If one looks at the high-branded fashion magazines, the advertising brands use involved large full page imagery with a minimal amount of information and I believe this concept of mainly image based promotion can be applied to Social Media. I sincerely doubt that vast majority of people actually look into or research the brands they see people following, but instead glance over the few images provided and form an opinion based on those.

Thus I believe that attractive image content is enough for people for follow fashion brands in social media.

Which government? I don't want some foreign politicians dictating what I can and cannot do on the internet.

I would question whether many people follow fashion brands through social media at all, there has been a rise in evidence on how companies pay social media companies to promote their brand for them and that companies can additionally buy 'followers".

However, if somebody is seen to be following a brand through social media, and particularly a fashion brand, it's appearance on that the social media site will be of sole importance. The people who follow these brands not only want to show they like the brand but also appear to know a lot of fashion to the people who follow them, thus if the imagery of the brand is awful it not only makes the brand look bad but also the people who follow the brand.

(As a side note: I'm aware of the weakness in my argument, however I thought I'd try get this debate going, I can only commend the debate creator for the excellent introduction that they have provided.)

You don't have to be an atheist to acknowledge science.

Why can't we have science and God?

No inheritance for them.

" Frankly, the IRA is a terrorist group right? To be eligible for being called "a terrorist group", I don't know what they've done but it's gotta be pretty fucking bad."

They blew up a hotel attempting to kill the Prime Minister (then Margaret Thatcher), they also killed MPs using bombs and made a lot of violent attacks on people.

I don't have an income :(

I'm a student and therefore unemployed.

I think the main people who want to get rid of the current 1% probably intend on becoming the next 1%.

Good grief, if the 1% is the brain, I would hate to think of what part of the body I end up in....

How so?

Er... I had school?

Though on a serious note, I have been concentrating on my studies for a while, took a break from the internet as a whole, but to be honest I did look in on Createdebate now and then, I just never had the time to construct argument worth reading.

I often take these breaks from CD for a bit, this one was just longer than most, it all comes from me taking on too many debates at once, with arguments getting longer and longer with every dispute until I end up spending 3 hours writing in debates. However it is now the holidays over here in GB and I thought I'd spend some time catching up.

It was nice to see that I was missed :)

As a prime example on how additional political media benefits the democratic process, the BBC's Question Time features a panel of 5 guests which will often be from a range of political viewpoints of whom are encouraged to debate and discuss political issues on a weekly basis.

The debating style and manner often mirrors that of the House of Commons when Prime Ministers Questions are in session, with lots of shouts of raw opinion and partisan tribalism, however unlike the Parliamentary debates, guests on Question Time will often be forced to discuss issues that a member of the audiences raises through a question. This results in politicians commenting on issues at the same moment, providing the audiences and viewers with a clear comparison of how party opinions differ.

Ultimately, additional political media encourages viewers to think about political issues and provides them with deep analysis and differing viewpoints on those issues, thus encouraging them to get more involved in politics and aiding the democratic process.

Using that logic, Egypt most be the most evil nation on the planet. They've been around the longest.

It was clearly a platform to allow people to engage in such a hatred. Unless of course you're some scholar who is genuinely interested in finding out which nation "did more harm to the world".

So don't keep complaining about the apparent surge of Britons on the site bashing America, when that evidently isn't the case.

And if you look at the past British colonies, the one's which we continued along our economic policy have become some of the most powerful countries in the world. The only exceptions are those countries in Africa which received dictators almost immediately after the British left, of whom then literally undid all the economic infrastructure that the British had spent so many decades cultivating.

"It should! If it doesn't then you're an idiot. Read your question, then read my answer. If you're still lost, then that's your problem... not mine."

Here's my response: "Fuck you sideways".

And before you complain that it doesn't make any sense here's my response after your next argument:

"It should! If it doesn't then you're an idiot. Read your question, then read my answer. If you're still lost, then that's your problem... not mine."

Now I've saved us both some time.

"And the World Wide Web would be useless without the internet. Did you skip over the part where I said that we rely on each other's inventions?"

Maybe you should address the whole argument before you start to reference the later parts of it.

"If you get all of your facts from Wikipedia, then you really are ignorant."

