yourselves yet I have yet to see a British person not full of ourselves. I completely disagree with both reasons but they are the ones I've heard. I think it's the fact we're too similar that some British people seem to hate you guys.
I've also been annoyed that Brit's often make fun of the way we speak English. Every country has different accents and different languages, and the countries that do speak the same language, use slang words that the other countries don't. We sound dumb to Brit's, but Brit's sound stuck up and pompous to us. Of course, that isn't always accurate.
I always thought it odd that they make fun of our accent too... especially when they have people in their own country speaking Cockney. I can't even understand half of what those people say?
Yeah, I've heard them say that we speak too slow before. What's wrong with that!?
I think what happened was, after we settled in America, people were speaking with British accents and somebody finally spoke up and was like "Alright... I have absolutely no idea what you just said. Can you slow it down just a bit?" and then it caught on lol.
I agree. And I see on the internet a lot of Brits bashing America for it's international policies, which is fine, I disagree with a lot of them myself but who is usually right by our side? The UK.
A lot of Brit's can't stand American pride... especially since we originally came from Britain, but what they fail to realize is that America is the mixing pot of the world. In a way, America has a little bit of every country in it... including Britain. That is why we usually see Brit's and other countries talking bad about America, and not the other way around.
As far as our government and culture go, we're more similar to the UK, than any other country.
They're basically American's... well, hell... they're North Americans aren't they? If people refer to African's as a whole, they might as well put American's together too.
"A lot of Brit's can't stand American pride... especially since we originally came from Britain, but what they fail to realize is that America is the mixing pot of the world"
See this is the part of American "pride" I can't stand. Mixing pot of the world? When your nation's history is full of slavery, segregation and racial abuse? What about the current growing population of Hispanic Americans who find themselves at the bottom of the economic pile due to more racial discrimination.
Sure, you have a black President, but 87% of Your congress is white, and I'm sure the billionaires in your highest earning 1% aren't a rainbow of colours either.
See this is the part of American "pride" I can't stand. Mixing pot of the world? When your nation's history is full of slavery, segregation and racial abuse? What about the current growing population of Hispanic Americans who find themselves at the bottom of the economic pile due to more racial discrimination.
You can't stand us because of our past? Give me a break! Do you not realize the role Britain played in the slave trade?
How can you disagree that America is the mixing pot of the world? Britain certainly isn't. Like you said, sure we have a black president... but has Britain ever had a black Prime Minister? We actually have multiple prominent political figures who are black and many who are hispanic. Hell, we even had an Austrian governor!
Most of the hispanics who are at the bottom of the "economic pile" are there by their own fault. Same goes for most of the blacks, whites, or any other race that is in a similar situation.
Sure, you have a black President, but 87% of Your congress is white
Is Britain any better? I bet your government has a much higher white percentage.
I'm sure the billionaires in your highest earning 1% aren't a rainbow of colours either.
That is based on the person, not on the race. How many British billionaires are non-white? I'm sure they aren't any more diverse than America.
"You can't stand us because of our past? Give me a break! Do you not realize the role Britain played in the slave trade?"
It's not your past I can't stand, it's the fact that with such a past you can possibly claim that your nation is the "mixing pot of the world". Yes, Britain took part in the slave trade (though to a lesser extent) but we certainly down claim the be the only country on the planet to have encouraged racial diversity throughout our existence.
"How can you disagree that America is the mixing pot of the world? Britain certainly isn't."
Did I ever claim Britain as the mixing pot of the world?
And even though my country may not be the "mixing pot of the world" it still doesn't make the USA, a nation which has openly been against accepting people of other races in the past, any more of a melting pot.
" Like you said, sure we have a black president... but has Britain ever had a black Prime Minister?"
Even though our Government may have more white people in it than yours, it is of a lesser concern as our country has more white people in it than yours.
"We actually have multiple prominent political figures who are black and many who are hispanic. "
Yes, you have some prominent black politicians, it doesn't change the statistics.
"Hell, we even had an Austrian governor!"
Who is not allowed to be President because he wasn't born in the USA.
It's not your past I can't stand, it's the fact that with such a past you can possibly claim that your nation is the "mixing pot of the world". Yes, Britain took part in the slave trade (though to a lesser extent) but we certainly down claim the be the only country on the planet to have encouraged racial diversity throughout our existence.
Slavery in America started with the British. They were the first to settle in America and they had slaves shipped over with them. Who started the slave trade? Not the United States!
I hate to sound too repetitive, but we ARE the modern "mixing pot of the world". How can you deny that? Name a country who has a more diverse population than us.
Did I ever claim Britain as the mixing pot of the world?
No, but you act like America isn't.
