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.
Rating it off of consecutive wins to loss rate, I think it's the U.S.
The U.S. only lost to Vietnam in it's short existence.
Though victoriousness can be rated off of things other than war, take for instance technological advancements, number of allies, or overall wealthy, or specific stats inside the country.
Based off of one or more of those, I'd say China and or Japan. They are leading in technological advancements, China trades and sells a lot of things, Japan probably has more allies.
I agree, but Japan leads in technological advancements and China definitely has the trading lead and America and Britain probably has the most allies but Japan isn't very far away.
America use to be the leader in warfare but Russia is supposedly more powerful then America has ever been.
But America was a great country not as much now though
"Rating it off of consecutive wins to loss rate, I think it's the U.S."
USA has yet to win a single war on it's own. But when it has fought on it's own, it has lost.
"The U.S. only lost to Vietnam in it's short existence."
You lost to a country several times smaller than you, with a much lower quality of technology.
"Though victoriousness can be rated off of things other than war, take for instance technological advancements, number of allies, or overall wealthy, or specific stats inside the country."
All achieved but coming late in both the First and Second world wars.
"Based off of one or more of those, I'd say China and or Japan. They are leading in technological advancements, China trades and sells a lot of things, Japan probably has more allies."
The British Empire has dominated world trade for nearly a century, it's current allies also include the NATO alliance (26 nations), the European Union Alliance (27 nations) and the Commonwealth Alliance (53 nations).
USA has yet to win a single war on it's own. But when it has fought on it's own, it has lost.
So no soldier in any war has ever won a war because they had help?
That's way too many factors to take into account. America has been victorious in all wars except for one, regardless of if they had help or not.
You lost to a country several times smaller than you, with a much lower quality of technology.
I won't get into the specifics of it because I was not there, but all this sounds like is "I hate America" nitpicking. You've never been in a war, you don't know how things could play out.
All achieved but coming late in both the First and Second world wars.
All achieved. That's the point, there's no time limit on being victorious if it ever comes.
The British Empire has dominated world trade for nearly a century, it's current allies also include the NATO alliance (26 nations),
SO is America. Yet, as you stated previously, being apart of an alliance couldn't count for victoriousness, no?
the European Union Alliance (27 nations) and the Commonwealth Alliance (53 nations).
I don't know what these alliances are, but as I said before, there's other categories in which to rate victory. I never understood having pride in your country, but I can assure you, it's not the best, most victorious at everything. Get your head out of the clouds.
"So no soldier in any war has ever won a war because they had help?"
Other countries are able to win wars on their own, USA has yet to prove that it can.
"That's way too many factors to take into account. America has been victorious in all wars except for one, regardless of if they had help or not."
America has a knack of joining a war just when the side they've chosen has started to win, no wonder they appear to be victorious so often.
"I won't get into the specifics of it because I was not there, but all this sounds like is "I hate America" nitpicking."
It is.
"You've never been in a war, you don't know how things could play out."
I wasn't there either, but fortunately people who were there wrote their experiences down, that is called history.
"All achieved. That's the point, there's no time limit on being victorious if it ever comes."
So you're a 'ends justifies the means' sort of person? I frankly find it greatly insulting that the U.S.A profited from exploiting nations like Britain who were actually fighting the world wars.
Anyway, they were all achieve to a greater extent by the British Empire.
"SO is America. Yet, as you stated previously, being apart of an alliance couldn't count for victoriousness, no?"
I never claimed that. I merely stated that if you were incapable of winning the victory on your own then it should count as your victory.
"I don't know what these alliances are, but as I said before, there's other categories in which to rate victory. I never understood having pride in your country, but I can assure you, it's not the best, most victorious at everything."
I was showing you that Britain could easily be considered the one to have the most allies.
" Get your head out of the clouds."
Coming from someone who didn't know what the EU or Commonwealth were.
Other countries are able to win wars on their own, USA has yet to prove that it can.
America has a knack of joining a war just when the side they've chosen has started to win, no wonder they appear to be victorious so often.
That's eye opening, I don't read too much into wars but I have no problem believe that.
It is.(to the nitpicking question)
I'm not your personal venting target. One could say some things about the Queen of whatever, yet I don't feel the need to tear down someone's pride.
I wasn't there either, but fortunately people who were there wrote their experiences down, that is called history.
I'm almost certain the specifics of battle can never be perfectly described. So I repeat, you weren't there you don't know how things could have played out.
So you're a 'ends justifies the means' sort of person?
I am.
I frankly find it greatly insulting that the U.S.A profited from exploiting nations like Britain who were actually fighting the world wars.
Why?
I merely stated that if you were incapable of winning the victory on your own then it should count as your victory.
A group victory is a victory nonetheless.
I was showing you that Britain could easily be considered the one to have the most allies.