Well down my road there is a museum, in this museum is an exhibit specifically about John Logie Baird and the invention of the television. Now I've seen the exhibit and I know what it states to be true but copy and pasting a museum is pretty difficult and so I'll have to source from Wikipedia. Unless of course, you can find a more reliable source that covers nearly all knowledge.

"You do know how Wikipedia works, right?"

What? The concept that anyone can create a page, change or edit it? Could you please explain how that differs from the rest of the internet?

"Yes, his work was the first step... so he does deserve credit, but it isn't what you think. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/famouspeople/john logiebaird/images/bairdsciencemuseum.jpg"

As I said before, in the museum they have a model of his first project.

"That's Baird's TV. A few years later, Philo Farnsworth (American) improved it.

http://www.futuristspeaker.com/wp-content/uploads/TV-1935-Philo-Farnsworth.jpg

Which one looks more like the modern television?"

That's a stupid argument, shall we take pictures of a calculator 50 years ago and take a picture of one made by Casio 5 years ago? Which one looks more like the modern calculator? Best we better accredit the Japanese for yet another invention.

"I assume that those American shows that are remakes of British shows are aired in Britain too. If I go online and look at the Box Office Index for the UK, the top movies are all American. Our entertainment is one of our greatest exports and it's huge over there. Am I wrong?"

Yes, you're right the popular trash for the masses over here in the UK is primarily American. I cannot disagree.

"Sure, except the Web depends on the Internet in order to work, where as a car doesn't need a road."

The Car needs something solid beneath it to work, it cannot drive across water. Likewise the World Wide Web was merely a model that needed a worldwide network to function. The internet sufficed.

"I really shouldn't have to. It should have been obvious."

Only in your little world.

"You come off so naïve, that it's hard not to."

Well I'm the one sitting here trying to decipher whether you're being sarcastic or actually are genuinely stupid and it's starting to become very difficult.

"You're starting to sound desperate. I must be winning this debate."

You do love dodging questions even when you ask them yourself.

I suppose I'll answer it for you, Alexander Graham Bell moved to North America because his father was in Newfoundland and was dying, that's the sole reason he left Great Britain. Thus, you haven't successfully refuted my point that Alexander Graham Bell was a British inventor.

"To show the role that American products play in your everyday life."

What language is it you speak again?

"Oh, so it went from clay bowl to electric kettle? That was a major improvement then!"

Yes, I suppose it was.

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/woolwich-attack-beheaded-london n3320758.html"

I find it humorous that you source a British tragedy. Let me link you some other news stories.

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-us n3935978.html"

You've had 20 alone within Obama's administration.

"What makes you think that I didn't look at the list?"

Maybe you did look at the list but the fact is that you avoided addressing it.

"Oh, come on! Are you a kid? You insult like one and comprehend information like one too. Go back and reread if you don't understand. This is another example of something that should be very obvious."

Oh dear, this is Nummi all over again. Someone you can't properly write arguments and refuses to explain the mess it is they call literacy.

"That's funny, I've been getting the same vibe from you (except with Britain, not America, of course). You seem to have your head so far up your ass, I'd be surprised if you've ever left your bedroom."

I have been to; France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, China and Hong Kong.

I have indeed left my bedroom.

" I don't know if you noticed, but my user pic is of a Brit. "

My user picture is a penguin, am I an Antarctican? Am I suddenly aware of the plight of penguins?

"My favorite films, are British films. I would almost rather live in Europe, than the US..."

Sorry, next time I debate with someone I'll make sure I stalk them first. Just so I make sure not to make incorrect claims on their interests or hobbies.

"...but that's because I'm a history nut and you guys have a much more colorful history than us. "

I also like my fair share of history and I also watch a fair amount of American films. Which is why I get annoyed at films like "The Patriot" and "U-571" which actively distort history (at my country's expense) to fuel the fetish that is American nationalism.

"I have pride in my country though. It's where I grew up. It makes me sick to read the garbage coming from some of the British users, who act like they know how America really is. You don't live here, I do."

We're not the ones starting these debates. If I remember correctly this was just a nice debate about the Royal family and then you joined in.

"You say we're full of nationalist propaganda... and now I'm starting to think that British children are getting a faulty anti-American education."