Even though our Government may have more white people in it than yours, it is of a lesser concern as our country has more white people in it than yours.
Your white population in 2011 was around 50 million. Our white population in 2010 was over 230 million. Unless the British population has significantly increased in two years and white births in America have slowed way down over the past three years, then I'm afraid you are wrong.
Who is not allowed to be President because he wasn't born in the USA.
Which makes sense, does it not? Would you like an American to rule your country?
"Slavery in America started with the British. They were the first to settle in America and they had slaves shipped over with them."
It doesn't matter who started the slave trade in America, what matters is that it is clear evidence that the USA is not the melting pot of the world.
"Who started the slave trade? Not the United States!"
Who continued it several decades after the British had abolished it? Who, even after abolishing the slave trade, still had organisation such as the KKK committing actions of deep racial hatred and segregated their population according to the colour of their skin?
The United States, the same United States that you have the audacity to claim as the "mixing pot of the world".
"I hate to sound too repetitive, but we ARE the modern "mixing pot of the world". How can you deny that? Name a country who has a more diverse population than us."
I'm sure there are several, but I'm afraid that there is no standardised way of measuring diversity, and thus we cannot rank nations accurately.
"No, but you act like America isn't."
My original point was that America isn't.
"Your white population in 2011 was around 50 million. Our white population in 2010 was over 230 million. Unless the British population has significantly increased in two years and white births in America have slowed way down over the past three years, then I'm afraid you are wrong."
I meant in proportion to population, sorry if I hadn't made this clear.
"Which makes sense, does it not? Would you like an American to rule your country?"
Well, you're clearly happy that an Austrian is allowed to govern a state in your country.
It doesn't matter who started the slave trade in America, what matters is that it is clear evidence that the USA is not the melting pot of the world.
That's evidence that America wasn't the mixing pot.
Who continued it several decades after the British had abolished it? Who, even after abolishing the slave trade, still had organisation such as the KKK committing actions of deep racial hatred and segregated their population according to the colour of their skin?
You guys have the KKK too.
The United States, the same United States that you have the audacity to claim as the "mixing pot of the world".
It is! It wasn't but now it IS!
I'm sure there are several, but I'm afraid that there is no standardised way of measuring diversity, and thus we cannot rank nations accurately.
It was a rhetorical statement. We have the largest racial diversity.
I meant in proportion to population, sorry if I hadn't made this clear.
Proportionally, we aren't that different either. Whites are still the majority.
Well, you're clearly happy that an Austrian is allowed to govern a state in your country.
"That's evidence that America wasn't the mixing pot."
And the fact that your upper classes are currently dominated by white people is evidence that America still isn't a mixing pot.
"You guys have the KKK too."
Not to the same extent you had and I would still like to stress that I've never claimed the UK to be the mixing pot of the world. I'm just disputing your claim that the USA is.
"It was a rhetorical statement. We have the largest racial diversity."
That's a laughable claim with no evidence to support it other than your own opinion.
According to Wikipedia, the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet is Uganda, followed by Liberia and Madagascar. The United States doesn't even appear in the top 50.
I'm sure you'll be surprised by this as was I, considering that Uganda has a history of acts of ethnic cleansing, specifically under Idi Amin. However, within the country itself there are several different tribes, each with their own cultures, languages and traditions which leads to the high rate of ethnic diversity.
Diversity not only includes race but also language and religion. For Language, Uganda is first again, and for Religion South Africa is highest. The closest the USA ever gets to the top is coming 2nd in religious diversity, though I'm sure that's due to your colossal amount of different denominations of Christianity.
However, an interesting point is that diversity is strongest in nations which had previously been under the sphere of influence of the British Empire, while Great Britain itself may not be the mixing pot of the world, the top ten of each list are dominated by previous British colonies. It could be argued that the reason why America has such a high rate of diversity (even though they have attempted to reduce it) is primarily due its past as a British territory,
"Proportionally, we aren't that different either. Whites are still the majority."
The reason we have a proportionally higher white presence in Government is due to the fact that we have a proportionally higher white population, the was the point I was trying to make. This does not excuse the fact that the US government is dominated by whites regardless of how little this may represent the racial diversity of the population.
"A state, not a country."
A state the size of a country, a state so powerful that if it were to become independent it would rank as one of the largest economies on the planet.
And the fact that your upper classes are currently dominated by white people is evidence that America still isn't a mixing pot.
I've met two millionaires in my lifetime (that I can remember). One was white and the other is Cuban. Both live in America.
Statistically, Asians take up the higher percentage of upper class in America.
Not to the same extent you had and I would still like to stress that I've never claimed the UK to be the mixing pot of the world. I'm just disputing your claim that the USA is.
Well, like I pointed out earlier... we have more people.
