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.
just FYI i wasnt actually trying to argue that this makes us better or anything and if you asked enough of the british public then you would eventually come out with the same results.
i just thought the video was funny, seriously man you have to relax.
and yes it is obvious that they cut it only to the funny ones, thats the point.
just FYI i wasnt actually trying to argue that this makes us better or anything and if you asked enough of the british public then you would eventually come out with the same results.
Whether you meant to or not, this is the perception that others will have.
I would bet you any amount of money that they skipped over quite a few interviews of people who knew basic knowledge, simply keeping the idiots on to further ask them questions that would only embarrass the American people more.
The same could be done with England; doing a street interview and asking relatively the same questions to roughly 100 people and finding 7 people who held no basic knowledge of events, currencies, coalitions, and even countries both current and past.
I doubt you would find anyone in our country who didn't know what currency you use, but you could get some really thick people here. Most dumbest kid I know was shown a map of Europe and didn't know where the UK was.
I'm from America, but it is true that England is better. England colonized more than 25% of the world, and was the only country that truly fought on its own in World War 2. England made many new inventions and helped make the world safer.
I'm from America, but it is true that England is better. England colonized more than 25% of the world, and was the only country that truly fought on its own in World War 2. England made many new inventions and helped make the world safer.
First, colonizing countries in the past in not a legitimate argument because the debate is called, " Which country is better - England or U.S.A?" notice the is. Also, England would have been toast if it were not for the supplies from lend lease and eventually troops that America provided.
Look, the U.S.A. is not a place you would want to spend your whole life. Many of America's most popuated cities have EXTREMELY high crime rates, at one time they had the highest obesity rate, they are at war CONSTANTLY, they usually elect the worst possible presidents, they have extremely high pollution rates (there are about 2 cars for every person), they have high taxes, and I was born in England!
England all the way... though american's come up with (reasnobly) good films and i'm loving the sound of new york, England is immense. and that's not just because it's sunny, like 24/7. not.
It's a broad question, and 'better' is a subjective term which can be defined in many ways.
However, the USA is the cause of a lot a death and conflict in the world today, they butcher the English language, and most of the population are blind patriots, for whom any questioning of the greatness of their own country is blasphemy. That is why every in the world hates you.
And the UK is behind us every step of the way....no?
Fair point, but only because of the stronghold that the USA has got on world politics.
And what is the distinction between 'butchering a language' and creating a new dialect?
The distinction is that the 'dialect' is now more widespread than the original language, not just in the USA but also in the various countries around the world that now learn American English.
Unfortunately I don't know enough Englishmen to make any kind of comparison. The United States does not have a monopoly on Nationalism.
Fortunately I do, I also lived a year in the States, and about a third of the people in my accommodation are American. I can tell you that blind patriotism is far more prevalent in the USA that in England. However, since I cannot provide any evidence for this other than my own experience; you, of course, maintain the right not to believe me on this point.
P.S Could you please tell me how to make text bold.
Fair point, but only because of the stronghold (stranglehold?) that the USA has got on world politics.
nevertheless.
The distinction is that the 'dialect' is now more widespread than the original language, not just in the USA but also in the various countries around the world that now learn American English.
Which furthers my point.
Fortunately I do, I also lived a year in the States, and about a third of the people in my accommodation are American. I can tell you that blind patriotism is far more prevalent in the USA that in England. However, since I cannot provide any evidence for this other than my own experience; you, of course, maintain the right not to believe me on this point.
I don't think living a single year in the US qualifies one to judge all Americans. Where exactly did you live, and what was the reason for living there?
You can make text bold by putting two asterisks (Ctrl+8) before and after the text you want to bold.
I don't think living a single year in the US qualifies one to judge all Americans. Where exactly did you live, and what was the reason for living there?
I'm more qualified to make a judgement of both parties than you are.
Not that's it's relevant, but I travelled all over the country, following
roughly in the footsteps of Jack Kerouc, meaning I spent time in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver and Los Angeles as well as short spells in various other towns and cities.
"And the UK is behind us every step of the way....no?"
That's called helping an ally, unlike what you did in the world wars.
You get yourselves into wars we come help you out then you run off leaving us with all the trouble.
"And what is the distinction between 'butchering a language' and creating a new dialect?"
You haven't made any new words you have just shortened them to primitive sounds called "slang" and then forced them onto the rest of the world through "americanism"
"Unfortunately I don't know enough Englishmen to make any kind of comparison. The United States does not have a monopoly on Nationalism."
I have met many "blind patriotic" americans on the internet who have to go as far back as the U.S revolution to find a war that they won on their own.
That's called helping an ally, unlike what you did in the world wars.
Yes because, The billions of dollars in war materials, food, equipment, and funding you got from us (before we even entered the war) and the 4 million soldiers we sent to help fight your war...didn't help at all.
Don't be so arrogant.
You get yourselves into wars we come help you out then you run off leaving us with all the trouble.
When has this ever happened?
You haven't made any new words
BS does not even begin to describe this statement. Americans have literally invented hundreds if not thousands of words. We use different words to describe the same things, and we use different spellings, which are not always shorter. This is called a dialect.
English is an Amalgamation of German, French, and Latin words and the English you speak today is a corruption of middle English. It is composed of many corruptions of words originating from other languages.
Example: England from Angle-land.
Slang is made of short-lived words used by distinct groups of people. The very fact that all Americans have used these words for over a hundred years means it isn't slang.
I have met many "blind patriotic" americans on the internet who have to go as far back as the U.S revolution to find a war that they won on their own.
The internet is not representative of all people. If I were to make conclusions based on my experiences on the internet then Ron Paul should have won the last presidential election and that atheists and agnostics are now the majority.
And the last war that the United States won without any aid, was the Spanish American war, as far as memory serves me. Not that this means anything, wars are very expensive and bloody, having allies can reduce these burdens, from a military standpoint it makes absolutely no sense to go into a fight alone, unless you have to.
By the same right, I have met very few Brits on the internet that did not think their country the greatest.
"Yes because, The billions of dollars in war materials, food, equipment, and funding you got from us (before we even entered the war) and the 4 million soldiers we sent to help fight your war...didn't help at all.
Don't be so arrogant."
In today's world if a country owes you money you have power over them, you cant honestly say you people did it without the intention of making a profit, also you only sold us food because your farmers produced too much, same goes for all your other mass-produced goods.
"When has this ever happened?"
Iraq, the war we(Britain) are fighting now.
"BS does not even begin to describe this statement. Americans have literally invented hundreds if not thousands of words. We use different words to describe the same things, and we use different spellings, which are not always shorter. This is called a dialect.
English is an Amalgamation of German, French, and Latin words and the English you speak today is a corruption of middle English. It is composed of many corruptions of words originating from other languages.
Example: England from Angle-land."
I know how my country's language was formed .
"Slang is made of short-lived words used by distinct groups of people. The very fact that all Americans have used these words for over a hundred years means it isn't slang."
So you copied our language and to individualise yourselves chose to only use the worst parts, you then proceed to force this language onto us, via the media. in other words butchering our language.
The last point you made I have researched it and realised you're correct, my mistake.
In today's world if a country owes you money you have power over them, you cant honestly say you people did it without the intention of making a profit,
Of course we made a profit from it, but that doesn't negate the fact that it helped your country when it desperately needed it. So don't go claiming we didn't help you, when we obviously did.
also you only sold us food because your farmers produced too much, same goes for all your other mass-produced goods.
And guess what? There are about 250 to 350 other counties we could have sold it to.
Iraq, the war we(Britain) are fighting now.
I don't know if you've been watching the news (or maybe that is the problem) but we are still in Iraq. We never left. We have about 48,000 American troops in Iraq at this moment. Guess how many British troops are in Iraq? Go ahead guess! There are as of spring 2010, 150 british troops in Iraq.
Let me repeat that: 150 british troops in Iraq. That's 150 British troops, to our 48,000 troops. Your statement was utterly absurd to the greatest degree.
"Of course we made a profit from it, but that doesn't negate the fact that it helped your country when it desperately needed it. So don't go claiming we didn't help you, when we obviously did."
you sold us food thats not really helping.
"And guess what? There are about 250 to 350 other counties we could have sold it to."
Yet after the war you realised no-one would buy your food and you went into a depression.
"Rationing was introduced into Britain at the tale end of World War One - in February 1918. Rationing was introduced in response to an effective U-boat campaign and during World War One, the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) was used to ensure that food shortages never occurred.
One of the primary aims of DORA, when it was first introduced, was to prevent food shortages. At the start of the war, food shortages were self-imposed as the German U-boat campaign had yet to start. However, at the start of the war people went around panic buying food and hoarding it at home. Some shops sold out of food in days in August 1914. However, after the initial panic buying, people settled down into a routine and food was not a problem until the end of 1916.
Britain continued to import food during the war. The main exporters to Britain were America and Canada. This meant that merchant ships had to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Up to 1916, these merchant ships could travel in relative safety. However, in 1917, the Germans introduced unrestricted submarine warfare and merchant ships were sunk with great frequency. This had a drastic impact on Britain's food supply and with great losses in the Atlantic, food had to be rationed so that no-one starved in Britain. In April 1916, Britain only had six weeks of wheat left and bread was a staple part of most diets. 1916 was a bleak year for families - with the news from the Battle of the Somme and with food in short supply, suddenly the war was brought home to most families. Food prices rose and by October 1916, coal was in such short supply that it was rationed by the number of rooms a family had in its house.
The restrictions introduced by DORA failed and the government then tried to introduce a voluntary code of rationing whereby people limited themselves to what they should eat. The standard was set by the Royal Family. However, this did not work. Those who worked in the munitions factories did not have enough food while anyone with money could get more than enough food on the black market. Any area that could grow food was converted to do so - gardens were turned into allotments and chickens etc. were kept in back gardens.
The powers introduced by DORA empowered the government to take over land when it felt that it was necessary to do so. In 1917, the government took over 2.5 million acres of land for farming. By the end of the war, Britain had an extra three million acres of farming land. Those who would have usually worked the land - young men - had been called up, so the work was done by the Women's Land Army. Conscientious objectors also worked on the land. "
Yet after the war you realised no-one would buy your food and you went into a depression.
I assume you are talking about the end of WWI, after which The Dust Bowl in the early 1930's destroyed 97 million acres of farmland. The stock market crash of 1929 is usually credited as the cause of the Great Depression but the Dust Bowl certainly didn't help.
"Britain continued to import food during the war. The main exporters to Britain were America and Canada"
We did all the hard work though, when german u-boats started we had to defend the imports with our own navy some help from you would have been nice.
All you've really done is copy+pasted something from the website which supports my side of the debate-Britain is clearly better as we can cope with war, where as you can't.
"I assume you are talking about the end of WWI, after which The Dust Bowl in the early 1930's destroyed 97 million acres of farmland. The stock market crash of 1929 is usually credited as the cause of the Great Depression but the Dust Bowl certainly didn't help."
I know of all these other factors but you can't deny that if you had been able to sell your food to us your chances ofdepression would have shrunk enormously.
"History, is not your strong point."
No, it isn't but it doesn't mean that you know more than I do.
Wait hold on...why did you edit out my article? You made the claim that the food didn't help at all, and yet you feel the need to ignore the fact that extensive rationing and food shortages occurred in your country. Did you not say that you admit when you are not wrong? Clearly the massive amounts of food imported into your country was much needed, or you navy wouldn't have had a need to defend our trade ships nor would Germany have felt the need to cut off your food supply.
You are being very disingenuous here.
I know of all these other factors but you can't deny that if you had been able to sell your food to us your chances of depression would have shrunk enormously.
Apparently you don't know. You didn't even know there was a huge drought in the western United States during this time, nor would I expect you to, your educational system probably doesn't even teach about the Dust Bowl expect perhaps on a university level. You didn't even know about the exploitation of India, you thought that your country improved the conditions in India, when in truth your country we siphoning wealth from India and using their population as an expansion of your military force.
Britain is clearly better
An example of blind nationalism.
No, it isn't but it doesn't mean that you know more than I do
Actually, at the time the French really hated us, the British, and joined forces with the Americans. King George III would not surrender such a large land mass to an army of 200. At the time the French ranked #1 biggest army with England right behind them. So the Americans didn't win that war buy themselves.
A lot of people hate the USA because we have had some questionable leaders in the past and maybe done a few stupid things. Above all though, I think people are just jealous. The totally ignore what good we have done for the world. The entire ocean would be like the coast of Somalia if the American Navy was not protecting everyone. We've probably invented many everyday things that you take for granted. We also beat the Nazis and Japanese and saved your snobby British butts. Then we kept the peace unlike what you did after WWI. Oh, and did I mention how many wars we have stopped?
In theory we still own the ocean as we won it in the Battle of Trafalger
Only an idiot would argue that one nation literally owns the entire ocean.
we actually invented useful things
Please do not try to argue that the United States has not invented useful things.
We could have easily won the war without you
Don't be pretentious. Your military was being destroyed by the Germans.
You only joined when we were winning anyway.
What do you consider winning? When the United States entered the war, the British were stuck on their island slowly building up for an offensive. They hadn't even launched a successful offensive against the Axis at that point.
Some allies they are, didn't even help us properly at WW2.
"Only an idiot would argue that one nation literally owns the entire ocean."
Only an idiot would argue against someone with only an insult.
"Please do not try to argue that the United States has not invented useful things."
Wait a sec, your asking me to argue against myself?(debates are supposed to be for 2 people)
"Don't be pretentious. Your military was being destroyed by the Germans."
Do you learn history? our military wasn't destroyed by Germans, if your going to make a staement like that at least have sources to back it up.
"What do you consider winning? When the United States entered the war, the British were stuck on their island slowly building up for an offensive. They hadn't even launched a successful offensive against the Axis at that point.
"
What so if the USA are bombarded by bombs night after night and then finally defeats the enemy in an epic battle, it can instantly recover and then launch attacks? also while we were apparently "slowly building up offensives" we were also infiltrating German High Command and tricking them with our secret service. maybe our country still hasn't told you the amount of undercover operations we administerd but here's one as an example:
Some allies they are, didn't even help us properly at WW2.
We didn't help you "properly"? I would get angry at that statement but I have come to learn that I shouldn't blame retards for the stupid things they say. By the way, the United States lost more soldiers in World War II than the United Kingdom.
Only an idiot would argue against someone with only an insult.
What other way could I possibly argue against it? If someone tells you that one country literally owns every ocean on the planet, what would you do? Its completely idiotic to even suggest something like that.
your asking me to argue against myself?
What? How did you get that out of what I said? You made some implication that the United States has not invented anything useful and I told you not to argue that because, along with your other arguments, its completely ridiculous.
our military wasn't destroyed by Germans, if your going to make a staement like that at least have sources to back it up.
You really need to read my statements more carefully. I never said that the military of the United Kingdom was destroyed by the Germans. I said that it was being destroyed. There is a pretty big difference there.
then finally defeats the enemy in an epic battle
I guess your talking about the Battle of Britain? If so, then you must know that that was an offensive for the Germans and the British were simply defending themselves. I don't mean to belittle the strength of the United Kingdom's forces, but its much easier to win a battle when your not the one trying to invade a heavily fortified island filled with troops. No intelligent person would suggest that the Battle of Britain was the point at which England started to win the war.
we were also infiltrating German High Command and tricking them with our secret service
Most if not all of the missions meant to deceive the Axis powers were carried out after the US entered the war.