If anything we get a pro-American education. The only thing that makes us Anti-american is when we see Americans saying 'Our country was fought against an empire or tyranny and created a nation of freedom, equality (etc).' a statement which itself is an insult to history. I get annoyed when everytime I see an American politician talking about how their nation apparently is the only one which stands for equality of opportunity or economic individualism, or when I find out that the USA is arrogant enough to spy on their neighbours, or when American companies who own businesses in my nation come to my government and say 'Sorry we're not paying any taxes here, but you see we only pay taxes to the US government'.

But then to top it off, we had the BP oil spill. An accident. Which resulted in huge Anti-British protests in the US where Americans set fire to the Union Jack. Or when our own Prime Minister, after meeting with President Obama, goes on television and states that 'Britain must admit that they were a junior partner in the Second World War'.

"It seems like the nationalism is much stronger in Britain, than in America."

And you base this of two guys on a website? Trust me, nationalism is next to non-existent in the UK, the stupid racist groups like the EDL and BNP ruined it for us.

"Yeah, our government consists of a bunch of assholes... but yours is just as corrupt. You're blind if you don't see that."

Our government isn't constantly in the pay of whichever company has enough money to do so. I look at my country and I look at yours. Mine has a decent minimum wage, law enforced working conditions, free healthcare (etc). You remember all that food you claim the US export to Britain? We only see a minority of your 'edible' products because the rest of it is deemed by my government to be "unfit for human consumption". We have a chain of supermarkets here called Asda, it's owned by Walmart, but can't be called Walmart because they are run in completely different ways, solely because we have health and safety laws protecting employees here in the UK.

So when I hear that the US still encourages its children to stand up and pledge allegiance to their 'great' country. Could you please explain what on Earth it is they're pledging allegiance to?

"Canada still swears allegiance to the Queen, if you haven't noticed."

Well, maybe I should have said Australia.

"Hmmm... so you have a history where you guys are the good guys and we have a history where we're the good guys... and that's surprising to you? Ever think that maybe it's your information that's fucked up?"

Well, you've yet to provide evidence for your claim that the U.S 'kicked our arses' and now you want me to provide evidence on my statement?

"Oh, so you must remember the Revolutionary War. Did you serve in it?"

Why would I have to had served in the Revolutionary War to read a history book?

"Maybe you're older than I thought... but the history that I and the rest of the World knows, is that you lost the Revolutionary War."

You lost Vietnam, the whole world knows you lost the Vietnam War. Would you agree that the Vietnamese kicked your arses?

"We were the Allied Forces. You should really start viewing us as one team during that period, because that's how it was."

I like how the allied forces were represented in the film "Saving Private Ryan". I counted a grand total of 0 non-American allied troops. It especially stung when you replaced all the British amphibious landing craft with American transport on the D-Day opening scene, but then again you wouldn't want to hurt that precious American nationalism.

"The United States was the largest supplier of material."

Congratulations on not fighting!

"In return, you guys helped train a lot of our troops. Your role was crucial to the victory of WW2, but we do deserve credit."

Not the amount you claim to.

"Some say, ours and Russia's roles in the War is what made us world superpowers."

Yours and Russia lack of role in the War is what made you world superpowers. You had plenty of time to build up your industry and economy while the largest Empire in the world was fighting one of the greatest wars known to man, alone.

What certainly made your nation a superpower is all that material 'supplied' us was actually a loan, my nation only finished paying it back a few years ago.

And then we get bombarded with "kicked your arses in the Revolutionary War" instead of 'thanks for helping us become a major world power'.

"Am I wrong? You're British, you tell me."

I already disputed it, I'm not going to claim that there a no American businesses here at all, but they certainly do not have the influence you claimed they did at the start.

And anyway, any American influence here is probably matched over there, but I'm sure you'll see in the list of countries I've visited the U.S wasn't one of them.

"Yeah... and that's one reason why I really like your country, so stop ruining it! lol"

Well, your country already does like to tarnish history with prime examples being the films I listed earlier.

"Okay, fair enough. What happened was I saw that you mentioned the English language again and remembered a point I wanted to make earlier. The comment itself, shouldn't have been confusing though."

Well I'll address your new point then, How can you claim that the English Language was not invented by the English?

"I think it had more to do with the amount of countries from across the globe, rather than the countries themselves."