And I know you aren't claiming to be the mixing pot... if it appears that I'm calling you out on that, then my bad.
According to Wikipedia, the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet is Uganda, followed by Liberia and Madagascar. The United States doesn't even appear in the top 50.
That is in regards to their heritage. They have a diverse background. Have you seen Uganda or Liberia? I wouldn't be suprised if they're 100% black.
I was reffering to racial diversity. Blacks, whites, hispanic, asian, etc,.
However, an interesting point is that diversity is strongest in nations which had previously been under the sphere of influence of the British Empire, while Great Britain itself may not be the mixing pot of the world, the top ten of each list are dominated by previous British colonies. It could be argued that the reason why America has such a high rate of diversity (even though they have attempted to reduce it) is primarily due its past as a British territory,
It seems to me like these countries became more diverse after Britain left. Sure, they may have a bit of British blood in them now, but I don't think Britain is responsible for the diversity.
"I've met two millionaires in my lifetime (that I can remember). One was white and the other is Cuban. Both live in America."
This is just a personal experience of yours and cannot be used to support any legitimate argument.
"Statistically, Asians take up the higher percentage of upper class in America."
Link to statistics?
"That is in regards to their heritage. They have a diverse background. Have you seen Uganda or Liberia? I wouldn't be suprised if they're 100% black."
Would you regard the French of Germans as different races? Because I'm sure they would, the same applies to the many African tribes with clearly different languages, cultures and heritages.
"I was reffering to racial diversity. Blacks, whites, hispanic, asian, etc,."
As I said previously, apart from the evidence I've provided there is no standardised way of measure diversity, so you cannot possibly prove that the U.S is the most diverse country.
"It seems to me like these countries became more diverse after Britain left. "
Many of the previous colonies actually became less diverse after British withdrawal. Uganda, under Idi Amin, had all Asians banished and commited actions of ethnic cleansing; South Africa had the Apartheid era; India is currently one of the least racially tolerant countries on the planet, even the USA and Canada had immigration policies in which no-one of Chinese descent could enter the country and all those who were in it lost their citizenship.
"Sure, they may have a bit of British blood in them now, but I don't think Britain is responsible for the diversity."
One of the reasons I believe these countries became so diverse was because many companies in the British Empire would encourage immigration between colonies. The British government were also very relaxed on religious views and allowed religious diversity.
Would you regard the French of Germans as different races? Because I'm sure they would, the same applies to the many African tribes with clearly different languages, cultures and heritages.
Race is based on skin color. Maybe they have some French and German blood in them, but they are still black. Look at African-Americans, most of them have some Caucasian blood in them... but they're still considered black.
As I said previously, apart from the evidence I've provided there is no standardised way of measure diversity, so you cannot possibly prove that the U.S is the most diverse country.
Let me explain what I mean. Other countries do have us beat when it comes to ethnic diversity. However, Uganda for example, contains different tribes and people from within their continent. You aren't going to find many people living there who were born outside of Africa.
However, America contains a large population of people from around the globe. That is why we are considered a mixing pot.
Many of the previous colonies actually became less diverse after British withdrawal. Uganda, under Idi Amin, had all Asians banished and commited actions of ethnic cleansing;
Wait... Uganda is the most diverse country in the world. You're telling me that they were even more diverse than they already are, while under British occupation?
India is currently one of the least racially tolerant countries on the planet, even the USA and Canada had immigration policies in which no-one of Chinese descent could enter the country and all those who were in it lost their citizenship.
But none of these countries were more racially tolerant while under British rule.
Either way, the data shows that there is a clear correlation between ethnicity and class, which isn't really a "mixing pot" is it?
"Race is based on skin color. Maybe they have some French and German blood in them, but they are still black. Look at African-Americans, most of them have some Caucasian blood in them... but they're still considered black"
Well if you define race like that, then there is no way of proving that the U.S.A is the most racially diverse country on the planet.
"Let me explain what I mean. Other countries do have us beat when it comes to ethnic diversity. However, Uganda for example, contains different tribes and people from within their continent. You aren't going to find many people living there who were born outside of Africa.
However, America contains a large population of people from around the globe. That is why we are considered a mixing pot."
The idea of America being considered a mixing pot is something which the USA have created and promoted themselves.
The USA has had a long tradition of assimilation in which it matters little what ethnicity immigrants are as long as they conform to the "American" way of life. If you look at countries like Australia or Canada they promote multiculturalism in which a multitude of ethnic ways of life are considered acceptable.
"Wait... Uganda is the most diverse country in the world. You're telling me that they were even more diverse than they already are, while under British occupation?"
Well, Uganda had a lot more people of Asian background which were significantly reduced after British colonial rule.