"We didn't help you "properly"? I would get angry at that statement but I have come to learn that I shouldn't blame retards for the stupid things they say."
There was a point where Britain was repeatedly being bombard by German bombers, France had been conquered and Russia preoccupied.And what does your country do? nothing.
"By the way, the United States lost more soldiers in World War II than the United Kingdom."
Also, according to the graph on the website, the difference between the deaths of our two countrys is hardly seeable.
"What other way could I possibly argue against it? If someone tells you that one country literally owns every ocean on the planet, what would you do? Its completely idiotic to even suggest something like that."
Yet you haven't found any evidence that disagrees with the evidence I have placed.
"You really need to read my statements more carefully. I never said that the military of the United Kingdom was destroyed by the Germans. I said that it was being destroyed. There is a pretty big difference there."
This is one small country against an alliance that has conquered Europe and you gave us no help, yet you still expect our army to have survived untouched?
"I guess your talking about the Battle of Britain? If so, then you must know that that was an offensive for the Germans and the British were simply defending themselves. I don't mean to belittle the strength of the United Kingdom's forces,"
It was a major turning point of the Second World War
"but its much easier to win a battle when your not the one trying to invade a heavily fortified island filled with troops."
Exactly what I've been saying to you americans who keep bringing up the U.S revolution.
"No intelligent person would suggest that the Battle of Britain was the point at which England started to win the war."
Only a complete idiot would make a statement like that without any sources to back it up.
Don't blame a country for failing to quickly jumping into a foreign conflict that would have undisputedly lead to a loss of life of it's own citizens. Shall I blame your country for failing to help the United States after Pearl Harbor?
We had a higher pecentage than you
Human life is too valuable to consider loss in terms of percentage. When disasters occur, people don't mention what percentage of a certain country died, they say how many people died.
Yet you haven't found any evidence that disagrees with the evidence I have placed.
Really? Are you really dumb enough to try to prove this to someone? You are ridiculously stupid....
yet you still expect our army to have survived untouched
I didn't expect anything. I was simply saying that your country's military was being destroyed, which is the truth.
It was a major turning point of the Second World War
Not because the British won, but because the Germans gained their first significant loss.
Exactly what I've been saying to you americans who keep bringing up the U.S revolution.
That's a separate issue.
Only a complete idiot would make a statement like that without any sources to back it up.
LOL. Yeah, but an even dumber person oppose the point and provide sources that lack to say the contrary. The Battle of Britain may have been a turning point in the war, but it was most certainly not the point at which Britain started to win. That took place after Britain gained momentum. You misread what I typed, again.
Where is your evidence of such claims?
The US joined on December 8th of 1941, look at the dates of these missions:
You mean like the rotary steam engine, the train, calculus (fuck you Leibniz), the internet, the computer, the police, the electric motor, the microphone, the lawn mower, the machine gun, the tank, the jet engine, the submarine, the hovercraft, the incandescent light bulb, the electrical generator, the fire extinguisher, the digital audio player, hydraulics, the adjustable spanner, the Bessemer process... ? I could go on.
we have the highest GDP in the world
The EU has the highest GDP in the world.
Nor were your subways
A train versus two of the largest and most important buildings in the United States?
You mean like the rotary steam engine, the train, calculus (fuck you Leibniz), the internet, the computer, the police, the electric motor, the microphone, the lawn mower, the machine gun, the tank, the jet engine, the submarine, the hovercraft, the incandescent light bulb, the electrical generator, the fire extinguisher, the digital audio player, hydraulics, the adjustable spanner, the Bessemer process... ? I could go on.
Atomic bomb, The Airplane, Circular saw, Vulcanized rubber, Polio vaccine, Assembly line, Particle Accelerator, Lasers, Pacemakers, Morse code, Radar, Personal Computers, Nuclear submarine, Bifocals, Sunglasses, Common Lightswitch, Motorcycles, Breakfast cereal, Hearing-aid, Defibrillator, E-mail, Rolled Toilet paper, Printing press, Anesthesia, Zipper, Supermarket, Chemotherapy, Nylon, Fiberglass, Solar cell, Cell phones, Cash register, Napalm, Fast food, barbed-wire, Gas masks, jeans, Radiocarbon dating, Micro-processors, Coca-Cola, traffic lights, MRI machine, Compact Disc, Lunar module, artificial hearts, HPV vaccine, and Bone Marrow transplants.
--
Also I'm fairly certain the Machine gun, was invented in the United States, both the hand cranked Gatling gun and the automatic maxim Gun.
The Manhattan Project was an international effort comprising 30 research sites across the U.S, Canada and Britain. The entire affair would have been impossible without Dalton's atomic theory (English) and the discovery of the Neutron by James Chadwick.
The Airplane
The first fixed-wing aircraft was French and aerodynamics was invented by Sir George Cayley, who was English.
Radar
The first functioning RADAR system was created by an American named Robert Page, but the theory, the first demonstration of radio waves, and the first employment of radar were European.
Assembly line
Impossible without the manufactory, which was an English invention.
Personal Computers
Well, we invented the computer, so we'll call that one a joint effort.
E-mail
We invented the World Wide Web.
Rolled Toilet paper
We have the flushing toilet.
Printing press
The press was German; a man by the name of Johannes Gutenberg.
"In 1939 U.S. scientists urged Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt to establish a program to study the potential military use of fission, and $6,000 was appropriated. By 1942 the project was code-named Manhattan, after the site of Columbia University, where much of the early research was done. Research also was carried out at the University of California and the University of Chicago. In 1943 a laboratory to construct the bomb was established at Los Alamos, N.M."
It was funded by US tax dollars. Research, construction, and testing all occurred in the United states. That some foreign scientists aided the project does not make it an international effort.
The first fixed-wing aircraft was French and aerodynamics was invented by Sir George Cayley, who was English.
And yet the first successful aircraft ever built was built by the Wright brothers in North Carolina. This is undeniable.
The first functioning RADAR system was created by an American named Robert Page, but the theory
Except we aren't talking about theories, we are talking about inventions. And this invention came from the United states.
Impossible without the manufactory, which was an English invention.
Which in no way makes it NOT an American invention. I could just as easily use the same tactic to undermine most of your English inventions.
Well, we invented the computer, so we'll call that one a joint effort.
You could call it that, but you'd be wrong. Personal Computers, were developed by an American, to put the power of computers into anybody's home.
We invented the World Wide Web.
And we invented the Internet....and yes there is a difference.
We have the flushing toilet
Good luck using it without TP.
The press was German; a man by the name of Johannes Gutenberg.
Excuse me, I meant to say the Rotary Printing Press, which was invented by Richard m. Hoe, an American.
All of which are entirely useless or non-functional without the electrical generator, which was ours
Which would have been useless without the discovery of electricity. See, two can play at that game, yes?
Nearly every invention is based on some previous invention, innovation, or scientific discovery. I could break any invention down to it's fundamental parts, and attribute those discoveries to other nations, but this does nothing to dispute the fact that these were in fact American discoveries, things we use everyday.
The puckle gun outdates both.
The Puckle gun was nothing more than an oversized revolver and what a glorious failure that was!
I'm comparing them to one nation composed of 51 states, most of which are larger than any European country
By what novel historical insight you contrive to label this truth nonsense, I cannot conceive.
That some foreign scientists aided the project does not make it an international effort.
The means by which a nation devises new technologies is intelligence coupled with science. To state that the origin of that intelligence and its education are impartial to the intellectual ownership of an invention is ridiculous.
And yet the first successful aircraft ever built was built by the Wright brothers in North Carolina.
From what I understand, the French aircraft flew successfully. The means may have been a horse tied to the vehicle, but it was flight nonetheless.
Except we aren't talking about theories, we are talking about inventions.
To invent the functional concept of RADAR is to invent RADAR. Building one is entirely separate.
Which in no way makes it NOT an American invention.
The means of running a factory efficiently is not a tangible invention. You have taken RADAR based on the first construction of a RADAR device, yet now you abandon that principle?
And we invented the Internet....and yes there is a difference.
I am aware of the difference. The email would be useless to 99% of the world's population without a public internet.
Good luck using it without TP.
That wasn't really an issue for the billions of people to have lived before 1857. Besides, we made moist toilet paper, which is far more hygienic and... refreshing.
Nearly every invention is based on some previous invention, innovation, or scientific discovery. I could break any invention down to it's fundamental parts, and attribute those discoveries to other nations
Rendering this entire childish pissing contest obsolete.
The Puckle gun was nothing more than an oversized revolver and what a glorious failure that was!
Irrelevant.
Maybe so, but the EU is not a nation.
A nation is merely a group of people bound together by a common trait; such as coming form Europe. It is not a state or a country, but it equates to the U.S federation in terms of the resources available to it.
The countries of North America have a higher combined GDP than that of England, but does it really make sense to compare a group of economies to a single economy? Of course, there are more connections between the EU member countries than that of the members of the NAFTA but the fact remains: you are combining a group of countries to gain the ability to surpass one. The only significance that I can see in comparing the economy of the EU to the economy of the US is that it takes most of the EU member countries to equal the single American economy.
A train versus two of the largest and most important buildings in the United States?
Please do not pretend as if the same relatively proportional event could not have occurred in England. The absence of an attack does not render the possibility of a past attack impossible or even improbable. If England was as great a target as the United States, its doubtful to believe that England would not have been attacked.
The countries of North America have a higher combined GDP than that of England, but does it really make sense to compare a group of economies to a single economy?
That is irrelevant. I was refuting the notion that the U.S has the highest GDP, which it does not.
I was refuting the notion that the U.S has the highest GDP, which it does not.
In a separate post on the same topic you said that "a nation is merely a group of people bound together by a common trait". A question that I have to ask is: what is the common trait between an international trading bloc with a population of 500 million and a country divided into states that has a population of 300 million. If the European Union "equates to the U.S federation in terms of the resources available to it", then how is there a difference of 200 million in relation to the number of possible consumers in each country?
what is the common trait between an international trading bloc with a population of 500 million and a country divided into states that has a population of 300 million.
One hardly needs to be supplied, as it was never inferred that they were the same nation.
If the European Union "equates to the U.S federation in terms of the resources available to it", then how is there a difference of 200 million in relation to the number of possible consumers in each country?
One hardly needs to be supplied, as it was never inferred that they were the same nation.
How is that a common trait?
Resources are quite the opposite to consumers.
A higher total population means more human capital for labor. The more human capital generates money and, along with the higher population, creates consumers who increase the GDP.
i can picture it now, (in between big macs)"cummon mouse move!, ah screw it ill just click england. omnomnom." (continues eating)
So is this you proving how England is better?
lol fest
In saying that I now realize you are either a preteen, or are suffering from being in the mental state of one.
on a serious note, the uk kicks ass.
How so? Fish n' chips have gotten to you my friend, go have yourself a scone and mock the biggest power in the world. However do these two actions separately, as I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself trying to multi-task.
I think he lacks the capability of making a serious post, honestly after seeing most of his posts on other debates I have come to the conclusion that he does not have the mental capacity to make an argument that has less than five grammatical errors.
Did you have an argument for what I posted? Otherwise the notification for a dispute was rather worthless.
One who jokes all the time is within himself a fool, defending a fool for no other reason than to point out that the person is a fool seems a tad bit worthless.
As for grammatical errors, whilst being undesirable, they do not render an argument invalid.
Did I say grammatical errors make an argument invalid? I was merely building a case for which I made what seemed, in your eyes, to be an overly aggressive dispute of his initial post.
my point was
What is your point in disputing me? This debate is on whether or not England is better than the United States and vice-versa, you are pulling away from the debate at hand to defend a fool on whether or not I was harsh on my response to his post. In which case you trying to tell me this was off topic within itself.
So once again, do you have a point in disputing me?
Ok you really need to get a life outside of this website; you clearly take life far too seriously.
First of all i do not joke all of the time, I try to enjoy life and while that may come across to many of you as me spending my life larking about, i can assure you that is not the case.
Now while you may argue that his argument for the grammatical errors is over aggressive, he has a valid point and in your own words "do you have a point in disputing it."
Finally how dare you call me a fool, this has no point in an argument and you in yourself have no point in which to dispute the argument.
I do not expect a reply from this and in future i hope that you will learn to try to use valid arguments, also i hope that in future you do learn to distinguish when a person is making a joke.
Ok you really need to get a life outside of this website
I spend roughly 10 minutes a day on this website at the maximum, just post a few of my thoughts and get on with my day.
you clearly take life far too seriously.
Oh I have a sense of humor, it just appeals to people who have gotten past elementary school.
First of all i do not joke all of the time
All of the posts I have seen you make are foolish within themselves.
Now while you may argue that his argument for the grammatical errors is over aggressive
I was disputing him for calling me over aggressive, and was saying you appear to be a fool ;)
he has a valid point and in your own words "do you have a point in disputing it."
I disputed your argument due to the way it was set up. Your point was to make fun of Americans whom you stereotypically put us as obese and unable to even click the correct side. Your joke was distasteful and overly child like, it was also the 4th or 5th argument I had seen you make that was overly childlike in nature, and had quite frankly gotten annoyed at seeing them.
Finally how dare you call me a fool,
Act as a fool be called a fool, being a bit antithetic there Jeremy.
this has no point in an argument and you in yourself have no point in which to dispute the argument.
My point in disputing your argument was that it was distasteful in my opinion, and factually extremely childlike.
I do not expect a reply from this and in future i hope that you will learn to try to use valid arguments
Hahaha.
also i hope that in future you do learn to distinguish when a person is making a joke.
Oh I could tell you were making a joke, refer to my above comments.
all you have done there is work in the word fool as many times as posible (maybe if the americans had a better education system, you would have a broader vocabulary) and made no points what so ever with regards to the arguement.
now do you have a point you wish to convey about the given topic, or are you just going to continue wasting my time
Maybe if British people had a better education system you wouldn't misspell an average of one word per sentence, my vocabulary ( judging by what I have read you type ) is far broader than yours.
and made no points what so ever with regards to the arguement.
I didn't pull us off subject mate, you might want to re read previous posts before pointing your finger rashly as my original dispute did nothing but make a point towards your argument.
now do you have a point you wish to convey about the given topic, or are you just going to continue wasting my time
If I am wasting your time I suggest you don't reply, as me replying to your perforated arguments gives me nothing but easy points.
England I have lived in england my entire life the best country since 1945 when either Hitler shot himself and then his crew let england defeat them in the war england should of beat them any way. ENGLAND MUST WIN MY VOTE!!!!!
I am always happy when someone sets Britain and U.S.A against each other on a debate, as we are "apparently" great allies.
The British Empire has been the biggest empire in all history we could have easily managed it and led the world into the next century. But unfortunately we got dragged into the world wars in which our armed forces were weaken considerably and our colonies followed the example of the U.S and revolted, so we just gave it up. At the moment I believe that we are a form of "retired" country who are waiting to step back in, but we have left the biggest mark on the world.