Well in that case, it was already a World War before the US joined, we already had Canada making up for North America.

"Yeah, as Germany was conquering France. We were getting prepared."

But I thought you said that the World Wars were a European conflict and your nation did not want to get involved.

"Again, we didn't turn up late. We were attacked. We arrived to our war on time... not until we arrived in Europe, did we become the Allied Forces. We were supplying Britain with material before then."

Well the fact that your President hated our Empire and actively abused the situation in World War II to try to destroy it.

(Since you dislike my sourcing of Wikipedia, here are two other links, I believe they are American websites)

http://planetar65.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/franklin-d-roosevelt-was-enemy-of.html

http://eastwestdialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

Trolls always do like it when their actions stirs activity, that's the purpose of trolls isn't it? To cause social havoc when they can.

That's exactly what a troll account would say. You pretend not to care about my opinions from the phrase "tough shit" but still reply to my argument in another attempt to provoke me.

Allright, suppose I give up eating meat by my son who ran away from me is still eating meat. I start to go around fighting against the eating of meat. Decades later this still eats meat while the rest of the population have given it up.

Is it not immoral then?

I agree with you entirely and only posted to enquire why you capitalised all your words?

We provided our British colonists with slaves who then revolted and turned themselves into their own nation (apparently with a new creed of equality) and it was the United States who then continued slavery long after many other countries abolished it.

Back to the analogy, the point you're arguing is like the future vegetarians calling us immoral because we gave our children meat to eat.

I suppose that teaches me to continue my "facts" beyond their truth. My statement was an assumption and an assumption I cannot prove. However I can come close:

The population of the British Empire in 1900 was 419,920,000, whereas the estimated world population was 1,700,000,000.

419,920,000/1,700,000,000=0.247... (Around 25% to 1dp)

I suppose we both fell short a bit this time around ;)

It was a sign of the times and the values of that era. It would be like in 100 years time the world could be full of vegetarians and they may call us savages for failing to abolish the eating of meat.

Well, after the American revolution we continued to conquer and colonise until we owned a quarter of the globe and governing a higher percentage of its population. This statement alone disproves your original point that the American revolution led to the British empire unravelling.

Too much to drink?

We abolished slavery before you did, that is fact.

Now do you have any evidence to support your claim that Britain continued slavery until the Americans got rid of it? Or have you just been wasting my time again?

Still being provocatively ignorant.

No

Can you provide evidence of the British providing the Americans with slaves after we had abolished it?

Now you're just being provocatively ignorant.

We abolished slavery long before you did and we fought against slave ships in the oceans. How can you possibly claim that Britain got rid of slavery after the U.S did?

Are you talking about before or after the American revolution?

Every point that Guitarguy makes could easily be applied in the other direction. I could copy out his statement and use it to support my own side.

While I will not disagree to the point that America has an influence on Britain, that influence is nullified by the influence Britain has on America. Thus, it is stupid for Guitarguy to claim that Britain should thank America for "food" (etc).

"You are full of shit when you say that you didn't call him an obvious troll."

Well if he isn't a troll he must be stupid.

That the American revolution led to the British Empire unravelling. Surely someone of your intelligence know how stupid this claim is.

You have my apologies for not addressing you other points, though they were very well made and probably correct. However I do not have much time and wanted to dispute this outrageous claim before I left.

"You guys didn't really stop slavery until we did."

We were freeing slaves before your country existed, I fail to see how you can claim we didn't stop slavery until after you did.

Could you not talk in sarcasm it makes it very unclear on what it is you're trying to say.

It's as I said, in the civilised world we're waiting for you to catch up.

"We do, currently."

You do what? You have this bad habit of debating in some fantasy context where everything you write down makes sense.

"Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn are credited as the inventors of the Internet. They're both American."

But their internet would be useless without the World Wide Web, its like the inventor of the road claiming credit for inventing the car.

"The first fully functional television was invented by Philo Farnsworth, also an American."

"John Logie Baird FRSE (14 August 1888 – 14 June 1946) was a Scottish scientist, engineer, innovator and inventor of the world's first television; Wikipedia.