"But none of these countries were more racially tolerant while under British rule."
How so? On of the British Empire's policies was to accept all local cultures and try to harmonise colonial rule among the indigenous lifestyle.
Using one of my previous examples, the Thirteen colonies had made a deal with the Native Americans in which the British agreed not to expand westwards, after the Revolution the USA committed mass genocide against the Native Americans.
In addition to this, the British Empire abolished slavery soon after the American war of Independence, yet the USA kept slavery for several decades afterwards.
I think it is fair to say that there was a decline in racial tolerance in that case.
Either way, the data shows that there is a clear correlation between ethnicity and class, which isn't really a "mixing pot" is it?
What is your definition of a mixing pot (it's actually called a "melting pot", I don't know why I keep saying "mixing" lol)?
The idea of America being considered a mixing pot is something which the USA have created and promoted themselves.
The phrase was actually coined by immigrants. I guess we just liked the compliment and stuck with it.
The USA has had a long tradition of assimilation in which it matters little what ethnicity immigrants are as long as they conform to the "American" way of life. If you look at countries like Australia or Canada they promote multiculturalism in which a multitude of ethnic ways of life are considered acceptable.
What!? Have you been to America? Go to Chinatown and watch the Chinese parades. Little Havana celebrates Cuban culture. Little Italy is a well known Italian district. There are multiple areas within America where the Mexican culture is prominent. St. Patrick's Day is one of our most popular holidays, which celebrates Irish culture. We have Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month. The list can go on. America is one of the few countries that people from different countries can move to and not feel like an outcast.
How so? On of the British Empire's policies was to accept all local cultures and try to harmonise colonial rule among the indigenous lifestyle.
The British Empire did great things in India... including mass starvation, right? How about the near extinction of the Australian Aborigines?
"What is your definition of a mixing pot (it's actually called a "melting pot", I don't know why I keep saying "mixing" lol)?"
For me, the melting/mixing pot is used to describe a nation with such a high level of diversity that colour and race will only be physical features and have no relationship with wealth, class or status in society. The United States of America does not have this quality, but then no nation does.
"The phrase was actually coined by immigrants. I guess we just liked the compliment and stuck with it."
Maybe it was introduced by immigrants, but only the minority of the rest of the world consider the USA to be a melting pot.
"What!? Have you been to America? Go to Chinatown and watch the Chinese parades. Little Havana celebrates Cuban culture. Little Italy is a well known Italian district. There are multiple areas within America where the Mexican culture is prominent. St. Patrick's Day is one of our most popular holidays, which celebrates Irish culture. We have Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month. The list can go on. America is one of the few countries that people from different countries can move to and not feel like an outcast."
I admit there has certainly been a change now, but America definitely has a history of strong assimilation, especially when it comes to political ideology.
"The British Empire did great things in India... including mass starvation, right? How about the near extinction of the Australian Aborigines?"
The mass starvation in India had little to do with cultural differences and was caused by the extreme famine that had occurred there.
Concerning the indigenous population of Australia, the vast majority of them were killed by disease, 50% of the Aborigines were killed by smallpox alone. The ones which did die from conflicts were the casualties from self defence and not a genocidal policy.
Maybe it was introduced by immigrants, but only the minority of the rest of the world consider the USA to be a melting pot.
It was a phrase used to describe the United States, so being that the immigrants didn't use that phrase to describe any other country... it's safe to assume that America is the "Melting Pot". It is our nickname, after all.
That's my attempt at putting this "melting pot" argument to rest lol. Whether we live up to that name or not, you cannot deny that it is our nickname.
I admit there has certainly been a change now, but America definitely has a history of strong assimilation, especially when it comes to political ideology.
Well, we've definitely had some dark times in our past... but we are a very young country. Look how much we have grown in such a short period of time.
The mass starvation in India had little to do with cultural differences and was caused by the extreme famine that had occurred there.
Britain didn't do much to help, did they? Seems kind of messed up considering they were occupying it.
Pretty similar. The Americans have a reputation for being more competitive, and though I could go through all the reasons I don't like them as much as the Brits, there are probably far more similarities than differences.
Bah they're pretty similar. Cars, churches, food, roads, maps, types of ink, types of rocks, percentage of boldness, e.t.c. many many things we have in common.
Ta dah. An America.V.UK debate where I didn't rant too much :) This was a big effort.
Dana (also known as Sitara) is a Create Debate user that stirred up trouble constantly. She would bash the US (an it's people even though she is an American) and then claim she would love to move out. Therefore I told her to move to Pakistan. If you know anything about Sitara, she had very liberal views.
However, as of recent, I think she has been basically sent to the corner.