The United States after revolting were a decent nation, but moving onto the next millennium they have got worse and worse, they made a huge, fat, profit on the 1st world war selling things to of Europe, then failed to help us(their apparent "allies") when we were at out worst during WWII, then after we start to win they join us.(I don't know about the rest of you but I think that the U.S only joined the war to show of their weapons to Russia, pearl harbour is just an excuse) even when Japan started to surrender the U.S nuke their towns , not army bases or military airports, but towns.They have started things that have failed(prohibition, league of nations etc.) and now they have thrown away traditions and the valued ways of their forefathers for modern day junk, they then proceed to force this modern day rubbish on the rest of the world. I have seen many "americanized" places in England which I am disgusted by.
The British Empire has been the biggest empire in all history we could have easily managed it and led the world into the next century. But unfortunately we got dragged into the world wars in which our armed forces were weaken considerably
Your own fault. You know the history of empires. The military of Empires often become over-strained. Put you interest on too many fronts and your resources become spread too thin. If not for the rebellion of your colonies, your empire could have suffered the same fate of many past empires.
our colonies followed the example of the U.S and revolted
Yes, because of English tyranny.
failed to help us(their apparent "allies") when we were at out worst during WWII, then after we start to win they join us.
We didn't have a dog in that fight. We declared war on japan and Germany declared war on us, if not for the fact that German U-boats were killing American civilians we would not have had anything to do with Germany. Why do you think we were obligated to help you and yet where were the Englishmen when we were fighting the Japanese?
Hypocrisy!
pearl harbour is just an excuse
Yes, the death of 2,300 of our service-members, 1,100 wounded, the destruction of 180 aircraft, and the sinking of several warships was just an "excuse"...
You have the audacity to say this.
They have started things that have failed
And your country hasn't? What was that you said about blind patriotism again? Pot meet kettle.
now they have thrown away traditions and the valued ways of their forefathers
"Your own fault. You know the history of empires. The military of Empires often become over-strained. Put you interest on too many fronts and your resources become spread too thin. If not for the rebellion of your colonies, your empire could have suffered the same fate of many past empires."
We were culturally and industrially advancing the colonies of our empire(e.g railways all over India) I doubt they would want to rebel on people who are helping them. Also when i say dragged i literally mean that, we were pulled into the war because we were allies with France and Russia and Belgium, and because of the League of Nations which your country set up.
"Yes, because of English tyranny."
We were a democracy, I don't see where tyranny appeared.
"We didn't have a dog in that fight. We declared war on japan and Germany declared war on us, if not for the fact that German U-boats were killing American civilians we would not have had anything to do with Germany. Why do you think we were obligated to help you and yet where were the Englishmen when we were fighting the Japanese?
Hypocrisy!"
We didn't fight the Japanese because they were are allies in WWI, so in other words, you dont help us and then attack our allies.
"Yes, the death of 2,300 of our service-members, 1,100 wounded, the destruction of 180 aircraft, and the sinking of several warships was just an "excuse"...
You have the audacity to say this."
and over 300,000 innocent japanese people died from your nukes, even though they were planning to surrender.
"And your country hasn't? What was that you said about blind patriotism again? Pot meet kettle."
I would like you to name some, here are a few of your country's failures:
League of Nations
Vietnam war
Top secret government cables that was published
The very recent oil spill, I cannot beleive you have the audacity to blame my country for something your american workers cocked up.
etc.
"Like monarchy."
I was meaning the basic morals you learn in childhood which your city culture has thrown away, you don't care about under-aged sex and even provide condoms for it, you have pollutted the air with extreme violence and pornography and replaced the world with new generation of rebel's.
We were culturally and industrially advancing the colonies of our empire(e.g railways all over India) I doubt they would want to rebel on people who are helping them.
Yes, and the KKK contributed a lot to charity, these hardly makes up for some of the bad things they did. Likewise, your colonies revolted because of your oppression and control. In fact Gandhi, a man recognized as one of the greatest humanitarians of all time, spent much of his life protesting the exploitation of his country by the British. He said that the parliament of England was the epitome of corruption, having lived under their rule in 3 different countries.
Also when i say dragged i literally mean that, we were pulled into the war because we were allies with France and Russia and Belgium, and because of the League of Nations which your country set up.
Precisely why the United States wanted to stay out of war, which it maintained until it came under direct attack by the Japanese and German U-boats.
We were a democracy, I don't see where tyranny appeared.
You were, but your colonies were not. They had little say in what decisions you made of their countries. All colonists were 2nd class citizens.
We didn't fight the Japanese because they were are allies in WWI, so in other words, you dont help us and then attack our allies.
They attacked us....And what great allies they were, when they attacked British colonies, yes? Perhaps you should brush up on your history.
and over 300,000 innocent japanese people died from your nukes, even though they were planning to surrender.
Planing to surrender? Who told you this? They didn't even surrender AFTER the first bomb, what makes you think they were planning to surrender?
I would like you to name some, here are a few of your country's failures
And here are a few of yours:
Monarchy
American Revolutionary war
Anglo-Spanish war
2nd and 3rd Anglo Dutch war
Hundred years war
Opium trade
Aberfan
Piper Alpha Fire
Every colony they've lost.
"climate-gate"
British Intelligence leak of Iraq invasion strategy
The very recent oil spill
You must mean the BP (British Petroleum) spill, yes?
I was meaning the basic morals you learn in childhood which your city culture has thrown away, you don't care about under-aged sex and even provide condoms for it
We provide condoms precisely because we DO CARE. As you might be vaguely aware, denying juveniles condoms does not prevent them from having under-aged sex. However condoms do greatly reduce the risks of contracting STDs and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The desirability of sex to youth, is mostly a side-effect of the free market. Sex sells, and youth are very impressionable and so these sexed-up commercials/advertisements are bound to influence their attitudes.
you have pollutted the air with extreme violence and pornography
Oh please do speak on the morality of pornography, I would love to hear this!
"Yes, and the KKK contributed a lot to charity, these hardly makes up for some of the bad things they did. Likewise, your colonies revolted because of your oppression and control. In fact Gandhi, a man recognized as one of the greatest humanitarians of all time, spent much of his life protesting the exploitation of his country by the British. He said that the parliament of England was the epitome of corruption, having lived under their rule in 3 different countries."
You claim these but leave no sources or examples I have nothing solid to argue against.
"Precisely why the United States wanted to stay out of war, which it maintained until it came under direct attack by the Japanese and German U-boats."
You didn't get the hint you forced us to join the League of Nations which meant that we were dragged into the second world war.In simpler words our involvement in the war is your fault.
"You were, but your colonies were not. They had little say in what decisions you made of their countries. All colonists were 2nd class citizens."
So were most of the unimportant people in our country being 2nd class wasn't a bad thing at that time.
"They attacked us....And what great allies they were, when they attacked British colonies, yes? Perhaps you should brush up on your history. "
You are a country 100 times our size, surely you wouldn't need our help when dealing with a country that is smaller than yours.
"Planing to surrender? Who told you this? They didn't even surrender AFTER the first bomb, what makes you think they were planning to surrender?"
what makes you think its ok to nuke innocent towns.
"Monarchy"
the monarchy hasn't failed they just went out of fashion.
"American Revolutionary war"
ok, you won, get over it .
"Anglo-Spanish war"
You mean the Spanish armarda, I beleive we beat them.
"Anglo-Spanish war"
all these were fought in an attempt to control trade-routes and the sea.
we eventually took all of it over when we defeated Spain and France in the Battle of Trafalger
"Hundred years war"
We had no involvement in that whatsoever, how is this relevant.
"Opium trade"
We won that war
"Aberfan"
How do you know that?
either way that didn't fail that was an accident
"Piper Alpha Fire"
I don't know how
"Every colony they've lost."
We didn't not lose them they voted that they didn't want to join us any more so we let them have their independance.
"You must mean the BP (British Petroleum) spill, yes?"#
yes, just because the name of the company includes the name of our country doesn't mean anything.
"We provide condoms precisely because we DO CARE. As you might be vaguely aware, denying juveniles condoms does not prevent them from having under-aged sex. However condoms do greatly reduce the risks of contracting STDs and prevent unwanted pregnancies."
Giving out condoms implies that under-aged sex is ok as long as you don't die of it. Teenagers now have the impression that there will be no consequences for sex and if they happen to get pregnant they can just abort the baby.
"The desirability of sex to youth, is mostly a side-effect of the free market. Sex sells, and youth are very impressionable and so these sexed-up commercials/advertisements are bound to influence their attitudes."
Just becaue it "sells" doesn't mean its right
"Oh please do speak on the morality of pornography, I would love to hear this!"
You didn't get the hint you forced us to join the League of Nations which meant that we were dragged into the second world war.In simpler words our involvement in the war is your fault
We didn't force you to do anything.
So were most of the unimportant people in our country being 2nd class wasn't a bad thing at that time.
"Unimportant people" such as?
You are a country 100 times our size, surely you wouldn't need our help when dealing with a country that is smaller than yours.
In other words; hypocrite.
In landmass the USA is about 40 times bigger than Great Britain, but in Military strengths our countries were nearly equal at this time.
You feel we are obligated to help you in your war, but won't help us in ours?
what makes you think its ok to nuke innocent towns.
That wasn't the question. The question was, what made you think the Japanese were going to surrender. I've already explained the rationale behind the atomic bomb, do not try to side-track the debate.
the monarchy hasn't failed they just went out of fashion
Kind of like how Communism went out of style, yes?
You mean the Spanish armarda, I beleive we beat them.
No, I don't mean the spanish Armada, don't you know your own wars? I mean the blockade of porto Bello.
We had no involvement in that whatsoever, how is this relevant.
Hundred years war:
(1337 – 1453) Intermittent armed conflict between England and France over territorial rights and the issue of succession to the French throne. It began when Edward III invaded Flanders in 1337 in order to assert his claim to the French crown.
Yeah, it certainly looks like your country had no involvement in that. {sarcasm}
"Opium trade" We won that war
You don't get what I'm hinting at. Your country was illegally importing the drug opium into china, to get it's citizens addicted. In an attempt to control their market.
This is a moral failure.
How do you know that? Either way that didn't fail that was an accident
It was a lack of safety precautions.
We didn't not lose them they voted that they didn't want to join us any more so we let them have their independance. = Loss
Giving out condoms implies that under-aged sex is ok as long as you don't die of it.
No, of course you'd rather they they die. Now that's a rational position!
Teenagers now have the impression that there will be no consequences for sex and if they happen to get pregnant they can just abort the baby.
This "impression" has little to nothing to do with condoms. Statistically speaking teenage pregnancy is a lot higher in places where condoms are not available. I suppose you prefer teenage pregnancy over teenage sex?
Just becaue it "sells" doesn't mean its right
I didn't say it did, I'm just telling you why it is the way it is. There is nothing I can do about it.
Are you saying pornography is ok?
I'm saying pornography isn't hurting anybody. The only reason anybody has a problem with pornography is because of fundamentalism.
Im ignoring your sources as they aren't with your arguments.
"We didn't force you to do anything."
of your President Wilson's 14 points i shall quote the last;
"A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. "
I think you will find that you made us join the League of Nations
"Unimportant people" such as?"
Anyone who isn't rich- you cannot say this differs from your American society:all non-W.A.S.Ps=2nd class though times have changed since 100 years ago to : non-rich people=2nd class
"In other words; hypocrite.
In landmass the USA is about 40 times bigger than Great Britain, but in Military strengths our countries were nearly equal at this time.
You feel we are obligated to help you in your war, but won't help us in ours?"
In other words; hypocrite
You leave us to fend for ourselves against the majority of Europe, which Nazi-Germany and his allies conquered, but when it comes to a country smaller than yours you need our help.
"That wasn't the question. The question was, what made you think the Japanese were going to surrender. I've already explained the rationale behind the atomic bomb, "
I answered your question with another question.
"do not try to side-track the debate."
I SIDE-TRACK DEBATE! thats rich (sarcasm by the way), whenever you make a point which i can't argue against I admit I was wrong whereas you just blankout all the evidence which you know is true and pick at the 1 little sentance which you can find fault with.
"Kind of like how Communism went out of style, yes?"
When you americanism polluted the world.
"No, I don't mean the spanish Armada, don't you know your own wars? I mean the blockade of porto Bello."
They just caught a disease and died, so what?
"Hundred years war:
(1337 – 1453) Intermittent armed conflict between England and France over territorial rights and the issue of succession to the French throne. It began when Edward III invaded Flanders in 1337 in order to assert his claim to the French crown.
Yeah, it certainly looks like your country had no involvement in that. {sarcasm}"
I was wrong then but you have to go back over 600 years to find a war that we lost at a time when England wasn't at the level of unity that it is at now.
"You don't get what I'm hinting at. Your country was illegally importing the drug opium into china, to get it's citizens addicted. In an attempt to control their market.
This is a moral failure."
I think that its a cunning strategic plan, have you seen how fast China's economy explodes when you leave it on its own. I will discuss "morals" at the end
"It was a lack of safety precautions."
World Trade Centre- lack of safety precautions
"Loss"
It's called Democracy, first you complain that drug smugglings "moral failure" but when we liberate countries thats sill a fail? make up your mind.
"No, of course you'd rather they they die. Now that's a rational position!"
There are consequences for everything, at least we don't still use the death sentance.
"This "impression" has little to nothing to do with condoms. Statistically speaking teenage pregnancy is a lot higher in places where condoms are not available."
The sentance I said was clearly about abortion and did not have the word "condoms" in it.
"I suppose you prefer teenage pregnancy over teenage sex?"
Consequences for everything.
"I didn't say it did, I'm just telling you why it is the way it is. There is nothing I can do about it."
I don't give a damn about what you can do, this is about your country and mine.
"I'm saying pornography isn't hurting anybody. The only reason anybody has a problem with pornography is because of fundamentalism."
Pornography isn't ok because it goes against nearly all religions andis against nearly all traditional morals. For you to create a form of world communication"internet" and then use it for pornography is just insulting.
Im ignoring your sources as they aren't with your arguments
My sources show precisely how India was exploited by Great Britain, did you even bother to read them? You may ignore them all you like but as for myself and anyone else on this site, we know that India was exploited by your country. Your denial changes nothing.
of your President Wilson's 14 points i shall quote the last
And your country is incapable of voicing it's own opinion?
Anyone who isn't rich
So only rich people are important in your eyes?
You leave us to fend for ourselves against the majority of Europe, which Nazi-Germany and his allies conquered, but when it comes to a country smaller than yours you need our help.
You were not fighting "most of europe" you were fighting Nazi Germany, and you had the help of the Russians, which easily outnumbered the Germans. And if you recall, we did help you. Where this delusion that we "didn't help you" comes from, I cannot say, but you incessantly repeating it makes it no less false.
You did not help us fight Japan. Which makes you a hypocrite.
The might of a country does not come from the size of it's borders.
I answered your question with another question.
No you didn't. I asked you what made you think that The Japanese were planning to surrender and your response was "what makes you think it's okay to bomb innocent people", which in no way answers my question.
There was an attempted coup after Emperor accepted surrender, his decision was pretty unpopular even after TWO nuclear weapons leveled two Japanese cities.
I SIDE-TRACK DEBATE! thats rich (sarcasm by the way), whenever you make a point which i can't argue against I admit I was wrong whereas you just blankout all the evidence which you know is true and pick at the 1 little sentance which you can find fault with.