"Half of the British shows, that were remade for America didn't even last past a few episodes. Most of the ones that did are actually starring the Brits from the original show (ex. Hell's Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares, The Office (although it didn't star Ricky Gervais, it was produced by him) The Weakest Link, all of those shows produced by Simon Cowell, etc.). It seems to me like Brits are actually the one's behind most of the Americanized British shows."

You list a few cheap shows which are virtual pig feed on this side of the pond. What you've claimed is impossible to prove or disprove which is why I didn't hesitate to make an equally outrageous claim. We can sit here and list TV shows for all eternity or you can come up with some arguments that you can actually support with more evidence that your "experience".

"Then we obviously rely on each other's inventions, don't we?"

Like the car relying on the road.

"You sure do jump to the worst of conclusions when you read stuff, don't you? I said "our" as in you and me, Britain and America."

Then clearly someone needs to be more clear when using their pronouns.

"I don't know, man... I've been having to point out a lot of your misinterpretations..."

Well you're the one who writes in sarcasm.

"What do you use more? The practical household light bulb or the impractical lamp? I would imagine that it's the household bulb invented by Thomas Edison."

What do you use more the internet or the world wide web? I would imagine it was the world wide web invented by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

"Maybe, but he was still an American citizen. You have to wonder why he moved to America to unveil his invention and didn't just stay in Britain."

Maybe you could do your pondering elsewhere and I'll wait until you write an argument.

Here's a hint, to find out answers to questions it helps if you use Google.

"Well, fuck. You probably use a different American brand, right?"

I fail to see why my toothpaste is relevant to this debate.

"Not the first kettle though. If you want to take credit for improvements, then you have to give America credit for most of the inventions that you listed."

No, you are correct. The British clearly did not invent boiling water, so the invention of the electric kettle is a minor improvement compared to that caveman with a clay bowl over a fire.

"Guns, not knives lol. You guys are the ones that shouldn't be left alone with sharp objects... hints, a particular decapitation in a public place."

Sorry, I'm sure there have been a multitude of decapitations throughout our history, could you please narrow down the event from the two millennia time frame you originally placed it in.

"I did. I learned about a lot of French inventions."

So you're not going to look at the list at all, nice way of debating, ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with you.

"Damn! You still think I was talking about the invention of stores? LOL! Commercialization, exports, etc. Not inventions, products really. Stuff that is American and plays a big role in Britain. You pretty much listed inventions for no reason..."

Can you please write as if you had an education, I've no idea what your point is but apparently there is some magical American thing that "plays a big role in Britain" and it's got something to do with commercialisation.

"Experience would be one."

What experience? Where you there at the American revolution then?

From what I gather your "experience" consists of an individual who spent their lives watching American nationalist films and probably never left the country.

"They'd be dumb too. You actually thought I was taking credit for the invention of food. LOL! Come on, man! I know you aren't that slow!"

It appears to me that we are not debating on whether Britain should keep the Royal Family, though I'm alright with that change in topic. But neither are we debating on whether America is greater than Britain, we are debating on what the ruddy fuck you keep saying because you debate in a manner of ridiculous claims and sarcastic responses, if you continue to fail at speaking plain English then I cannot see this debate continuing.

"America isn't a British nation, is it?"

Neither is Canada, but Canada do not make claims to kicking our arses.

"You lost the Revolutionary, didn't you? I can't wait to hear you repeat the same old "you had help from the French, blah, blah, blah!"."

So you don't like me telling you facts? Are you afraid I'll shatter that closed mind of yours and ruin some fantasy where some small time American colonists unite for the good of the common man against an evil empire which heavily taxes them for no reason whatsover?

And I find it amusing that you claim I'll repeat the "same old" story, Mr "We kick your arses blah blah blah"

"So what?"

You've just admitted that your claims can be disproven and your reply is "so what"? Is that it? Are you going to continue blatantly ignoring the facts and live is some dream world?

"That brings us back to your WW2 complaint. If you're all for fighting it alone, then don't complain about how it took us a while to help you out in WW2."

I'm not complaining that you arrived late, I'm complaining that your nation takes far to much credit for the war in which they had a minimal amount of contribution to winning.

"Sorry, skipped over this one. Exports and businesses. Our products and businesses are pretty big over in your country."

I like all that evidence you don't have.

"Doesn't hide the fact that our music is big over in Britain. British artists are big here too."