Really? Who else called me classless? See Dana... here's the thing. No one wants you here. NO ONE! You're unstable and shouldn't be on the internet... you boyfriend, Prodigee, makes fun of you all the time yet you worship him? This just proves that you do not have the mental capability to be on the internet.
You didn't see her most recent crap? On the other hand, I better keep my mouth shut from here on out on Dana. Andy will make me join her if I'm not careful.
I'm British,If you cant tell by my picture, lets get that out of the way. I think we are similar to an extent, but when you go on about us hating on you, its because most of us (not all of us) get offended by some of the stuff you do. We may have hard shells, but Brits are a squishy, sensitive bunch underneath. Say or do the wrong thing, and we will get the hump. The following howlers are guaranteed to set us off. This includes...
- Talking in the cinema. I get that kids the world over talk through films and generally make it their business to ruin the experience for anyone old enough to have rogue hairs growing in unmentionable places. But the grown-ups too? Only in America.
- Money talk. Americans can linger on the subject for hours without feeling uncomfortable. For Brits, meanwhile, talking about how much we make is unthinkable – only marginally less so than discussing our feelings.
- Therapy talk. There are probably no more than five or six Brits alive today who are willing to admit to having been “in treatment.” Americans, on the other hand, think nothing of starting a sentence, “So, my therapist says…” Talk like this in British company and we’ll scraper like antelope at a convention for big cats with appetite control issues.
- Complaining. Brits love to grumble retrospectively but rarely do so in the moment, because that would mean putting someone out and causing a scene. For instance, I’m much more comfortable just leaving that lump of raw, salmonella-oozing chicken on my plate. But beware: if this kind of thing happens when you’re dining with an American, they will most likely speak up on your behalf and not understand why you find this humiliating.
So, now you know a few points and there are a few ore out there. I hope you now understand why we brits get the hump allot at you Americans.
We're both allies, we both have strong government guidelines, we both are considered very important countries. Is there differences? Yes. But not that many.
Well, I count my self as British but I still don't like them..! I should make a big list of everything I hate and post it as a debate. Then people won't have to keep asking me :L
Ah good. You all saw, one person asked to see the list, giving me clearance to create one. It shall take time, one cannot come up with a list of everything they hate in just a matter of minutes..!
I hope it's well thought out and doesn't just include the usual stereotypes. That's probably what you'll make though, since I have a feeling you've never even been to America.
I have, I stayed a fortnight in LA with my godparent. Hated it! I mean the people were really friendly, until you tell them that you disagree with them, and with out a moments notice they snapped and turned hostile. As long as you play the inferior one, they liked you. And LA was way too flashy for me.. I'm not a big fan of technology and neon flashing lights.. I understand the appeal for some, but not for me. Opposite side of the spectrum, the desert was, for want of a better word, ugly. Barren and ugly. Way too flat, it had no character.
I went and didn't much like it. I would like to see some different area's though, would be nice. You ever been to the United Counties of Great Britain?
Oh God you're right about that..! Nah the weather sucks here, everyone is so uptight, the food sucks, not too much to see.. London's not too bad, neither is Devon. Apart from that, it's horrible..! And people go to LA because they think "Ooh, flashing lights and gambling, ooooohhhh...."
Oh! So you went to Las Vegas? That's not such a great place for teenagers. I think you have to be a particular age and in a particular mood to want to go there.
Not too far from there, you could have gone to see the Grand Canyon. That's a pretty neat sight.
So I've heard, but I didn't see it unfortunately... I'm not a big fan of big shiny technological things, which is why I don't really want to go to New York. The sky scrapers may impress some, but not me.
People see the big cities, like New York City or Las Vegas on TV and assume those are America's best spots. They're not. Actually, they kind of suck. That's like almost every time I see Britain on TV, it looks grey and dreary... and just kind of dull compared to the rest of Europe, but I know that's not the case for all of Britain.
I just don't want Europe to see our reality shows. They make us look really bad lol.
Well, the USA is about 37 times bigger than the UK, has far more mountains, bigger cities, more woods, sits on the edge of a fault line e.t.c. The United States of America is quite different to the United Kingdom.
Oh come on, like I wasn't going to post in the Screw You America column :P I had to say something, without going on one of my anti-USA rants like I normally do. Wanted to be a little friendlier this time. If you don't like it I will gladly argue ( at a later date) that you're a bunch of backwoods savage degenerates who simply lie, bully, thieve, and make life worse of the rest of the world. If you want :)
hence the " lick arses" bit I put. You go in first, and Brits are all "Oh yes master, yes, we will helpses you, helpses the Americans. Thieving Americanses..."
Not arguing that Britain is better, that America is worse. Like I said earlier, at a later date. Besides I don't actually think those things I was just explaining that if Hellno wants me to say bad things about the Americans, then I can. He didn't like what I said about the geography of America.