I appreciate the fact that you admit when you know you're wrong, but when exactly have I "Blankout all the evidence"?
I was wrong then but you have to go back over 600 years to find a war that we lost at a time when England wasn't at the level of unity that it is at now.
You must have strong resolution to have been wrong so many times in this debate and to continue on.
No, you will find that this was not your most recent military failure. You're forgetting the second and third Anglo-dutch wars and of course the American Revolutionary war.
I think that its a cunning strategic plan, have you seen how fast China's economy explodes when you leave it on its own. I will discuss "morals" at the end
Yes, but you did not mention how immoral it is to intentionally addict a populace of a foreign country to opium which you are importing into the country illegally.
World Trade Centre- lack of safety precautions
I won't dispute that, but it doesn't change the fact that your nation has plenty of it's own failures to boast....as does nearly every nation on earth.
It's called Democracy, first you complain that drug smugglings "moral failure" but when we liberate countries thats sill a fail? make up your mind
They wouldn't need to be liberated in the first place, if not for the oppression suffered under English rule.
The sentance I said was clearly about abortion and did not have the word "condoms" in it.
As to why I said "It had little to do with condoms". What does abortion have to do with condoms? If anything condoms reduce the cause of abortions, unwanted pregnancies.
Consequences for everything
Consequences for unprotected sex, and yet you are opposed to means which can reduce disease, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.
Your position is one of irrationality.
I don't give a damn about what you can do, this is about your country and mine.
Okay, but it does no good to complain about what is an effect of the free market. Do you propose a solution?
Pornography isn't ok because it goes against nearly all religions andis against nearly all traditional morals. For you to create a form of world communication"internet" and then use it for pornography is just insulting.
{Laughs}
Maybe you forgot who I am. It makes no difference whatsoever what "religious" traditions or morals say, when religion is the manifestation of man's irrationality. Religious tradition also taught man that the sun revolves around the earth and anybody who dared say otherwise was a heretic.
likewise any moral tradition not based on fact and reason, is worthless.
There are many men who have never felt, or never will feel a woman's touch, for them depictions of sex (on print or screen) is as close as they will ever get and this brings them solace. Who are you to deny them that?
"My sources show precisely how India was exploited by Great Britain, did you even bother to read them? You may ignore them all you like but as for myself and anyone else on this site, we know that India was exploited by your country. Your denial changes nothing."
We founded India's infastructure we built its vast and powerful railway system,
started many schools, bridges and roads. Sure we exploited them but I doubt that the U.S.A has never exploited a country.
"And your country is incapable of voicing it's own opinion?"
We only cared about our empire at the time, I doubt you presidents pitch would have mention that the League would have failed drastically.
"So only rich people are important in your eyes?"
Are you denying that the U.S doesn't have the same opinion?
"You were not fighting "most of europe" you were fighting Nazi Germany,"
which had Conquered France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and other countries meaning its territory covered most of Europe
" and you had the help of the Russians, which easily outnumbered the Germans."
"And if you recall, we did help you. Where this delusion that we "didn't help you" comes from, I cannot say, but you incessantly repeating it makes it no less false."
No, you didn't help us, we stood on our own and you only joined after the Battle of Britain(1940)-U.S join war(1941)
"You did not help us fight Japan. Which makes you a hypocrite."
Liar, we helped you at:
Indian ocean raid
Battle of Badung Strait
Guadalcanal campaign
Battle of Admin Box-Battle we fought without your help
Battle of Imphal-Battle we fought without your help
Battle of Kohima-Battle we fought without your help
"The might of a country does not come from the size of it's borders."
The amount of land it has contributes to the amount of food it can generate and the amount of military it can recruit etc.
The fact that many other people fighting your side of the debate calim that U.S.A must be superior due to its size supports my argument.
"No you didn't. I asked you what made you think that The Japanese were planning to surrender and your response was "what makes you think it's okay to bomb innocent people", which in no way answers my question."
"There was an attempted coup after Emperor accepted surrender, his decision was pretty unpopular even after TWO nuclear weapons leveled two Japanese cities."
Now answer my question: what makes you think its ok to wipeout innocent people?
"I appreciate the fact that you admit when you know you're wrong, but when exactly have I "Blankout all the evidence"?"
For example earlier on I listed all the failures of your country which you just ignored, on the other side of the debate answered against a completely biased argument and you then highlighted 1 sentance which you disagreed with and claimed I was wrong, at least I can admit when my opponent is right.
"You must have strong resolution to have been wrong so many times in this debate and to continue on."
It is a skill you have yet to learn
"No, you will find that this was not your most recent military failure. You're forgetting the second and third Anglo-dutch wars"
One of the few wars we actually lost
" and of course the American Revolutionary war."
Once of the few wars you actually won
"Yes, but you did not mention how immoral it is to intentionally addict a populace of a foreign country to opium which you are importing into the country illegally. "
You fail to admit that it is completly immoral to nuke a town of civilians because
you are at war with their leaders.
"I won't dispute that, but it doesn't change the fact that your nation has plenty of it's own failures to boast....as does nearly every nation on earth."
But our failures are debatable about, yours are just fails.
"They wouldn't need to be liberated in the first place, if not for the oppression suffered under English rule."
It was a time of empires, if they weren't part of ours they would have been claimed but the Dutch, French or Spanish.
"As to why I said "It had little to do with condoms". What does abortion have to do with condoms? "
Why did you bring condoms into it?
"If anything condoms reduce the cause of abortions, unwanted pregnancies."
If anything condoms reduce the amount of risk taken by under-aged sex, implying that under-aged sex is ok.
"Okay, but it does no good to complain about what is an effect of the free market. Do you propose a solution?"
Most of the media is mainly following that of the 1920's and when Media first started, if you know so much about your own countries history you will know how provocative and explicite it was at the time.
"Maybe you forgot who I am. It makes no difference whatsoever what "religious" traditions or morals say, when religion is the manifestation of man's irrationality. Religious tradition also taught man that the sun revolves around the earth and anybody who dared say otherwise was a heretic.
likewise any moral tradition not based on fact and reason, is worthless.
There are many men who have never felt, or never will feel a woman's touch, for them depictions of sex (on print or screen) is as close as they will ever get and this brings them solace. Who are you to deny them that?
"
Many men see sex and think "hmm, I want some of that" and go rape girls, is that what you want? and the problem of your country is that it has no traditional values, meaning no social barriers.
We founded India's infastructure we built its vast and powerful railway system,
started many schools, bridges and roads. Sure we exploited them but I doubt that the U.S.A has never exploited a country.
The United States has never had a Colony, unless you include the Philippines. Even then we did not exploit them to the extent, that India was exploited. We had a good relationship with the Philippines, especially after we liberated them from the Japanese invasion during WWII and granting them independence.
Russia was invaded
And...?
I never said they weren't invaded. You still had the help of the Russians who had eventually beaten the Germans back to Berlin. Effectively cutting the German forces in half.
No, you didn't help us, we stood on our own and you only joined after the Battle of Britain(1940)-U.S join war(1941
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still helping. Your argument is trivial.
Liar, we helped you at:
Indian ocean raid
Battle of Badung Strait
Guadalcanal campaign
Battle of Admin Box-Battle we fought without your help
Battle of Imphal-Battle we fought without your help
Battle of Kohima-Battle we fought without your help
Actually, you're right. You did fight in the pacific theater, I actually knew about these, and am extremely surprised that you did not bring these up much earlier. Perhaps you did not know about them until now...
As I was ready to point out before and I am am ready to point out now. These were colonial battles, attempts to protect your own colonies from Japanese attacks. For instance the Battles of Imphal and Kohima, were fought in India (a British Colony) and were fought by mostly Indian troops. The Guadalcanal campaign occurred in the Solomon Islands, a British Commonwealth. You were not in the Pacific to Help us, you were only there to protect your own assets.
The amount of land it has contributes to the amount of food it can generate and the amount of military it can recruit etc.
Which would explain why The Canadian Army is vastly superior to The United States Army...
An illustration of sarcasm.
The fact that many other people fighting your side of the debate claim that U.S.A must be superior due to its size supports my argument.
Then they are idiots.
Now answer my question: what makes you think its ok to wipeout innocent people?
As I stated earlier:
"Had they have had the same technology, they would have done the same to us. We warned them extensively before use, and it prevented a long and bloody war on mainland Japan which would have also seen a high civilian death toll. Admittedly, we could have handled the situation better, I was not there when the decision to drop the bomb was made."
The bombs had the multi-purposes of ending the war with Japan, preventing a war with the USSR using the fear of the atomic weapons, and preventing a communist take over of Japan. Under the stresses of war, decisions were made regrettably that cannot be undone.
hindsight is 20/20
http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htm
What the "essay" fails to mention is that Japan would never submit to an unconditional surrender, which was the only acceptable surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration, a declaration made by BOTH American and British leaders.
For example earlier on I listed all the failures of your country which you just ignored, on the other side of the debate answered against a completely biased argument and you then highlighted 1 sentance which you disagreed with and claimed I was wrong, at least I can admit when my opponent is right.
You're list was ill-conceived. The idea that you could possibly construct a list of all of the failures of a nation and compare it accurately and objectively to another nation is grossly naive. A true historian could scarcely conceive of such a list, if he could even be trusted to construct it in an unbiased manner. I brushed off your list not because they were not valid failures, but because it is of little use in a debate like this.
It is a skill you have yet to learn
I was being facetious.
Once of the few wars you actually won
Utter nonsense!
American wars won:
Revolutionary war
Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war
Philippine-American War
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Persian Gulf War
Iraq War
American Wars lost:
Vietnam War.
Stale-mates:
War of 1812
Korean War
On-Going Wars:
Afghan War
You can see how you claim is complete BS.
You fail to admit that it is completely immoral to nuke a town of civilians because you are at war with their leaders.
I've already addressed this. You have yet to address the fact the fostering opium addiction in the civilians of a warring state is also very wrong.
But our failures are debatable about, yours are just fails
The fact that we are debating them refutes this statement.
It was a time of empires, if they weren't part of ours they would have been claimed but the Dutch, French or Spanish.
Except this isn't a debate between The United states and France or the Netherlands.
Why did you bring condoms into it?
Because your contention was with, condoms, and then you started talking about abortion, as if the two were related.
If anything condoms reduce the amount of risk taken by under-aged sex, implying that under-aged sex is ok.
How so? This is akin to saying "Wearing seat-belts imply getting into a car collision is okay".
Most of the media is mainly following that of the 1920's and when Media first started, if you know so much about your own countries history you will know how provocative and explicit it was at the time.
It was provocative only by the standards of that time, but this still fails to address the question of "why was it provocative, what caused this in advertisement?".
Many men see sex and think "hmm, I want some of that" and go rape girls
This is not how it works in the slightest. I only have a degree in applied Social psychology. What do I know?
"Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment. They consider rape an act of violence rather than principally a sexual encounter"
On an individual level, rapists tend to have troubled childhoods, often times having been rape victims themselves.
In fact there is some evidence to suggest that pornography can actually reduce the number of rapes, by acting as a release of pent up sexual frustration.
"...unless you include the Philippines. Even then we did not exploit them to the extent, that India was exploited. We had a good relationship with the Philippines, especially after we liberated them from the Japanese invasion during WWII and granting them independence."
You do not exploit other countries from your government directly but american companies under your power have exploited nations.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still helping. Your argument is trivial."
You've gone away from my original statement: U.S.A didn't help us when we needed it, you only joined our side after we started to win.
"Actually, you're right. You did fight in the pacific theater, I actually knew about these, and am extremely surprised that you did not bring these up much earlier. Perhaps you did not know about them until now...
As I was ready to point out before and I am am ready to point out now. These were colonial battles, attempts to protect your own colonies from Japanese attacks. For instance the Battles of Imphal and Kohima, were fought in India (a British Colony) and were fought by mostly Indian troops. The Guadalcanal campaign occurred in the Solomon Islands, a British Commonwealth. You were not in the Pacific to Help us, you were only there to protect your own assets.
"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still helping. Your argument is trivial.
"Which would explain why The Canadian Army is vastly superior to The United States Army...
An illustration of sarcasm."
Also the amount of land contributes to the amount of territory your enemy has to conquer.
"Then they are idiots."
good something we agree on
"As I stated earlier:
"Had they have had the same technology, they would have done the same to us."
You couldn't have been more civilised than they would have been?
" We warned them extensively before use, and it prevented a long and bloody war on mainland Japan which would have also seen a high civilian death toll. "
Why kill civilians then, why not a military base or enemy airfeild?
"Admittedly, we could have handled the situation better, I was not there when the decision to drop the bomb was made."
A point which also applies to me.
"The bombs had the multi-purposes of ending the war with Japan,"
There were several other ways.
" preventing a war with the USSR using the fear of the atomic weapons,"
Or just a showing off of power
" and preventing a communist take over of Japan. Under the stresses of war, decisions were made regrettably that cannot be undone.
hindsight is 20/20"
I cannot disagree with this
"What the "essay" fails to mention is that Japan would never submit to an unconditional surrender, which was the only acceptable surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration, a declaration made by BOTH American and British leaders."
I have made the fatal mistake of not reading my source before submitting it.
"You're list was ill-conceived. The idea that you could possibly construct a list of all of the failures of a nation and compare it accurately and objectively to another nation is grossly naive. "
Sorry I worded my last argument wrongly I meant that I listed some of your country's failures.
"A true historian could scarcely conceive of such a list, if he could even be trusted to construct it in an unbiased manner. I brushed off your list not because they were not valid failures, but because it is of little use in a debate like this."
If they were of little use then you would have been able to deal with them easily, the fact that you chose not to meet them makes you appear to be a coward.
"Utter nonsense!
American wars won:"
sorry another point I worded wrongly I meant wars you won on your own.I will now proceed to smash all your staements which doesn't come under these terms:
"Revolutionary war"
You fought this alongside Spain, the Kingdom of France and the Dutch Republic.
"Spanish-American war"
You fought this alongside Cuba, Puerto Rica and Katipunan
"WWI&WWII;"
fought with the help of usnd others
" Cold War"
fought with the help of us and others
"Persian Gulf War"
fought with the help of us and others
"Iraq War"
You fought with the help of Iraq and Peshmerga
"American Wars lost:"
I have ignored these as i cannot see how they are relevant
"Mexican-American war,Philippine-American War"
these are the few wars you won on your own, my point proven
"I've already addressed this. You have yet to address the fact the fostering opium addiction in the civilians of a warring state is also very wrong."
There is a differnece between strategic planning and pushing a button.
I apoligise for not finishing your argument but I'm running out of time, if you repeat them in your next one I'm sure I'll be able to discuss them.
We have been a sovereign nation for 200 years. There is nothing to prevent us from having a colony.
You do not exploit other countries from your government directly but american companies under your power have exploited nations.
The US has little control over what private businesses do in foreign nations.
You've gone away from my original statement: U.S.A didn't help us when we needed it, you only joined our side after we started to win.
That may have been your original statement but on multiples occasions you've equivocated this with "The USA didn't help us" which is false.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still helping. Your argument is trivial.
I will agree that your country helped us if you admit that we helped you, in WW2. Sound fair?
Also the amount of land contributes to the amount of territory your enemy has to conquer.