Do you get all these points from Sunday magazines or something?

"I didn't dodge anything, you just didn't take the proper meaning out of my comment. I'll rephrase it... "now look at your small country, whose claim to fame is the past!"."

I just like to rub it in that my country has a past.

"Did you not take credit for the English language and get on me for Americans using "your" language?"

Sorry, I'm completely baffled on trying to work out what it is that you're thinking when you write these responses. I'll just try iron out this little sub-debate.

You asked me which country was more relevant I stated that Britain's actions "led to English being one of the most dominant languages speakable, democratic values being widespread, capitalism being the primary economic system and the very borders of the nations in the continent of Africa."

Your response was: "You do realize that you didn't invent the English language, right? It formed over time out of a combination of other languages."

Of which I then failed to see the dispute (or the relevance) to my original point, you randomly claim that the English did not invent the English language and completely ignore my dispute to your claim that Britain had no relevance in the world.

"It didn't really become a World War until Japan attacked us and we got involved, did it?"

Well in that case it wasn't a World War at all because Switzerland didn't get involved.

"We jumped on your side because the enemy (your enemy) declared war on us."

The USA were conscripting men for the war long before Japan declared war on them.

"It's a good thing we have allies, huh?"

Not when they turn up late for the biggest conflicts in history.

"Umm what? So you've never heard of the English Civil war? The monarchy of England had fucked up the country in many ways, and there is at least one example to disillusion any romanticized view of the monarchy."

Pardon me, I meant to address the English civil war. While it was one of the bloodiest conflicts England has ever been in, it can be hardly called a revolution. Yes, the got rid of the King, but they replaced him with a Lord Protector with almost identical powers and restored the monarchy a decade or two later.

And please explain how the monarchy of the UK has "fucked up the country" and also how elected head of states do not "fuck up" countries.

"Have you ever read Wealth of Nations?"

Not all of it, just the major parts when I was studying economics.

"Smith explains quite clearly, over and over, that nobility and gov't worked in tandem. And it wasn't just limited to local gov't, either. Workers were punished for protests or strikes, and the few nobles who held a great deal of power easily and quite often worked together in their collective interests to hold the workers down, and (whenever the situation would warrant it) the state would facilitate such effort"

I'll have to agree with you, but those values which were enforced at that time were equally spread across the globe.

And interestingly enough, our country with a constitutional monarchy has clearly moved on from those times, but what you've just described is almost identical to the economic and political situation in your nation with a democratic republic

""I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Sorry, it seems that my claim was incorrect and that you are indeed correct , my mistake entirely.

"Our president is elected once every 4 years and is only the head of 1 of our 3 branches that keep themselves in check. "

I am well aware of this as I'm studying American politics.

"I've never heard of any american being called "unpatriotic" for dissing the president."

Doesn't mean it is improbable.

"I should be surprised that you said that, but sadly I'm not."

I'm surprised to hear that you apparently know me so well, considering that this is (from what I believe) our first debate against one another.

"They're iconic of a much more brutal history that the masses have largely forgotten or ignored."

Please expand on why the British monarchy has a brutal history.

We have abortions and we don't have drugs. But when arriving upon the issue we debated it and we resolved it, that is why you don't see our news headline screaming opinions about abortions and drugs.

"The massive genocide toward the Native Americans came before the USA being formed."

United States Ethnic Cleansing programme

"That one is on you guys"

Our only contribution to the genocide was being unfortunate enough to spread diseases like every other nation on the planet.

"And, we got our slaves from you guys."

Then you could have got rid of your slaves when we got rid of ours.

I didn't state that Guitarguy was obviously a troll, I'm just really confused about how a person of reasonable intelligence can make arguments the way he does.

He justifies this debate by claiming that he's fed up of us Britons "talk[ing] shit about America" and yet the whole purpose of creating this debate is to give him an excuse to talk shit about Britain.

And arguing with him in nationalist debates is nearly intolerable due to the lack of evidence to support the outrageous claims he makes, in another debate he said " I hope you[Britain] enjoy our[America's] TV shows, movies, websites... actually, the internet in general, restaurants, food, stores, books, music,". The idea that America gave Britain "food" or "books" is absurd and the only thing he has to back it up is "experience".

