- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I cannot even remember learning much if anything about the revolutionary war at school. We would do ww1 and 2, the Napoleonic wars and the British civil war if any. I didn't take history far at all at school, so they may have learnt that, but I am not sure.
Around two years at most America was on their own, I wasn't denying this. The person who used the revolutionary war used it as an example of America being better than Britain (I'm taking England in this debate to mean Britain). I just pointed out that they had the french, Spanish and Dutch on their side. So it isn't a good example.
However I don't agree with the debate, because there are things at which America are better and there are others at which Britain is better.
I've actually decided to clarify instead now because as someone else has also said I don't agree with this debate.
First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! Other than that we took loans from the Dutch and Spain.
When you say in the battles it seems as if you are insinuating that America won every battle, which isn't true.
The Spanish attacked other areas of the empire as well as the french. The dutch as far as I know only loaned money and gave supplies, as you said.
Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans.
I will like to point out, you may already know that the United states declared war, and the treaty of Ghent meant the conditions at the beginning of the war were kept. I don't see how you can claim any sort of victory in the war. Also during the war Britain had actually gained land, which was returned in the treaty. You name two battles, when there were plenty in the war that you lost as well.
I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German.Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel.
Russia may have have eventually have defeated Germany anyway, but anyway I don't think that Germany would have invaded Britain. I'm not sure that we would have pushed them back through France without the Americans help though.
Also without America's help the other allies would have sustained far more damage, but I do think considering we are an island, they would not have been able to invade us like they did France or anyone else, I think our navy would have been enough to at least stop an invasion, if the Germans even attempted one.
I will add I am not belittling the importance of America in ww2, they were an important ally in the war. The war would have probably been lost or taken far longer without the Americans, however I don't think it is likely that Hitler would have attempted to take Britain. Bombed the hell out of us yes, but they'd have to take the channel first and that would have been a task.
America did kick Britain's butt twice
Course you did... wanna say when because I bet that isn't the case.
and saved them during WW2
America did not save the British. The USA did make contributed considerably to the war, but Russia and Britain did far more in the war. Also it would be unlikely that Germany would have invaded Britain considering we had the most powerful navy. We may not have gotten France back but I doubt Germany would have invaded Britain.
I don't agree with the question, but I don't think you were correct.
Heres one for the Babylonian and Biblical comparison
Genesis was thought to be written whilst the Jews were captive in Babylonia. The Noah's ark story was written during this time (after the epic of Gilgamesh was written), so it is likely that they got the story from the Babylonians.
-Dont you think thats a more reason to believe that a Great Flood did happened?
They are too far from each other that so they had different perspective. Yet, they are too close that their stories are too similar to be different events?
If the civilisations are in close proximity, then they will heavily influence each other. Many myths associated with one God can be adopted by another religion and there God/Gods swapped in for the other God/Gods. The Jews were captives in Babylonia and were heavily influenced by them, so it is not unlikely that they adopted myths and ideas from them.
Not really necessary. You just have to target the greatest civilization of their time. It was a local flood yes, but the impact affected the world as the center of trade and technology was devastated.
So you agree that it was a local not a world wide flood?
That was what my point was.
A flood could have massive effects, however I will like to make a distinction. A local flood with far reaching effects is not the same as a world wide flood.
Historical records says so that a flood really happened in the middle east. And the similarities of flood myths all over the world shares too many similarities to be fictional
Can you give a couple of examples so I can look them up to see the similarities.
Also I will try to address a couple of similarities one would expect to find.
Most if not all cultures believed in a God or Gods. Out of these I think it would be reasonable to say that a lot of them would see these Gods playing an active role in the world. Many of these cultures would also think that natural disasters are punishments sent from the Gods/God.
Just from that you can expect that a flood story would probably involve punishment from a God/Gods.
That is probably one of the main similarities, but I don't know what flood stories you are talking about so I cannot address more than that almost certain similarity that the stories will share.
Ridiculous as it may sound. But the bible is still a history book. (corrupted by artistic imagination, though)
I would say the bible is more a book of stories most of which are not historical but are symbolic in some sense. Some events may be based in history but of these I would say few are historically accurate.
Genesis says the waters flooded the earth for 150 days. It also claims that the ark came to rest on mountains Ararat 5 months after the rain which caused the flood started. It then took a further 2.5 months for the tops of mountains to become visible according to genesis. So the flood waters would have to be at a considerable height for much longer than the 40 days Nox0 said, so Nox0's figure was being generous.