Which means it's more powerful, somehow? Few countries have had any interest in conquering Siberia.
You couldn't have been more civilised than they would have been? Why kill civilians then, why not a military base or enemy airfeild?
There were military installations in both cities. Japan is a very crowded country, a nuclear attack on any military installation would have resulted in massive civilian casualties, it is unavoidable.
Sorry I worded my last argument wrongly I meant that I listed some of your country's failures.
Makes no difference, my point remains the same.
The idea that you could possibly construct a list of all of the failures of a nation and compare it accurately and objectively to another nation is grossly naive.
If they were of little use then you would have been able to deal with them easily, the fact that you chose not to meet them makes you appear to be a coward.
Appearance or not, your argument was not even worth addressing. You could come up with a list American Failures and I would come up with a list of British Failures, then you would come up with some more, then I would come up with some more...which would boil down to a pissing contest which really doesn't prove anything.
Even if by some chance miracle you came up with every single American failure in history, and presented them in an unbiased way and I did the same. We would have to take into account which Nation has more failures and how severe the failures were, we'd also have to take into account the fact that your nation is much older, then come to a conclusion based on our subjective perception of how severe each failure is.
So you can see why this argument could not possibly amount to anything.
sorry another point I worded wrongly I meant wars you won on your own.I will now proceed to smash all your staements which doesn't come under these terms:
You mean "smash statements" based on terms that you invented AFTER THE FACT? No sorry, it doesn't work that way.
You cannot say, "well I said this, but I meant this, therefore your arguments are wrong".
You've committed a logical fallacy called "Moving the Goalposts".
There is a difference between strategic planning and pushing a button.
If by "strategic planning" you mean illegally distributing opium for the purpose of addicting the civilians of a warring state, then yes, there is a difference. This however doesn't change the fact that both are immoral.
Many men see sex and think "hmm, I want some of that" and go rape girls
This is not how it works in the slightest. I only have a degree in applied Social psychology. What do I know?
"Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment. They consider rape an act of violence rather than principally a sexual encounter"
On an individual level, rapists tend to have troubled childhoods, often times having been rape victims themselves.
In fact there is some evidence to suggest that pornography can actually reduce the number of rapes, by acting as a release of pent up sexual frustration.
"We have been a sovereign nation for 200 years. There is nothing to prevent us from having a colony."
The veiws of your people, during a large amount of time within the 1900s-1950s the U.S citizens wanted to remain seperate from the rest of the world(isolationism).
"The US has little control over what private businesses do in foreign nations."
But we do, when we heard how cruel the East India Company was treating india we disbanded them.
"That may have been your original statement but on multiples occasions you've equivocated this with "The USA didn't help us" which is false."
I only shortened it to save time and space, I meant the same as the original statement(maybe I should have made this more clear)
"I will agree that your country helped us if you admit that we helped you, in WW2. Sound fair?"
Fair.
"Which means it's more powerful, somehow? Few countries have had any interest in conquering Siberia."
One of the main reasons that Britain failed to keep hold of America was because the size of their army just couldn't cover the whole of the U.S
"There were military installations in both cities. Japan is a very crowded country, a nuclear attack on any military installation would have resulted in massive civilian casualties, it is unavoidable."
Point taken, I no longer wish to discuss the ethics of nuking.
"The idea that you could possibly construct a list of all of the failures of a nation and compare it accurately and objectively to another nation is grossly naive. "
And I completly agree with that.
"Appearance or not, your argument was not even worth addressing. You could come up with a list American Failures and I would come up with a list of British Failures, then you would come up with some more, then I would come up with some more...which would boil down to a pissing contest which really doesn't prove anything. "
When you came up with a list of my country's "failures" I dealt with them.
"Even if by some chance miracle you came up with every single American failure in history, and presented them in an unbiased way and I did the same. We would have to take into account which Nation has more failures and how severe the failures were, we'd also have to take into account the fact that your nation is much older, then come to a conclusion based on our subjective perception of how severe each failure is.
So you can see why this argument could not possibly amount to anything."
You could say the whole debate is about the rights and wrongs of each country,
"You mean "smash statements" based on terms that you invented AFTER THE FACT? No sorry, it doesn't work that way.
You cannot say, "well I said this, but I meant this, therefore your arguments are wrong".
You've committed a logical fallacy called "Moving the Goalposts".
The veiws of your people, during a large amount of time within the 1900s-1950s the U.S citizens wanted to remain seperate from the rest of the world(isolationism).
The United States maintained a non-interventionist policy for most of the 18th and 19th century, something I wish we would return to. Part of the reason we were so reluctant in joining WWI.
But we do, when we heard how cruel the East India Company was treating india we disbanded them.
Yes, and it only took you about 300 years and an Indian mutiny...how thoughtful of you.
One of the main reasons that Britain failed to keep hold of America was because the size of their army just couldn't cover the whole of the U.S
Sorry, you're trying to equate the size of a nation with it's population. This is simply false. The population of Japan is nearly 4 times larger than the population of Canada.
When you came up with a list of my country's "failures" I dealt with them.
Are you certain about that? Or did you just then defer to American failures?
I did say sorry, but once again you completly ignore all mty evidence
Evidence of what exactly? That we had allies in almost all of our wars? I never said we didn't, so your evidence was completely irrelevant.
If you actually go back and look at the posts, you had originally said that the American Revolutionary war was one of few wars we won, then when I listed numerous other wars that we won you then claimed we didn't win the revolutionary war on our own. So you either contradicted yourself or you are subtlety changing your arguments mid-debate.
You did the same thing in the when we were talking about the world wars which you claimed we didn't help you, I provide examples of the food, weapons, and supplies we gave you even before we entered the war (both times), you tried (unsuccessfully) arguing that these supplies didn't help at all, then you went on to say we didn't help you...when you needed it.
Englands got Mcdonalds, KFC, Taco Bell, Subway, Coca Cola was invented in England :p.
We got a better football and rugby team than your country. you stole our language, way of writing. Our countrys more cleaner, also England is known to be one of the most greenest and eco freindly country in the planet. Our countrys more fitter than yours as nearly 75% of america is full of obesety. Although the recession, we're a big
nation. we invented Dell, Alienware, HTC and the most popular and best technoligy the world knows today. So on...
I really love the USA and feel a lot of kinship with most Americans.
However England is my home, my land and the land of my ancestors for thousands of years...the home of the English language and fine ales and decent roast dinners.
I've been to the USA many times and could live there easily...but England will always be in my heart.
This debate is really kind of silly, since it's a fair bet the vast majority of members here are American, which will skew the results horribly in the USA's favour.
As an Englishman who has been to the USA three times, I have nothing against America; indeed, I found the people to be quite friendly- but there are certainly some aspects of American attitudes that annoy me- the 'USA won World War II' thing, for example, is insulting not only to the soldiers of Britain who died, but to the Allied soldiers from Russia, Australia, Canada, various parts of Africa, and to the resistance movements in occupied territory.
Another major problem I have with the American mindset is the push to teach Creationism as a valid scientific theory in schools- the US has massive influence globally, and some states are encouraging a thoroughly unscientific mindset amongst their youth- the kids who will grow up to be doctors, and scientists, and teachers, and politicians. Whilst there is a worrying growth of Creationism in English schools, it is largely confined to private schools.
I would also dare say I would much rather live in a country where I do not pay through the nose for my healthcare.
Cant believe there is a debate on this, it should be obvious....England...no argument! Only Americans would say USA. The world hates them and they try to emulate the UK in many ways except they are fatter and far more stupid. UK has the royal family and class. USA has celebrities and Mc donalds...wow we. Yanks love themselves for some unknown reason. Guns, televison and fast food is what these people relish and they cannot even see how twisted their society is. Deeply troubled people the yanks are.
For such a small county england is pretty powerful, and have the best navy in the world also English people are nicer to American people than American people are to them.
I don't know why there is an argument like this because England(UK) and America have helped each other and get on pretty well
Well England offers a fine tradition with a perfect,eloquent blend of style,culture with richness in every corner.England is a tourist's paradise with vociferous,kindhearted,warm tons swarming the streets and every activity is applauded to the fullest.America is a new country which is built upon technology and modernization.Is there any thing of past,some sort of tradition,a norm which is followed at-least by some,the people are glued only by the impressive remarks of some of the finest orators including Paine,Milton but on a whole,England definitely has an edge.
In truth, I hold no ill will towards England or the United Kingdom. Our constitution is based on English common law. If not for the Brits my country would not exist. The united states was born out of British tyranny, although the crown in Great Britain was much fairer and less oppressive than many other rulers of the time.
In fact I rather admire contemporary Englishmen (and Brits). They are quite progressive as a people, and always have our back. I am jealous of their health-care system. Although their government seems to be a bit controlling. They gave us Simon Cowell. No complaints here, although that won't stop the banter.
In honesty i think you have to ask yourself which country works best for you. I think neither is ruled better and almost ran by the same people anyway, the banks! Just look up Rothschild's and the federal reserve! Overall two very different countries :
England = Great banter, part of europe (diverse influence of cultures), actual pubs, real bacon! But to many people.
USA = Great weather, , not the best music, lots of space, to many adverts and suing of people, fast food
If you want a true and accurate answer to this question it is this:
The answer largely depends on our own selected personal experiences, subjective opinions and through biased interpretations of history and current events. So in reality, each answer is only a single piece to the larger picture. The strengths and weaknesses are valued differently by the individual.
England has been around for like at least 1000 years. And we may have had a queen who burned 300 protestants at a stake but in England we never had slavery or segregation based on race. Plus Americans say "British people speak OUR language with a stupid accent." What they don't realize is that we came first so you Americans are speaking OUR language with a stupid accent. At least Brits don't consume 3770 calories a day. Oh we have Doctor Who and freaking castles. Enough said.
None of the above. Are we really debating this? This is would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It's not like i am not used to nationalists anyway. Alright so let's see, Britain, pretty much killed everyone on the Lusitania knowing the US would join. Faked the Zimmerman telegraph. A special shoutout to USA followers who think it's patriotic to support bombing of innocent children in the middle east and can't wrap there heads about why they would ever hate us so much. Statism is by far the most destructive religion on the planet. Invades 90% of the worlds counties, complaints about immigration. Why can't we all be one big happy family? These borders are nothing but lines on a map and you are some reason proud to be born within your province? I am not seeing the point.
Firstly all this about the us being able to invade us in six months is a lie. The uk may not have the biggest army but is stronger and better. The U.S. sens there soilders to us for training. The uk has more allies and support. Where as every government hates the U.S. as well the uk and Europe could of easily one the war without you. And you think you and do what you like. Your the dumbest and most dangerous country Israel is safer. You have a bad system. And the only reason your independent is because we were at war with France and American land was worthless and useless
Firstly all this about the us being able to invade us in six months is a lie. The uk may not have the biggest army but is stronger and better.
The U.K.'s Army is not stronger, the U.K.'s navy is not stronger, the U.K.'s special forces are not stronger, and the U.K.'s air force is not stronger. Additionally, the U.S. sends soldiers all over the world for training, and many allies send their soldiers to the U.S. for training. It is simply a smart way of allowing soldiers to obtain diversified, holistic training.
The uk has more allies and support. Where as every government hates the U.S. as well the uk and Europe could of easily one the war without you.
Where is your evidence that the U.K. has a higher number of security alliances? As for "the war", I am assuming you were referring to WW2, a war that was only won because of the U.S.S.R (a nation that Winston Churchill tried to go to war with after Germany's surrender).
Your the dumbest and most dangerous country Israel is safer.
First, it is ironic to say "Your the dumbest". Second, this is pointlessly hyperbolic. The United States is hardly the most dangerous (remember, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, etc all exist) nor the "dumbest" be it in terms of foreign policy, education, what have you.
And the only reason your independent is because we were at war with France and American land was worthless and useless
You are right about independence, we did indeed only become independent because Britain was bogged down in quite a few wars and became over extended. But North American land clearly was not worthless, which is why Britain settled here and fought for so long to hold to colonies.
I'm moving to England. It feels all warm and cozy. I sat under an 800 year old bridge on the side of the road in England somewhere. Seriously. Now THAT wasn't warm and cozy, but definitely interesting. The USA doesn't have 800 year old bridges. They just have racism as their history.
Yeah we have our own fat fucks we been to accepting of your kind and businesses in our country we pretty much lost our traditional food to your fatty fast food resturaunts
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Like a man with a small penis compensating by building muscle or purchasing a motorcycle?
economically
Strength is not synonymous with size.
socially
Undereducated, overweight, limited social welfare, massive opposition to attempts at universal healthcare (which we have, by the way)... truly marvellous.
That your massive military expenditure does nothing to cover up the incredibly poor division of wealth, poor social welfare and criminally bad health system.
Our troops are the best trained and best equipped.
British troops are commonly regarded and reputed to be the best trained, and I am unwilling to conduct a review of every world military to determine which is the best equipped.
It sure helps.
Which is how humans wiped out the mammoth?
We have some of the best universities in the world.
So do we. Neither fact is pertinent to the general trend in education.
We actually aren't the fattest country in the world... we're 6th.
I did not claim you were.
Government run health care is not the answer, and forcing people to buy health insurance goes against our constitution.
Private healthcare discriminates against the vast majority of the population. Universal healthcare denies life-saving surgery to nobody. The constitutional argument is completely invalid; it's republican logic, so do the republican thing and have a referendum.
Look at the mess England and the Eu is in now.
The EU is not really in a mess, unless you count Greece, Spain and Ireland. But that's like saying Mississippi, West Virginia and Arkansas render the United States an impoverished backwater. Greece is full of dust and homosexuals, Spain is Spain (Dear God!) and Ireland is perhaps the most miserable, outdated, vile, loathsome, incestuous, deplorable and irredeemable wasteland that the world has ever seen.
That your massive military expenditure does nothing to cover up the incredibly poor division of wealth, poor social welfare and criminally bad health system.
For any nation, military expenses are a separate area of funding. Other things are to be funded by other areas of the budget. Granted our military budget can be trimmed and stripped of redundancies.
British troops are commonly regarded and reputed to be the best trained
I don't know about that, but I have heard that British troops are very professional, which I admire, and I am glad that we are allies.
I am unwilling to conduct a review of every world military to determine which is the best equipped.
Between the British and the Us it's kind of hard to say, seeing as how we use much of the same technology and weapons.
Which is how humans wiped out the mammoth?
Global warming was also a huge factor in the mammoth's downfall.
Private healthcare discriminates against the vast majority of the population.
There are some aspects of universal healthcare that aren't bad such as nobody can be turned away because of "pre existing" conditions and such, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for somebody else's healthcare.
The constitutional argument is completely invalid; it's republican logic.
I am a republican. It's not invalid. The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce. Congress does not have the power to force a citizen into commerce and then regulate them.
Greece is full of dust and homosexuals,
...and riots.
Spain is Spain
No argument there.
Ireland is perhaps the most miserable, outdated, vile, loathsome, incestuous, deplorable and irredeemable wasteland that the world has ever seen.
For any nation, military expenses are a separate area of funding. Other things are to be funded by other areas of the budget.
That's simply not true. What economic quandary renders one dollar fit for purchasing a tank, and only a tank, and another fit for purchasing an MRI machine?