Yes, but that's not the argument I am making. I am not coming up for reasons why Britain is good, just why America is bad. At the time. I'm not any more, you're obviously peeved at what I said and are now just arguing at everything I say and it's getting tedious.
Ugh... why do people always assume that I'm pissed off whenever I want to debate with them? Is debating not the purpose of this site? I'm American, I like America, you don't. That to me looks like the right ingredients for a debate.
Oh of course, no doubt. However when people just start complaining and arguing at every little detail, it's just annoying for everyone. Often as not it's because they can't think of anything else to argue about.
It depends how you measure the difference. When it comes to culture the U.S has a habit of portray America as an 'idea' and claiming that it stands for freedom, liberty, equality (etc). But if you look at the state of their nation, currently and throughout history, it quite often shows the exact opposite of what they apparently all believe in, this is my sole issue with the USA and the cause of my dislike of it.
But overall, the UK and US are similar in many aspects, I suppose that's why we have a "special relationship", and both nations are so diverse that where differences exist they are often within small minorities of the the populations.
I do tend to hate the USA (I try and not let it effect my opinion of individual USAians though). The two countries are different in many ways.
The main thing about the USA is the lack of human rights. You have the death penalty, legitimate torture, you lock 'dangerous offenders' up for life irrespective of the severity of their crime. The death penalty also expands to people on the street - if you shoot someone and the jury believes the perpetrated deserves it then they are most likely going to give a community order (punishment is decided by a judge with strict guidelines in the UK). The majority rules and there is no objective sense of what is good or bad law outside mob rule.
There's also the problem with Christianity there. So many people 'disagree' with evolution and still believe there a garden of Eden. Its the rejection of education like that that also sets the UK and USA poles apart.
legitimate torture, you lock 'dangerous offenders' up for life irrespective of the severity of their crime.
What do you mean by "legitimate torture"? Do you think that we torture our criminals?
Very rarely does someone get life imprisonment, who doesn't deserve it. Someone who commits first degree murder, shouldn't be let off easy.
I realize that Britain doesn't have the death penalty, but weren't they thinking about bringing it back a while ago, because statistics showed that it works?
There's also the problem with Christianity there. So many people 'disagree' with evolution and still believe there a garden of Eden. Its the rejection of education like that that also sets the UK and USA poles apart.
Wait... there are religious people everywhere. We may have more Christians, but we also have more people. Christianity is not something that sets us apart. Do you think that our schools teach Christianity as being correct? Students are taught evolution in school.
What do you mean by "legitimate torture"? Do you think that we torture our criminals?
Guantanamo Bay.
Very rarely does someone get life imprisonment, who doesn't deserve it. Someone who commits first degree murder, shouldn't be let off easy.
You have lots of sex offenders that will never be released because they are deemed to be dangerous by the state.
I realize that Britain doesn't have the death penalty, but weren't they thinking about bringing it back a while ago, because statistics showed that it works?
Not that I am aware of. I wonder what you mean by 'work'? That it makes people less likely to kill someone? "Oh shit, I better not kill this person because rather than spending a life in jail, I might get killed myself".
Wait... there are religious people everywhere. We may have more Christians, but we also have more people. Christianity is not something that sets us apart.
I am of course talking about the proportion of Christians in the USA rather than sheer number.
Do you think that our schools teach Christianity as being correct? Students are taught evolution in school.
46% of USAians believe in creationism for the origin of the earth. I assume therefore that it is either being taught it some schools or it your school system is completely ineffectual.
Where we hold war criminals? Terrorists. The same terrorists who have not only killed our people, but your's as well?
You have lots of sex offenders that will never be released because they are deemed to be dangerous by the state.
Good. They were obviously repeat offenders. We don't just hand out life sentences like candy.
Not that I am aware of. I wonder what you mean by 'work'? That it makes people less likely to kill someone? "Oh shit, I better not kill this person because rather than spending a life in jail, I might get killed myself".
For every prisoner sentenced to death, eighteen less murders were committed. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are though, because it was a British article.
46% of USAians believe in creationism for the origin of the earth. I assume therefore that it is either being taught it some schools or it your school system is completely ineffectual.
59% of the people in England are Christian, and 1 in 10 (under 25) claim to be Muslim. Christianity is declining drastically in both America and Britain, but based on your numbers... we're declining quicker.
Where we hold war criminals? Terrorists. The same terrorists who have not only killed our people, but your's as well?
If they were terrorists then they'd be charged as such. A number of people in Guantanamo were they because of some weak suspicion.
Good. They were obviously repeat offenders. We don't just hand out life sentences like candy.