I'm sorry, I thought my original argument was protesting against Guitarguy's approach to debating.

I'm not the one creating debates which complain about the debating etiquette of an entire nation just because I like to be nationalist every now and then.

It's this sort of blatant ignorance of any sort of fact that makes me so annoyed with American nationalism.

If you read his argument's carefully you'll notice they're very hypocritical and his apparent moral code appears to contradict itself.

Considering all your responses I've concluded that you're either stupidly ignorant or a fake account trolling the site.

Well clearly this is where people just dump their insults on us Britons for being nationalistic in our debates.

But you cannot possibly claim we weren't provoked into the matter, especially when we come onto the site and see bullshit debates like "If America isn't the greatest nation, then what is?"

And upon entering such debates we have to see American nationalists post "arguments" with the music video "America, Fuck yeah" which add absolutely nothing to the debate but has been upvoted by fellow American nationalists, showing that the debate wil be nothing more than a contest of blind upvoting.

Then if you proceed to protest against such outrageous claims the debate creator himself decides to dispute you with "Lol I made the debate title in hopes that it would bring all of the Anti-American Brits over here. I like when the arguments get a little heated... so, fuck you!"

I can deal with all this stupid nationalism, but its disappointing when people start to make debates like this one to then attack users for disputing you. It's been a shame seeing some of the people I once respected taking part in such an thing in the way they do.

Isn't the ability to have a family a Human Right?

Ha! It's ironic for you to complain considering you've just made a debate entitled "Which country has down more harm to the world: US or UK".

Well I did try turn down my contribution to nationalism for a while and I haven't created any such debates relating to the topic for a long while because I understood that being blindly patriotic is not everyone's cup of tea.

If you noticed the majority of the UK vs US debates have been set up by Americans, including yourself.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was done primarily to stabilise relationship with the Native Americans after the French-Indian War.

And the British colonists actually wanted to expand but couldn't because of the proclamation which is one of the causes leading to the eventual rebellion.

Additionally, its pure speculation to say that the British would have slaughtered the Native Americans if they had they opportunity.

And the whole of central North America just naturally belong to the Americans? I'm sure the Native American tribes had a different point of view.

And if you are complaining that Britain's imperialism was bad can you please explain why there are delegates for Puerto Rico and the Philippines in the U.S Congress.

You Americans just keep going around spreading the 'Freedom' don't you?

Well we weren't the ones who nuked the Japanese, nor did we commit mass genocide against the Native American population, or continue the slave trade several decades after the rest of the civilised world abolished it.

"Well, no shit! We have British roots. Did you expect a bunch of Brits to settle America and then come up with a new language?"

Well then I fail to see why on Earth you claimed that your nation had a greater influence on us than we did on you. Of course it's obvious, but you're the person arguing from a ridiculous point of view.

"Sorry buddy, but the Brits didn't invent the television. Rather it was a compilation of different inventions that went into the television. The one to put it all together was an American."

Coming from the guy who claimed America invented the internet. And anyway, John Logie Baird is accredited with inventing the world's first television.

"How about all the British shows based off of American shows? I can give you a list if you want..."

You could, but my list would be longer.

"Which wouldn't exist without the internet."

And how would you use the internet without the world wide web?

"Oh man... color! We need more U's! Where are the fucking U's, those American bastards!? LOL what do you want to do, take credit for our language or complain about it?"

What do you mean your language, I think you'll find English belongs to England and your nation's snide attempts to change small spellings and grammatical rules doesn't make it a brand new dialect.

"Eye dohnt no wut ur talking abowt."

Well at least one of us has the brain capacity to appropriately refute an answer.

"You mean the invention that we improved and made what it is today?"

No, I'm talking about the invention we invented. There's a clue in the name.

"Alexander Graham Bell may have been born in Scotland, but he was an American citizen."

He was born and educated in Britain, he would not have been able to invented the telephone if it wasn't for all the scientific knowledge he gained in Britain.

"Wow... you guys were the ones who invented the stick with bristles on the end of it? Well, cool! We were the ones who improved upon it and started mass-producing it. Hey, what kind of toothpaste do you use? I bet it's Colgate... that damn American brand!"

You didn't invent toothpaste though, and for a matter of fact, I do not use Colgate.