Global warming was also a huge factor in the mammoth's downfall.
That's like claiming that the Roman empire was defeated by Africa's desertification, while ignoring political turmoil and constant barbarian aggression.
but people shouldn't be forced to pay for somebody else's healthcare.
You pay for somebody else's roads, dole, job, offices, jet fighters &c;. Why not their healthcare? You are acting as though you will never require medical attention yourself - consider it an investment.
I am a republican.
You are not a true republican if you do not value the ideals of a republic, such as universal access to healthcare.
It's not invalid. The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce. Congress does not have the power to force a citizen into commerce and then regulate them.
you put any us marine against any british marine. seriously try it.
This is merely a conception, and it is a useless point as all humans differentiate from eachother. Sure you can say that any one British Marine could handle any one American Marine, however do not suffer from the misconception of thinking that all British Marines could handle any American Marine. As any Marine ( despite nationality ) could defeat any other marine in combat.
and yes i have a few friends in the marines who all say that its hilarious how many americans it takes to get a ship running
Once again this is merely a conception, since you are also telling me that your friends are explicating to you how many Americans it takes your friends are obviously biased. Just about any American in the military will tell you that British Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done, then you go over to England and every British Soldier will tell you that American Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done.
who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?
Colonists were British, that dammed British education system must of missed a couple centuries...
You see the colonists came from England ( want to take a guess at what language they spoke? ), and eventually broke away from British rule after being victorious in a war to free us as the American people ( who are English ) from the oppression of England.
So what you are trying to say is that the British stole their own language from the British?
So do you not understand that America broke away from England?
that was my point, let me know when this changes
Let me make a point: you are an idiot if you think that England is better than America due to America using the same language as it's founding country.
I understand that America BROKE AWAY (notice the capital letters, it means that it is a key point in my arguement) and this is exactly my point if it wanted to break away i have no problem with that, but it is not broken away if it uses our language.
but it is not broken away if it uses our language.
So let me get this straight: you are saying that America isn't its own country due to it having a similar ( not identical ) dialect as England?
So Australia probably isn't its own entity either, due to them using a dialect based off of English. Yeah going by your logic that makes perfect sense.
no, actually im pretty sure that im arguing the first one.
I didn't ask what you were arguing. I stated that you were ignorant of how languages are born. New languages generally begin as a dialect, there simply hasn't been enough time or enough cultural isolation for a new language to emerge. To suggest this is due to laziness, is a blatantly ignorant assertion.
"I didn't ask what you were arguing. I stated that you were ignorant of how languages are born. New languages generally begin as a dialect, there simply hasn't been enough time or enough cultural isolation for a new language to emerge. To suggest this is due to laziness, is a blatantly ignorant assertion."
Your "new dialect" is just the worst parts of our language and now you are trying to force your "new dialect" onto us.
What constitutes the "worst" parts of a language is entirely subjective. And no one is forcing anything on you, you are simply being exposed to a different culture, poor you.
no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe's
So you are saying that after we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War we should have spoke an entirely different dialect. This isn't in the form of a question, this is what you are saying. And if you cannot see how ridiculously stupid this idea is, you have serious mental issues mate.
i think you will find that i am able to discuss a subject in a reasonable matter on a genuine issue
but on this subject you have made arguements just as immiture as i have and while i have tried to continue the topic in an upbeat way by including jokes and trying to laugh aboutit, you have been nothing but stubborn and down right rude.
and that is the real reason america cannever truely compete with the UK because while we brits are polite and enjoy a joke, americans have the social skills of a monkey.
now i dont know about down your end but in england its pretty late and so i shall say good day to you
You SERIOUSLY think the UK military can take ours? What, are you high or something? We have far better training, AND weapons. Man, you must be real messed up.
Social welfare and universal healthcare all suck theres a reason we would straight rape you in any contest. Besides those ridiculous sports you play. Your just jealous you have no penis or a motorcycle
Strongest military as if we went to war with you and we nearly won but you ran to get reinforcements to take on a island you don't publicize that war in your history books now do you, unknown to most uneducated Americans. Secondly better thN US may you be forgetting we may have bad government in power that's cutting our war budget for their own gain but ours isnt breaking the constitution you brag about so much and preparing for civil war and lastly remind me again who saved who ass in the wars with less amount of population. Whos currency is stronger. and who is calling them self a american when most u so-called Americans are not Americans u originated from uk and surrounding countries killing of the true Americans so u are byproducts of the Uk that at 1 point was controlling most the world.
Well, England has a longer history, used to rule the world, has a royal family, and is an island (which has it's advantages). But, the US was the fastest rising super power ever (well, that is until the Chinese over take us), we have more natural resources, and frankly things are just easier and better here (with the exception of Indian food). England is a great place to visit, but I think the US is awesome!
But, the US was the fastest rising super power ever
200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.
200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.
And look at how long the English have been around. You would expect them to be ruling the world.
I don't get how the trap he fell into was an obvious one, past tense was used in the rebuttal where Poisonous said that they should be presently ruling the world and the rebut to that was And... that is exactly what wedid. Which puts the implication that England no longer runs the world ( which it doesn't ), which was Poisonous' point.
How it was a trap is completely unbeknownst to me, as the rebut was solidifying Poison's argument.
"I don't get how the trap he fell into was an obvious one, past tense was used in the rebuttal where Poisonous said that they should be presently ruling the world"
He claimed that because of England's length of existence compared to the of USA, they should have ruled the world. Though he claimed this as a present day situation, he gave no acknowledgment of Britain ruling the world in the past. He only chose England as a example for his argument as a form of personal insult to Enigmaticman, which failed greatly because of Poisonous' ignorance.
"And... that is exactly what we did. "
"We" as in USA? The British Empire dominated the world centuries after the American revolution, though you could argue that America did finish off the British Empire by not assisting them as much as they could have through both World Wars.
200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.
The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years.
"The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years."
Of course the British empire took the longest we had the largest empire and nothing like the level of communication speed which the U.S has been lucky to live with. we also had to travel all around the world to manage our empire whereas you only had to wait till we were worn out after the wars
The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years.
I'm sorry; what are you disputing? You have agreed that it was not fast, and the median of the other three times (videlicet the average time taken for a superpower to emerge) is about 180 years.
I was disputing your date of 200 years. It was 169, not 200.
As aforesaid, I do not measure from independence. The initial infrastructure; the means by which a functional state was contrived, was built before the revolutionary victory.
Then where are you measuring from? The Roman Empire's initial infrastructure was built by the Roman republic. So unless you happen to be the first civilization in a given area, your infrastructure is going to already be laid out. Few nations can be said to have started from scratch. The Romans were building in Great Britain long before it became a recognizable nation.
The establishment of the last of the Thirteen Colonies in 1733. It represents the consolidation of initial political boundaries, and allows for the difficulty encountered in taming an entirely new land with primitive technologies.
The Roman Empire's initial infrastructure was built by the Roman republic.
The distinction, in this context, between empire and republic or colony, is merely a political technicality. I take roughly 200BC as the beginning of Roman expansionism abroad; for it was then that all of the Italian peninsula was under their control. I consider this starting point as roughly analogous with that of the United States.
The Romans were building in Great Britain long before it became a recognizable nation.
If I may suggest that you pay a visit, you will see that my countrymen did not make great use of the Roman relics; allowing nearly all of them to fall into ruin.
I think you are constructing a standard specifically to produce a desired conclusion. I will demonstrate why it is in fact a double standard.
When measuring how long it took for the United States to become a superpower you measure from 1733, the establishment of the last of the thirteen colonies, which if I am not mistaken is merely a "Political technicality".
Yet...
When measuring how long it took for The Roman Empire to become a superpower you measure from 200 BC, not from it's origin as a political entity, but from when it had control over the Italian Peninsula. If we are being fair, and not coming up with ridiculous rationalizations, should we not also begin from the time that The United States had control of it's respective lands, North America from Atlantic to Pacific coast?
Furthermore, when the colonies were still under British control, it was still part of Great Britain, you must calculate from when it became independent of foreign control, especially given the fact that The American Colonies prospered more when they were independent than when were under British Control. Great Britain exploited the colonies for it's natural resources as a source of revenue for England. Great Britain effectively slowed it's progress and development, not hastened it. The United States was much more unsettled wilderness when it began than was Great Britain.
What does or does not constitute a country is itself a "political technicality", as we are NOT comparing ethnic groups, clans, or races. And so we should start from the beginning of said country (a political entity) up until the time it became a superpower. This is the only fair and objective way to make this kind of comparison.
When measuring how long it took for the United States to become a superpower you measure from 1733, the establishment of the last of the thirteen colonies, which if I am not mistaken is merely a "Political technicality".
Not at all. the physical acquisition and development of new territory is not a technicality. It represents a tangible change in the composition and extent of a nation. It would be unfair of me to measure the development of what would later become the United States from the establishment very first English colony. I pick 1733 because it represents the consolidation of the original territory from which the United States would grow, which is exactly the case with the Italian peninsula. The pacification of native powers within those borders, too, is an important consideration. I refer you to any reputable work on the history of Rome, to see that until the subjugation of Italy, Rome was constantly harried by hostile neighbours, and had virtually no security from which to develop their society. Indeed, the entire city was sacked by the Gauls in 387BC, and never fully recovered the grandeur that was lost; "They bought stones from Veii, and to the poor the authorities granted bricks, and gradually a new, but ill-built, city grew up among the ruins, with crooked streets and lanes, and with buildings, public and private, huddled together just as happened to be the most convenient for the immediate occasion".
Both civilizations grew from colonies settled in virgin territory, but in different eras, and with entirely different levels of support from the home territory. It is therefore, to my mind, fairest to measure from the consolidation of their original territories, as represented by the Thirteen Colonies of America and the Italian lands south of the Alps in Italy, respectively.
but from when it had control over the Italian Peninsula. If we are being fair, and not coming up with ridiculous rationalizations, should we not also begin from the time that The United States had control of it's respective lands, North America from Atlantic to Pacific coast?
No; for I have already dismissed political technicalities. We are not discussing the development of only the United States, nor of only the Imperivm Romanvs, but their original entities, as represented by their starting territories.
Furthermore, your logic is peculiar. If the coast to coast territory of the United States represents its full extent (give or take some minor additions), then it is analogous to the full extent of the Roman Civilization. In the case of the former, it was not at the time a superpower, and in the case of the latter, it was at the height of its relative power. In any case, neither is a sensible point from which to begin the measurement the development of their power.
Furthermore, when the colonies were still under British control, it was still part of Great Britain, you must calculate from when it became independent of foreign control, especially given the fact that The American Colonies prospered more when they were independent than when were under British Control.
The history of the civilization in question (A North American nation of English et alia origin) predates the declaration of independence, however beautiful and noble that document may be. It may be said that the Roman people prospered more under the Imperivm than under the corrupt and decadent republic, but that is simply a political change, not a great leap in political, military and economic power. It is important to distinguish prosperity from the system that engenders it.
Great Britain exploited the colonies for it's natural resources as a source of revenue for England.
And the colonists exploited the new territory as a means of escaping poverty, persecution and strife at home. Without either incentive, their would be no United States at all. The colonies owe their existence to their material worth to England.
Great Britain effectively slowed it's progress and development, not hastened it.
Completely false. All of the initial development was made by Britain. Without the initial manpower, military protection and investment that Britain contributed, their would be no nation to discuss.
The United States was much more unsettled wilderness when it began than was Great Britain.
If I have asserted that the British Empire rose faster than the American Superpower, I spoke in error.
What does or does not constitute a country is itself a "political technicality", as we are NOT comparing ethnic groups, clans, or races.
You confuse the terms country and nation. A country is indeed a political entity, but a nation is not. A nation is a group of people, linked by common characteristics, and who in this context integrate to from one society. The specific system of governance is, in my opinion, not significant to this debate. If we were debating the merits of diverse political systems, and their impact on the development of nations, your point would be perfectly valid, but our dispute is whence to measure the development, without reference to the influences on it. If you want to say that there was a disadvantageous influence upon the Thirteen Colonies, then I could easily cite their technological and scientific superiority as an unfair advantage over Rome.
And so we should start from the beginning of said country (a political entity) up until the time it became a superpower.
If you want to do that, we could say the following:
1776 - ~1945 = 169 years.
27BC - ~60 AD = 87 years (Assuming this to be the point Supremacy; practically speaking, Rome was a superpower from the transition to Empire).
A short note is required to emphasize the difference between maximum extent or power, and superpower status. For example, compare American power today to American power in 1945.
You confuse the terms country and nation. A country is indeed a political entity, but a nation is not.
The debate title says Country, not Nation. I said country, not nation.
If you want to do that, we could say the following:
1776 - ~1945 = 169 years.
27BC - ~60 AD = 87 years
I could say that and I have said that. Realize the durations you list here are well in-line with those that I listed from the beginning, the only difference is that our dates for the rise of the Roman Empire are a mere 3 years apart. I think that still supports my argument quite well. The rise of American Dominance was still fast.
You disputed my assertion, which was written in the context of nation, not country, as you well know. Therefore you should speak in the same terms as I, without changing your terminology to connote something that is subtly different to what I had originally meant. To use political technicalities such as declarations of independence and other revolutions, and changes in governance; is to needlessly confound the matter. One could thereby create any number of starting dates for the development of a people. Would one take England's development from 1066, 1536, 1558, 1651, 1688, 1707, 1783, 1815 &c;., all years of significant political upheaval, reformation; religious realignment, economic shifts or monarchical transition? Obviously, I should take 1066, when the realm was successfully invaded by the Normans under the Conqueror, and when it was for the last time established as one kingdom, under the rule of one people. The United States was founded as a colony, not a conquest or annexation, and therefore its existence cannot be entirely emancipated from its time as a subject, when it was sustained by a home power, or when it later contributed to the sustenance of that home power.
I could say that and I have said that.
Then the development of the American superpower, taking that starting point, is nearly twice as long as that of Rome. I submit that two times what is considered a short time, cannot relatively be considered a short time.
Who do you think made all the stuff that's around today? U.S.A! There's no way you can say england invented the lightbulb, or that they built the first big bomb.
What about the harrier jump jet, the lynx helicopter, the computer, the internet, the radio, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, trains, bicycles, The concept of vitamins, DNA, gravity and the police. Subway systems, the modern Olympics, the paralympics, Viagra, the tin can, the sandwich, the ymca...
I'm fairly certain the computer was invented in the United States and The Radio was invented in Italy by Guglielmo Marconi. I'm also fairly certain nobody 'invented' DNA as we have always had DNA...same with gravity.
If you re-read what i wrote you will see that i said the CONCEPT of DNA was a British invention, First announced amongst friends in a pub in Cambridge. The same with gravity.
The computer was refined and turned into what we know as the computer in the US, however was originaly invented in a very rudimentary stage in the second world war by a Brit, who's name i have forgotten, but was since sterilised as he was gay.
First of all, allow me to say that I do not think that USA is better than England.
I say this because the world of science is so interconnected among nations, to the point that it is impossible to discern who did what. Any great stride in knowledge is thanks to the scientists who preceded them.
"CONCEPT of DNA"
the concept of genetic inheritable traits was theorized by Austrian Gregor Mendel
the concept of X-rays, which Crick and Wattson used to
"gravity"
'action at a distance' was an occult belief that preceded Newton
Sir Isaac Newton published the Principia in 1687.