I don't believe they have to be repeat offenders nor that the offense was all that serious. The fact they might do it again is enough to justify it. Some states also put plaques on the lawns of such people. This type of justice you would never see in the UK.
For every prisoner sentenced to death, eighteen less murders were committed. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are though, because it was a British article.
that makes no sense to me seeing as the USA has a higher murder rate. I'll look at the article if you ca find it.
59% of the people in England are Christian, and 1 in 10 (under 25) claim to be Muslim. Christianity is declining drastically in both America and Britain, but based on your numbers... we're declining quicker.
Not everyone that identifies themselves as Christians believe in creationism. Its around a third of people in the UK believe in some form of creationism. About 76% of USA is Christian.
If they were terrorists then they'd be charged as such. A number of people in Guantanamo were they because of some weak suspicion.
I'm sorry, I can't feel any sympathy for terrorists or would be terrorists.
I don't believe they have to be repeat offenders nor that the offense was all that serious. The fact they might do it again is enough to justify it. Some states also put plaques on the lawns of such people. This type of justice you would never see in the UK.
Then the UK should step up their legal system! Lol
Trust me, if they were sentenced to life in prison... their crime was serious.
that makes no sense to me seeing as the USA has a higher murder rate. I'll look at the article if you ca find it.
I'll provide the link below. The article is two years old, but it also points out that Britain has a higher crime rate than us.
Not everyone that identifies themselves as Christians believe in creationism. Its around a third of people in the UK believe in some form of creationism. About 76% of USA is Christian.
I can't imagine a true Christian not believing in creationism.
I'm sorry, I can't feel any sympathy for terrorists or would be terrorists.
Let me paint you a picture. A few years ago in Pakistan USA was offering money for reporting someone as linked with terrorist organisation. Someone would say that someone was a terrorist and that person would disappear. Do you really think all suspected terrorists should be tortured? Honestly?
Trust me, if they were sentenced to life in prison... their crime was serious.
There are people in the USA serving live sentences for possession of child abusive images because its such an unpopular crime rather than because its 'serious'.
I'll provide the link below. The article is two years old, but it also points out that Britain has a higher crime rate than us.
Its funny that at the time that article was written it was illegal for any country in Europe to kill their own citizens. Shows what the journalist knew...
Well then I coincide that the death penalty does act as a deterrent. Of course I object to it for other reasons still.
I can't imagine a true Christian not believing in creationism.
Yes well public censuses when it comes to religion are usually self-reported.
Let me paint you a picture. A few years ago in Pakistan USA was offering money for reporting someone as linked with terrorist organisation. Someone would say that someone was a terrorist and that person would disappear. Do you really think all suspected terrorists should be tortured? Honestly?
Not all, but that's irrelevant because not ALL terrorists are tortured.
There are people in the USA serving live sentences for possession of child abusive images because its such an unpopular crime rather than because its 'serious'.
What? Bullshit. Give me a link or something.
Well then I coincide that the death penalty does act as a deterrent. Of course I object to it for other reasons still.
Don't forget about the higher crime rate, which you have...
Not all, but that's irrelevant because not ALL terrorists are tortured.
I see. And how do they choose the ones that aren't going to be tortured? They torture people without any evidence, including the type of people I mentioned.
Don't forget about the higher crime rate, which you have...
USA has a much higher murder rate. Being that both countries criminalise different acts it is impossible to say one has a higher crime rate generally than the other.
I see. And how do they choose the ones that aren't going to be tortured? They torture people without any evidence, including the type of people I mentioned.
How can you point the finger at us when Britain has been involved in torture scandals as well? You guys have even had recent controversy over abuse in local prisons! Gitmo obviously hasn't had the best reputation but the detainees there don't nearly have it as bad as you think. Hell, I just read an article the other day on how the prisoners enjoy reading 50 Shades of Grey and Skyping with family and friends. I'm suprised that they even have time for hobbies, considering all the torture they apparently go through.
You don't know of any prisoners at Guantanamo who shouldn't be there, right? You've just heard conspiracy theories like everyone else, I assume.
USA has a much higher murder rate. Being that both countries criminalise different acts it is impossible to say one has a higher crime rate generally than the other.
What does that matter? The law is the law. If you have more people breaking your laws, then what does that say about your country? Either something is wrong with your legal system or you have more people committing criminal acts, despite the fact that they should know what's illegal and what isn't.
I'm going to give you a link in regards to our earlier conversation over what deserves life sentences and what doesn't. First-degree murder should be out of the question, right? But you think sexual offenders shouldn't be sentenced to life. Well, your government disagrees...
By the way, I read your article... and while I think that man should have definitely been punished, life did seem a bit excessive. What can I say? The justice system doesn't always work...