That would also include anyone else in those alliances. Meaning Britain is not the sole leader in most allies.
Coming from someone who didn't know what the EU or Commonwealth were.
I'm not too into politics, sue me. Your head is in the clouds, in your country pride. You are so sure your country reigns supreme that you seek to belittle others. You were only born there, you could have just as easily been born elsewhere. Maybe even cruddy America that you find so many faults with.
"I'm not your personal venting target. One could say some things about the Queen of whatever, yet I don't feel the need to tear down someone's pride."
I feel the need to take down other nationalists, anyway if you do not know so much about history or geopolitics then how can you claim that the USA is the most victorious country in the world if you are blinded by your own patriotism.
"I'm almost certain the specifics of battle can never be perfectly described. So I repeat, you weren't there you don't know how things could have played out."
You cannot dispute historical evidence with the claim that "you weren't there".
"Why?"
Because it is highly immoral.
"A group victory is a victory nonetheless."
You fail to highlight the fact that it is a group victory, using the same logic you could credit Brazil with the victory of WWII.
"That would also include anyone else in those alliances. Meaning Britain is not the sole leader in most allies."
Only Great Britain is a member of all 3 alliance, and you are correct in saying that Britain is not the leader of any of these alliance, that is because they are alliances and not empires.
"I'm not too into politics, sue me. Your head is in the clouds, in your country pride. You are so sure your country reigns supreme that you seek to belittle others. You were only born there, you could have just as easily been born elsewhere. Maybe even cruddy America that you find so many faults with."
Yes I'm a patriot, but that doesn't mean that everything I've said is incorrect. I've put very little of my own opinion in these arguments.
anyway if you do not know so much about history or geopolitics then how can you claim that the USA
I know enough to say that the U.S. has only loss one war. Which is true, with or without help.
You cannot dispute historical evidence with the claim that "you weren't there".
In the battle with vietnam, it's obvious the U.S. lost, what you don't know is why. You said it's weak that they lost to a country that small, when you don't know the specifics of battle, any number of factors could have played a role.
You fail to highlight the fact that it is a group victory, using the same logic you could credit Brazil with the victory of WWII.
Was Brazil there? if so then sure credit Brazil as well, I never highlighted that anyone country was the best, I only listed off some and the reasons why.
you are correct in saying that Britain is not the leader of any of these alliance,
I said leader in allies. In having the most allies.
I was told a story where a city gave up, and the payment that the Mongols requested was 1000 pigeons. They then lit the pigeons on fire and released them. The pigeons by nature flew home and burned the city down. The Mongols walked in and took whatever was left.
The amount of victories of the nation is not measured by the number of success in war. It is in the success of keeping peace. And by that measure, I believe that Iceland enjoys the most of it.
Turks they had different tribes like Ottomans, Seljuks, Mameluks,Balgars, Avars, Tartars; Cumans or Pechenegs and all that tribes have built great empires
i don't know exactly which country has been the most Victorious, because as i knew in the past times there were mostly the State.... So in the past the most powerful and the same time Victorious was Persians.... The most famous ever in human history!
I'll go for the British Empire, due to it's long existence and profound military dominance across the globe. There was a period of several decades where it remained unchallenged as it's armed forces were unparalleled in magnitude and technological advancement.
BTW, anyone who puts down USA is clearly looking for a bad time...
I'm from America but we aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and Britain was a great Empire until they started being super crazy with power and America beat 'em, but when the 21st century came we became stupid
Only the Americans seem to think they won. Most historians would say it was a stalemate, others say a British win.
This is at a time when most of the British military power was fighting the french.
'status quo ante bellum' was how the war ended, which means the state existing before the war. America declared war, how could they have won if the treaty of Ghent says this?
This war is completely ignored over here in Britain, no one really cares about it because we were fighting a far more important war against france and we also kept all of our land. I only heard of the war because of an American commenting on a youtube video claiming victory aha.
The revolutionary war could not have been won by the Americans without the assistance of the French and Spanish Empires. Therefore the military victory should be allocated to them.
Americans were way more strategic, even ways France had their own problems, Spain wanted to backstab us, and when we won we gave them slaves and money same to French.
The French got into there Revolutionary war and Americans did not help because America was a developing country we had to take care of some bigger problems.
France gave you money, weapons, ammunition and uniforms. Without the French contribution the American rebel army would have been made up of farmers with spades.
" Spain wanted to backstab us,"
And?
"The French got into there Revolutionary war and Americans did not help because America was a developing country we had to take care of some bigger problems."
A source would be helpful, and some explanation on why this made them more strategic could also help with your argument, as for now I'm finding very little to dispute.
I have researched it and can find little information to support your claims. All you've done is made some far-fetched statements and if that's the most you can tell me then I'm fairly concerned for your historical knowledge.