The united states became an independent nation in 1776.
"however was originaly invented in a very rudimentary stage in the second world war by a Brit"
programmable loom made by Joseph Marie Jacquard (french) by 1805
32 years before Charles Babbage (english) designed the the analytical engine in 1837
but the first digital computer made by George Stibitz (american) in 1937
so, it should be apparent that the grounds superior technology cannot be who developed what, because none of the presented ideas are truly independent.
If you re-read what i wrote you will see that i said the CONCEPT of DNA was a British invention, First announced amongst friends in a pub in Cambridge. The same with gravity.
And the DNA base pairs were discovered by an American. Recombinant DNA was discovered by an American.
The computer was refined and turned into what we know as the computer in the US, however was originaly invented in a very rudimentary stage in the second world war by a Brit, who's name i have forgotten, but was since sterilised as he was gay.
No, the computer you are using now is a personal computer which was an American invention.
The EXCACT computer I am using is Australian designed. The computer as it is known today was, yes, an American invention, however it stemmed from the work and inventions of this guy who's name i STILL cant remember.
Nearly every great invention or discovery stems from some previous discovery. This doesn't change the fact that the Personal Computer was invented in the US.
Is that the type of response you are looking for? You might have gotten a response that may have held a slight chuckle in it had you used the right words in half of your idiotic retort to the question being asked of you.
Jeremy Fargus, you are a disgrace to trolls and online comics all over the world.
ok well the fact that you want to take this agruement seriously is a joke in itself, seriously you can not give any evidential proof as to one country being better than another and to be honest it woul be racist to try. if you want to discus politics or otherwise a genuine issue which will affect the way we live then i will give you a genuine arguement about the situation weighing up the morality and ethical values. however on a joke subject like this, yes i am going to make a joke about it.
now dont insult me by saying that i am an adolesent, if you want to argue a genuine topic, well bring it on.
now if you'll excuse me i need to get back to my afternoon tea with scones and crumpets
ok well the fact that you want to take this agruement seriously is a joke in itself,
I addressed your post was a joke, I made that fairly obvious. Once again I found your joke to be idiotic and childish, so I chose to dispute it.
seriously you can not give any evidential proof as to one country being better than another and to be honest it woul be racist to try
I addressed that in my comment on the U.S.A.'s side of the debate, where I posted that you cannot determine whether or not one country is better than another in a general sense.
now dont insult me by saying that i am an adolesent, if you want to argue a genuine topic, well bring it on.
Well as far as I'm concerned that is on your table to argue in a debate that is worth your attention span, I have nothing to prove and what I had to prove I stated as crystally as possible.
now if you'll excuse me i need to get back to my afternoon tea with scones and crumpets
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was making an inference, As the the gentleman's posts on both sides of the debate could lead me to the conclusion as I stated. Therefore I would put it at more of an educated guess than an inference.
Yeah, i actually agree (except for the whole US winning thing of course, im British). There are a few things i could say about policies that i prefer over here, but equally, i could say the same about policies that i think you guys have better. Its entirelly subjective.
Shouldnt this argument be between China and the US? England, chillax. You chavs suck in general, with your annoying voices and falsely overbloated self-confidence. Go wank it off, will ya? Scotland is better anyway. (Just kidding guys, you can be pretty cool when youre not posting dumb arguments like this one.)
America could use a bit of a facelift as well, Id say. But not NEARLY as much as England does. Now, if this were an argument between the UK and England, then maybe we'd have some logs to burn here. Until then, Its kind of the obvious answer of America.
At least we don't speak like we have a cold all the time, have one of the greatest concentrations of religious zealots in the western world, have politicians that refuse to push through the most common sence bills...
That being said, in recent time, i have regained my faith in your country a little, with the repeal of DADT and the pushing through of the Zadroga bill (think i may have spelt that wrong).
All in all, i think i could live in the US, however only in the large cities such as New York.
Shouldnt this argument be between China and the US?
China is a backwards, ageing nation of lunatics who eat with sticks.
You chavs suck in general
Is this statement addressed to "chavs", Englishmen or the the opposition? Upon which published statistics do you base your claim that all chavs suck, that all Englishmen are chavs, that this is only generally true or that it is true at all?
your annoying voices
That's just a childish argument.
Go wank it off, will ya?
Is that a joke, or do you seriously believe that is how the word "wank" is used?
Scotland is better anyway.
The trouble (one of them, at least) with being American is that geography is beyond your conception. Scotland is a horrible, horrible place.
America could use a bit of a facelift as well, Id say. But not NEARLY as much as England does.
Most of America is a wasteland. The rest is filled with Americans. The only conceivable worse place on Earth is Spain (excepting Africa and Asia, but they are just awful).
China is a backwards, ageing nation of lunatics who eat with sticks.
I THINK NOT. Though you seem to think Size is not synonomous with strength, I disagree. It is actually RATHER synonomous, but not necessarily exactly so. China is big, and growing. It is indeed filled with lunatics, but the rest of the country is growing more and more aware of that and moving in for the kill. And eating with sticks is fun, dont be insulting.
Is this statement addressed to "chavs", Englishmen or the the opposition? Upon which published statistics do you base your claim that all chavs suck, that all Englishmen are chavs, that this is only generally true or that it is true at all?
It was a joke, Enigmatic. Dont you have something better to do than insult Americans?
That's just a childish argument.
Point in fact.
Is that a joke, or do you seriously believe that is how the word "wank" is used?
THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS A JOKE. GO WANK IT OFF WILL YA? (Sorry, I heard one of my English Friends say that once and it makes me laugh every time.)
The trouble (one of them, at least) with being American is that geography is beyond your conception. Scotland is a horrible, horrible place.
Have you any proof? Regardless, I meant more so of the people. I have had a much better experience with the Scottish than the English. Less Drunk men, nicer people and less over-bloated self-confidence. But maybe its just me.
Most of America is a wasteland. The rest is filled with Americans. The only conceivable worse place on Earth is Spain (excepting Africa and Asia, but they are just awful).
You are just a mean man, Enigmatic. It seems were on comepletely different sides of this argument in every respect. I refuse to drop to your level of supposedly unbiased truthfullness. Besides, England is a land of refuse where old drunk, fat men rape their women and beat their children out of their homes, which they eventually lose to the Government and somehow maintain the shitty quality of life they had before. Sorry, moment of weakness.
I am unaware as to how something can be rather synonymous (as opposed to just synonymous), but that is neither here nor there.
but not necessarily exactly so
As aforesaid, there are no degrees of synonymity.
China is big, and growing.
Meh, western businesses providing employment and western investors flooding the place with capital. We are still making all the money.
It is indeed filled with lunatics, but the rest of the country is growing more and more aware of that and moving in for the kill.
I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what do you speak?
And eating with sticks is fun, dont be insulting.
Eating with sticks is most certainly not fun.
It was a joke, Enigmatic.
Methinks a joke is supposed to be funny.
Dont you have something better to do than insult Americans?
Not really.
THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS A JOKE.
That is the patent truth and I am well aware of it.
Have you any proof?
What constitutes proof in your estimation?
I have had a much better experience with the Scottish than the English.
Birds of a feather.
You are just a mean man, Enigmatic.
I had thought myself explicit; I am an Enigmatic man.
I refuse to drop to your level of supposedly unbiased truthfullness.
When did I claim to present such?
Besides, England is a land of refuse where old drunk, fat men rape their women and beat their children out of their homes, which they eventually lose to the Government and somehow maintain the shitty quality of life they had before. Sorry, moment of weakness.
Is that the best you can do in a moment of weakness?
Go do something better Enigmatic. That is all there really is to say. Unless of course you are trying pointlessly to rack up some quick points for your account. Then by all means, continue. And eating with sticks is indeed fun. Anyone who disagrees with that is a bigoted fool.
As for my lunatics comment, I mean the Chinese Communist government in general when I say lunatics and the rest of the country is very quickly moving toward a capitalistic-Democracy.
America and England both have incompetent economic policy, yet both have some form of a democratic government where it is the least worst of all forms of government.
However, America is greater because we still don't have to praise her all majesty, and most importantly, we have the Bill of Rights.
last time I checked, Obama's approval was in the 40%s. I highly suspect that your queen's approval is higher. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Also, most Americans don't worship the president like you people worship your queen.
A codified constitution hardly makes you superior.
Yes, well we invented much of the system. You simply copied us, to a certain extent. I would definitely say that an inventor is "better" than a copier.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I know England has a Bill of Rights because if you have actually read before, you would know that it is similar but doesn't guarantee individual rights..
For example, "That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." England
What about "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments [sic] and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal." or "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." or "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Do you not consider those to be individual rights???
Ok...so... Your argument was that the United States is better than England because the United States has a Bill of Rights. I was just pointing out that your argument is irrelevant because England has a Bill of Rights, as well. Although it isn't word-for-word the United States Bill of Rights, it is a Bill of Rights and does give rights to citizens.
Your argument was that the United States is better than England because the United States has a Bill of Rights
Ok, fine, let me rephrase...The United States is better due to its Bill of Rights because it grants more freedom.
If one knows about US Bill of Rights, then one would know that England has a bill of rights probably because our bill of rights was deprived from it, but only better.
At my part-time job (if you consider 30 hours a week part-time), there is this guy, who we will call Todd. This isn’t just any guy; he’s from England. A bloody redcoat. A tea drinking mother fucker.
Now, usually I don’t have anything against people from England. (Although I do find it fascinating that I haven’t been to a dentist in years and I have better teeth than the bloody lot of them.) But I hardly knew Todd so I figured I’d see what he was made of. I wanted to push a few buttons to see how he’d react, too. So I asked him if he was still mad that England lost the war.
It took him a moment to realize I was talking about the Revolutionary War. He actually thought I meant some civil war. I didn’t know what the bloody hell he was talking about. That’s when he gave me a history lesson. He gave me England’s own version of the events that took place some 230 odd years ago. He informed me that the United States didn’t gain their independence from England until 1976.
Of course, that isn’t exactly how I remember it happening, and I’m sure you history buffs will agree. My 5th grade history teacher, Mr. Southem, said we kicked England out and declared our independence on the 4th of July, the 7th month of the year, 1776. (Although it should also be noted that Mr. Southem’s favorite joke was, “What’s the capital of Alaska? I know, Juneau?” so it’s hard to take anything he says too seriously.) What I do know is that we took all of their shitty tea and threw it in the Boston Harbor because we were sick of paying taxes. And now, instead of giving all of our hard earned cash to the King of England, we now give it to the King of Retards. Both named George, ironically.
Sorry if this brings back painful memories, but it's something you have to see, Redcoat.
Sadly, we’re still sick of paying taxes. According to Todd, the Queen of England signed the papers that gave the United States of America their independence on July 4, 1976. I find it fascinating that the rest of the world considers the United States to be the most arrogant country, and gives England a free pass. Seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to lose a war, then wait 200 years to acknowledge the fact that your opposition formed its own country, with its own laws, leaders, and government structure, completely separate from your own?
So, in honor of this new information that has come to my attention (that the United States has only been its own country for 31 years) I’ve decided to tell you why the United States is better than England.
Victoria Beckham isn’t a celebrity here. She’s just somebody’s wife. Which one was she again? Let me see. Sleepy, Dopey, Scary, Posh. I don’t think it even matters anymore.
We drive on the RIGHT side of the road. Todd did what every other person from England I’ve met does. He told me that WE drive on the wrong side of the road. I looked it up and about a quarter of the world drives on the left side. That means three-quarters of the world drive on the right side of the road. Majority rules, ya Brit. Right side of the road wins.
Football involves the Steelers, five Super Bowl victories (the most in NFL history), and Penn State Football. If it weren’t for “American Football” there wouldn’t be a Beaver Stadium and 110,000 screaming fans who probably consume more alcohol during one home game weekend than all of Europe does in a year. That last statement is outrageous and I have no actual evidence to support my claim, but it’s still probably true.
The U.S. was never taken over by anybody. Ever. Remember World War II? Of course you don’t, you weren’t alive. Well I have the internet and I looked it up. Germany successfully invaded England and occupied London. Winston Churchill was overrated. I think he might even have been an alcoholic, too. That is, if having alcohol for breakfast makes you an alcoholic. Thanks to the good ole U-S of A, England is still around to remind us all how we drive on the wrong side of the road.
Child pornography is illegal in the United States. Child pornography being what it is, it stands to reason that it would also be illegal in England, too. Right? Wrong. Elton John owns child pornography. Only instead of arresting him, the courts in England said it was fine. It was over some picture he had with two girls belly dancing, one of them naked. Although, considering it was a naked a picture of a girl, I guess maybe I get their point. It IS Elton John.
King Ralph. King Ralph was that movie starring John Goodman. It might be the shittiest movie I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t seen the movie (you’re lucky, you’re still going to Heaven) it’s about an American who is a descendant of British royalty that is the heir to the Royal thrown after the entire Royal family is electrocuted during a family photo. Outside. In the rain. England is just full of geniuses. Of course, conforming to British standards, King Ralph is a loudmouth, uncouth, slob from America with no social boundaries or redeeming qualities. And of course, you guessed it. Everybody in England is classy and sophisticated. They spend the entire movie trying to make John Goodman conform to British social standards. It’s complete nonsense.
So, here’s to you, Todd, you blubbering fool:
The United States of America is a teenage country, 231 years old with a big dick. Keep talking shit and you might end up fucked in the ass one day.
either way back to smashing your argument(half the time you are garbling out historical rubbish that a simple link to a website wouldn't solve, so I've left your junk out):
"....their independence from England until 1976"
thats a lie, Todd's a retard
"What I do know is that we took all of their shitty tea and threw it in the Boston Harbor because we were sick of paying taxes. And now, instead of giving all of our hard earned cash to the King of England, we now give it to the King of Retards. Both named George, ironically."
You couldn't afford tea tax so you rebelled, thats sad.
"I find it fascinating that the rest of the world considers the United States to be the most arrogant country, and gives England a free pass."
Because you are the one's who go around blowing up towns with nukes.
"Seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to lose a war, then wait 200 years to acknowledge the fact that your opposition formed its own country, with its own laws, leaders, and government structure, completely separate from your own?"
How pathetic do you have to be to go back 300 years to find a war you won on your own, and that was with a country 100th your size.
"We drive on the RIGHT side of the road."
We invented the road how can we drive on the wrong side of it?
"I looked it up and about a quarter of the world drives on the left side. That means three-quarters of the world drive on the right side of the road. Majority rules, ya Brit. Right side of the road wins."
That's just stupid logic: if loads of people got it wrong that means its right.
"
Football involves the Steelers, five Super Bowl victories (the most in NFL history), and Penn State Football. If it weren’t for “American Football” there wouldn’t be a Beaver Stadium and 110,000 screaming fans who probably consume more alcohol during one home game weekend than all of Europe does in a year. That last statement is outrageous and I have no actual evidence to support my claim, but it’s still probably true."
You, like many other americans, got football WRONG football involves kicking a ball with your foot.
if it wasn't for our "English football" there wouldn't be the Fifa World Cup thats brings millions of cash to whatever country is lucky enough to get it.