Supporting Evidence:
Life Sentence
(www.theguardian.com)
I'll give you a link (bottom) to the whole report but here are some quotes:
The report
finds that, in fifty-five percent (55%) of the cases, prisoners
were determined not to have committed any hostile
act against the U.S. or its coalition allies.
O.K. was 15 years old when he was captured in July
2002.24 Military officials at Bagram treated him roughly,
despite his young age and his poor physical condition. He
was interrogated repeatedly by military officials, and on
many occasions was brought into the interrogation room on
a stretcher. On one occasion, interrogators grabbed and
pulled him, he fell and cut his left knee. On some occasions,
interrogators brought barking dogs into the interrogation
room while his head was covered with a bag. On other
occasions, interrogators threw cold water on him. They also
tied his hands above the door frame and made him dangle
painfully for hours at a time. While his wounds were still
healing, interrogators made O.K. clean the floors on his
hands and knees. They forced him to carry heavy buckets of
water, which hurt his left shoulder (where he had been shot). When he was able to walk again, interrogators made
him pick up trash, then emptied the trash bag and made
him pick it up again. During the interrogation, he was not
allowed to use the bathroom, and was forced to urinate on
himself.
'merica!
What does that matter? The law is the law. If you have more people breaking your laws, then what does that say about your country? Either something is wrong with your legal system or you have more people committing criminal acts, despite the fact that they should know what's illegal and what isn't.
There are many different ways to measure crime rates. I find it hard to believe that there's definite prove that are citizens commit more crime than yours. But anyway with the variety of crimes it would be very difficult to draw any general conclusion about what it means for our society. It could mean that we observe speed limits less than you.
I'm going to give you a link in regards to our earlier conversation over what deserves life sentences and what doesn't. First-degree murder should be out of the question, right? But you think sexual offenders shouldn't be sentenced to life. Well, your government disagrees...
Link doesn't work. I think some sexual offenders should get life but not someone that just looked at indecent images of children.
Conspiracy theories? Has it been censored in your media or are the media just too patriotic to report about it? People have been illegal (i.e. against international law) detained there. The UN have demanded that its closure:
Your link just sent me to that website's homepage, so I'll just have to go off what you provided below it.
Omar Khadr, the fifteen year old who was detained at Guantanamo, plead guilty to murder and material support of terrorism. He wasn't innocent, however he could be classified as a child soldier... but the thing is, he was born in Canada. A home grown terrorist. He was repatriated and sent back to Canada, where he is currently being held. Terrorism should not be handled lightly. Sure, he was a kid and I'll even agree that they may have taken it a bit too far (assuming that the article is accurate), but should terrorists really be treated like typical prisoners? We have a few of the masterminds behind some very serious terror attacks being held at Guantanamo. How should they be handled?
There are many different ways to measure crime rates. I find it hard to believe that there's definite prove that are citizens commit more crime than yours. But anyway with the variety of crimes it would be very difficult to draw any general conclusion about what it means for our society. It could mean that we observe speed limits less than you.
Speeding and assaults are two very different things. Your country has more assaults, as well as other crimes. We obviously aren't the most peaceful country in the world, but pointing the finger at us and saying we're a bunch of hillbilly bible-thumping criminals is a huge misjudgement, considering your country is not much different from ours.
Link doesn't work. I think some sexual offenders should get life but not someone that just looked at indecent images of children.
Basically, what it said is that sexual offenders in Britain have a two violation limit before they are sentenced to life imprisonment. These are of course, more serious sexual offenses, such as sexual abuse.
You originally pointed out that sexual offenders being sentenced to life, is unnecessary, did you not? Now your feelings on the subject are limited to pedophiles who look at indecent images of children? Well, anyone in their right mind would agree that a crime like that isn't necessarily deserving of a life sentence. A few years and some serious rehabilitation would be the best way of handling it... but like I said, the justice system doesn't always work.
America is very diverse. How do I know that? I live there. Christianity is taught in an unbiased way at my school, but so is the Muslim religion, Judaism, and Hinduism. The only way Christianity is taught in a way in which to persuade you to believe in it is when you go to a Christian school, yet the same is said for Muslim schools in America, and other religions' schools in America. We are taught Evolution in science class, much to the dismay of some strict Christian parents.
Not all of us Americans believe in the death penalty.
Also,people who are dangerous should be locked up. Honestly, you expect us to let them walk around free and hurt people?
Not all of us Americans believe in the death penalty.
But yet it happens.
Also,people who are dangerous should be locked up. Honestly, you expect us to let them walk around free and hurt people?
No. But most countries respect that if an individual hasn't committed a serious crime then you cannot lock them up for life just because society perceives them as dangerous.