"The U.S. was never taken over by anybody. Ever. Remember World War II? Of course you don’t, you weren’t alive. Well I have the internet and I looked it up. Germany successfully invaded England and occupied London. Winston Churchill was overrated. I think he might even have been an alcoholic, too. That is, if having alcohol for breakfast makes you an alcoholic. Thanks to the good ole U-S of A, England is still around to remind us all how we drive on the wrong side of the road."
I remember this argument from when i first read it and god have you been lied to. The whole of Britain is laughing at your research fail XD
(I've skipped to the end now)
"The United States of America is a teenage country, 231 years old with a big dick. Keep talking shit and you might end up fucked in the ass one day."
THe USA is a teenage country trying to be the best, and lead, among older more experienced countries, everyone else is just laughing at you.
"You invented road markers, this is different than saying you invented roads.
"
We also invented the tarmac and other components of the modern day road, you could argue that we only "improved" the road but according to your satements against others "improving" something is the same as inventing it.
We also invented the tarmac and other components of the modern day road, you could argue that we only "improved" the road but according to your satements against others "improving" something is the same as inventing it.
Modern road asphalt was invented by a Belgian immigrant in the United States.
And yes, an innovation is not the same as an invention.
"Modern road asphalt was invented by a Belgian immigrant in the United States.
And yes, an innovation is not the same as an invention "
John Metcalfe, a Scot born in 1717, built about 180 miles of roads in Yorkshire, England (even though he was blind). His well drained roads were built with three layers: large stones; excavated road material; and a layer of gravel.
Modern tarred roads were the result of the work of two Scottish engineers, Thomas Telford and John Loudon McAdam. Telford designed the system of raising the foundation of the road in the center to act as a drain for water. Thomas Telford (born 1757) improved the method of building roads with broken stones by analyzing stone thickness, road traffic, road alignment and gradient slopes. Eventually his design became the norm for all roads everywhere. John Loudon McAdam (born 1756) designed roads using broken stones laid in symmetrical, tight patterns and covered with small stones to create a hard surface. McAdam's design, called "macadam roads," provided the greatest advancement in road construction.
You are missing the point. What started as an ancient invention, was popularized by the Romans, improved by the Brits, and Improved by Belgians and Americans. The products and outcomes we see today come from a string of innovations and contributions from all over the world, throughout time. Your patriotism blinds you. Your spite of Americans, blinds you.
How pathetic do you have to be to go back 300 years to find a war you won on your own, and that was with a country 100th your size.
Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?
I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?
Unless you happen to be Russia.
Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.
So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?
Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me.
We invented the road how can we drive on the wrong side of it?
Ha, good one.
Because you are the one's who go around blowing up towns with nukes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked saved millions of lives, however it was an idiotic move as doing so breached the terms of war: we killed civilians. In actuality if we had taken to invade and conquer Japan it would have taken several more years to island hop until the deed was done, it would have cost millions of lives as the emperor would not have surrendererd until we were beating down the door to his palace.
Was the bombing a necessity? It could go both ways but I'm not going to delve into it any further as it would be pointless and end up in a totally different debate which has been addressed on this site many times before.
That's just stupid logic: if loads of people got it wrong that means its right.
"Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?
I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?
Unless you happen to be Russia.
Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.
So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?
Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me.
"
Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer it as we would have had a large amount of land to conquer.Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island. I think it was a pretty good attempt but we bit more than we could chew, so what?
Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer it
You used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country.
what is?
Try reading my post again.
Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island.
Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?
"You used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country."
I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against.
"Try reading my post again."
I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking about
"Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?"
"1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.
2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.
3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."
I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against.
You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S.
I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics...
I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking about
Your quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed.
1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.
Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either.
2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.
Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war.
3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."
A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart.
Notice that the first one clearly states that land size was a big point.
I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain.
"You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S.
I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics..."
I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated.
"Your quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed."
You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician.
"Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either."
We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion.
"Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war."
Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning.
"A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart."
exactly my point.
"I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain."
I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated.
Rodger that.
You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician.
I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly.
We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion.
Nothing to argue with there.
Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning.
Nothing there either.
exactly my point.
Excellent!
Took you a while.
I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made.
"I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly."
You should, its outrageously funny
"Nothing to argue with there.Nothing there either.Excellent!"
by the sound of this you aren't actually disagreeing with me.
"I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made."
If not for French aid, and French forces providing distractions for British forces, there was no guarantee at all that the Revolution would have been successful. In fact, without French support, it almost certainly would have failed.
Historically and as a whole the US. This country has done more to further the natural evolution of man and our state of being than any country in history.
Recent history, England.
They've been on the correct side of most global debates in retrospect for the last couple decades at least, they've built their government so that they have a higher mean standard of living, live longer, have less infant mortality, and maintain actually more freedom if one discounts guns - but really you can hunt with a knife if it is truly for "sport". That said, as the political party that went along with Iraq lost power, it was replaced by one that thinks cutting student subsidies instead of bank CEO bonuses is smart - it is not. England isn't the shining example either.
As for "following" the US on the other side as one mentioned. They've placed undue trust in our government's intelligence, and the political party in power paid the price. The US went through 8 years of quickly spending its world trust, and we're about broke in that regard.
Luckily Obama is attempting to turn that around, and has done a stellar job restoring world opinion in a couple short years.
God forbid a Palin or Huckabee is elected next. We've worn most of the world's patience with this manifest destiny laced with weird religious fervor bs.
None of it was the founding of this country's intent. And one side of the political debate's continued ignorance of the US past mistakes only sets us back, it does nothing fulfill the potential.
USA for sure!! America comes out with most of the popular movies (Titanic and Avatar), we are the only people that have been to the moon, we are the most technologically advanced, we have a pretty stable society, we have a lot of rights, religion is seperate from the governement, we are just better!! many of the world's smartest people came from here
I would dispuite the seperation of Church and State- you need only look at how Republicans insist upon a quasi-religious mentality over nearly everything. Which I will grant is not the entirety of the US.
England has high taxes, no jobs, cold weather most of the time, lots of rain and fog, majority of people in England are extremely snobbish and unfriendly. America has much better looking people. America has better dental care, did you ever see their teeth? America is just a much better place to live and they know it and they are so jealous of us its pathetic.
I'ld rather have the cool, crisp hills of England than the disaster-ridden cites of U.S we hardly ever get earthquakes or tornadoes the worst thing we get is rain.
"majority of people in England are extremely snobbish and unfriendly. America has much better looking people. America has better dental care, did you ever see their teeth? America is just a much better place to live and they know it and they are so jealous of us its pathetic"
i know right, it makes me laugh so hard, i mean from what ive read, these people genuiney beieve that at 4:00 every day we stop and have afternoon tea. how fked up is that.
its as if they are all morons. it is hilarious, i mean we make jokes about their obeicity problems and the fact that they are hilariously stupid but we take it with a pinch of salt, we are clearly having a laugh, but half the people ive discussed with geniuinely think we all drink tea and end every conversation with toddle pip!!!
theres not actually that much differentce in tax. the only major difference is when we earn more than 35000 (roughly 60000 dollars) other than that by the time youve converted it and properly looked into it, the difference is not that bad and a lot of the time it is actually cheaper
How can you say England is better if you have never been there before. If you have never been to a country it is not entirely true on what you heard or seen on television about somewhere else in the world.
england just knows how to rule it misuses its technology. it has a greed of power which according to me is very wrong. the small nation ruled the world and attacked usa but dont know what will happen if usa attack.
"england just knows how to rule it misuses its technology."
the grammer in this sentance is terrible, either way, we don't misuse our technology in any way.
" it has a greed of power which according to me is very wrong"
there was no "greed of power" in our empire and even if there was we used it for good reasons.
"the small nation ruled the world and attacked usa but dont know what will happen if usa attack."
we have never "attacked" the United States we colonised North America and founded the United States, you then proceeded to be mean to harmless native americans to gain more land.
Even so guns were not much better than bows and arrows in use at the time, considering many of them had to be reloaded after every shot. A skilled archer could fire off many more shots than could your average firearm. The bow and arrow was more accurate than your early firearms. The main advantage of a gun is that it could pierce heavy armor, which Native Americans didn't really have any to begin with. If you actually read the history, the Native Americans kicked our ass on many occasions.
To suggest that they were just harmless savages is ignorant. They introduced guerrilla warfare to us, which is part of the reason why we were able to defeat your country in the revolutionary war.
Your argument is simply uneducated.
but you gave them the worst land and claimed the best
Precisely what your country did. Except your country did it on a world wide scale, and not just in North America.
I'm not going to waste time quoting your enitre argument:
The difference between our Empire and your country is that all our colonies still have their land and their traditions whereas your country has engulfed the native americans and now they have nothing apart from a memory.
Yes, let's ignore the fact that you thought all native Americans were wiped out, or that they didn't posses firearms. Let's ignore these embarrassing little mistakes.
Let's also ignore the number of travesties committed against these people by your government, which historically is well known for it's insensitivity of native peoples. The Native Americans (or indians as they are known) have been, for the most part, assimilated into American society. Their culture is still preserved on reservations and elsewhere in the United States.
I've actually been to about 3 or 4 Pow-wows, in which they share their culture with those willing to go to such events. If you wish to speak with me about Native Americans and/or their culture in my country, go ahead, but you will lose that debate.
You contradict yourself- we do not have a "greed of power". In recent years, if a country has voted to become independent from us, then we will let it. Hardly greedy is it?
The US rose up against England, you were the experts, but we won a war that was clearly not in our odds. Although, yes you do have a better economy, and fucking healthcare, so I can't beleve I'm doing this, but England would be the better choice.
There is more diversity in the United States of America. We have soda AND tea. But they have that in England as well. There are obese people in England as well, too. America just has more because it is a bigger country.
"I've never been in an earthquake, tornado or a natural disaster"
A lot of people in America have, and a lot have consequently died because of this.
A lot of Americans die of natural causes and an interesting fact is that over 2400000 Americans die each year in Hospital.
The statistic for deaths in hospital for England is much less - we have less natural disasters, and better healthcare. America has no NHS - and, because of this, the poverty rates are much higher.
"You're in miserable weather almost all the time"
I would prefer a bit of rain than earthquakes/tornadoes/Yellowstone National Park/thousands of dead people.
Would you prefer to have thousands die each year for the sake of the fact that they don't like rain?
America is better just because it is! I mean, we have more freedom, we're independent, we know how to eat, we have a fair democracy, we have no kings or queens, we're just 100% awesomeness.
1) "do you really sip tea and eat crumpets?("crumpets" scrambled is "spectrum" is that what ur eating?)"
2)"when is teatime and do you really have it?"
3)"is July 4th an awkward day for you?"
4) "how do you learn about the American Revolution in school? do you even study it?"
and we are not stupid! we may be behind on math but we are ahead of EVERYBODY in reading. (and living) can you do math without reading the numbers? (or living)
"1) "do you really sip tea and eat crumpets?("crumpets" scrambled is "spectrum" is that what ur eating?)""
Most traditionalists do, but it isn't a meal which we all eat.
"2)"when is teatime and do you really have it?""
the only people I know who still take tea are my grandparents and they have it around 5 o'clock
"3)"is July 4th an awkward day for you?""
No-one here really cares about July the 4th its just another normal day, I doubt the average chav would even know what happened that day.
"4) "how do you learn about the American Revolution in school? do you even study it?"
"
too be honest I don't remember studying it in depth, I think we might have had 1 lesson on it when we were studying the British Empire but all we are taught about it is that "the U.S revolted"
"and we are not stupid! we may be behind on math but we are ahead of EVERYBODY in reading. (and living) can you do math without reading the numbers? (or living)"
Maths opens more doors than English does. Also I'ld like to see proof about this statement.
1) no we dont all sit around and have tea and crumpets. we do ocasionally but for the adverage brit it isnt exactly every day.
2) if you do have it which most people dont, then its roughly 4:00 ish
3) no its just another day
4) not particuarly, we tend to stick to the more important historical areas. although i did stop history at my first oportunity so its possible that they do in higher levels of education. but other than that we only touch on it.
an that last comment is the one of the most stupid things ive ever heard. your better at maths but were better at reading, so therefore we must be better at maths????? seriously? think it through!
Classy is not better. The more effective way is a better way. Why do nothing about a big promblem? Why don't you say "let it be FREE". It's U.S.A we are United.
If it wasn't for us, England would have been taken over by the Nazis in World War II. Be thankful, or we might just flash the big middle finger to you fuckers and take you over ourselves, which we most definitely could do. Don't bite the hand that feeds motherfucker, or that hand will pull down their pants and dick slap you bitches :)
"If it wasn't for us, England would have been taken over by the Nazis in World War II"
What are you ballshitting about? When we needed your help in WW2 you didn't give it and then you joined when we started winning! you have hardly helped us at all compared to the amount of times we followed you into war.
" or we might just flash the big middle finger to you fuckers and take you over ourselves,"
This makes me laugh so much, you couldn't even get to the other side of Vietnam and you think you can cross the Atlantic to get us XD.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds motherfucker, or that hand will pull down their pants and dick slap you bitches :)"
You haven't fed us anything apart from the Bigmac and we could do a lot better without that, we on the other hand have given you nearly everything that makes your country civilizd: Language, Religion, Names, etc.
Well I'm American so this is really my only option... I've been to the UK and I liked it a lot but I must say I've seen a lot of Brits put their own country down, that always surprises me.
- separation of church and state (England does not, there is actually a state religion.. scary, huh?)
- separation from the monarchical regime that is England
- right to bear arms and form an armed militia if the need arises
- at the top of the list educationally, technologically, entertainment-ly, and every other aspect of culture and humanity
- multi-cultural
Lol, what cracks me up the most is that Brits actually pretend that they're progressive! Lol! They have a state religion and a monarch... Enough said...
The united state is not made entirely of immigrants- there's still the indiginous peoples. And england has loads of different cultures- have you never been?
The USA is one of the most powerful country's in the world and because of that we are able to have a lot of freedom because the marines are protecting us still! Here in the US we have every sport and a lot more normal people I mean in England they have the stupidest sounding accent and really bad manners. Oh have you ever seen them smile it looks like there teeth are wood.
Haha! Funny! Let me just put it this way, when Britan was the most powerful nation on earth, and the US was just a mere colony, who won the war? I might add who saved Britan from the nazis in WW2? USA!! U.S.A!!!
All these British people keep saying is "America is the largest calorie consumer!" Hasn't anybody heard the saying " Big is beautiful!" It doesn't matter if your big or not! Neither country is better, and no matter what anyone says, we are both the same, and you can't change that.
Do you people even learn about the revolutionary war, or do you have no clue about that? I can see you all at your computers, like, "What's the revolutionary war? When did that happen?"
We touched upon it in school once or twice but we never got in depth with it. They told us what happened: The many of the British people that traveled to America had revolted against the kings taxes and they seceded.
England is a hell of a lot cooler. So much more history and culture! And yet being cool and cultured will get you what exactly?
It's harder to survive financially in England, you're a smaller nation with less clout, and Brexit is going to have negative impacts for many years to come, whereas the US Trump fiasco will be over long before then. Advantage - USA.
The most important thing to discuss when comparing countries are flags. The UK flag is prettier, but the US flag is bigger, so the US are better country.