"Wait... you're Chinese?"

"The first electric kettle with a submersible heating element was invented in 1922 by Arthur Leslie Large of Birmingham, England." Wikipedia

Unless of course your nation is so backwards that you still use the old iron kettle and thus thought that was what I was referring to.

"Oh... so you're French now?"

I'm sure somewhere in ancient history the French did indeed invent a mobility device with two wheels, but the bicycle as we know it today was invented by a Briton.

"Also a French invention."

They may have invented the camera, but we invented the practice and the art.

"Doesn't seem like a very difficult invention... especially since that was an invention based off of another French idea."

Well considering that mass produced tins are easier to make that hand-blown glass I would say it revolutionised food manufacturing.

"At least we made it a little easier when we invented the can opener."

Well, clearly you Americans struggle with using knives.

Anyway, you clearly enjoyed yourself going through that list. So I'll give you another one of British inventions.

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

"Damn... I didn't complain about all the shit that you just listed."

I wasn't the one being dumb enough to claim my country invented "stores".

"Lol wtf? Do you think I'm taking credit for the invention of all of that stuff? No, I'm pointing out how our entertainment and food industry have a HUGE effect on your country. Can you deny that? Well, you probably will... but you'd be wrong."

I like all that evidence you don't have.

"Oh, good grief. Please tell me that you're just pretending to be dumb. I was talking about exports, not inventions."

Ha! Now that makes even less sense, your country export "resteraunts" does it? Those Italian Bistros or Austrian coffee houses all come from America do they?

And what about music, I suppose now the US exports Vivaldi and Beethoven now? Maybe the Beetles are actually American too and they were "exported" to Britain.

"Not anymore!"

Like all that evidence you don't have.

"Yeah, that comment will probably seem pretty stupid once you read this."

No, it just makes you look like you've desperately tried to change your argument. I'm sure a 3rd party would agree with me on this one.

"No, you settled in North America. We kicked your asses out and created our nation. The founding fathers were American born with British heritage."

Now this will be interesting, how exactly did you "kick [our] arses out"?

"And now look at you!"

Yes, our country did do all those things. Are you going to properly dispute the argument or just dodge the points I keep making.

"You do realize that you didn't invent the English language, right? It formed over time out of a combination of other languages."

You do realise that I didn't say anything along those lines at all and in fact you've responded to a completely different point I did not make.

"We aren't European."

There's a reason they don't call it a European war.

"Do you really want to complain about how we didn't help you enough? The bad guys lost the war. You seem to forget that Germany and Italy declared war on us just a few days after we were attacked by Japan."

I'm not complaining I'm just stating the facts. It's an awfully big coincidence that in both World Wars the US jumps on our side as soon as we start winning.

But I suppose that's typical coming from a nation that hasn't won a war on it's own.

Which was only something that happened due to the time period. And removing the Royal Family doesn't not resolve that issue either, even the American Republic continued slavery long after the British abolished it.

France went through 5 revolutions filled with horror and bloodshed, you really want that to happen to Great Britain to solve of problem that doesn't exist?

No it wasn't, the Native Americans didn't believe that land could be property, they were alright after a while with the British colonies, especially since we brought trade. The British colonies actually had an agreement with the Native Americans not to expand any further westwards. It was only after America declared independence that all the atrocities occurred.

I believe the fellow member was referring to how England does not have its own sovereignty and how ignorant it is for our American friend to refer to Great Britain as England.

You Americans wouldn't be hearing about our country in the first place, you're still confused over simple matters such as gun control, free healthcare, abortion and drugs.

When you've decided to put down your burgers and catch up, the rest of us will be waiting here in the civilised world.

"Uhhh... are you actually saying that Britain is more relevant than the US? LOL! I hope you enjoy our TV shows, movies, websites... actually, the internet in general, "

Says the guy speaking our language, watching television invented by the British, and American shows which were stolen from British shows. Using the World Wide Web, verbally defecating on our grammar, spelling and literacy. Using light bulbs, telephones, toothbrushes, kettles, bicycles, photography, tins, ATMs, vacuum cleaners and several other developments which were all invented by Britons.

"restaurants, food, stores, books, music, iPads, iPhones, anything Microsoft related, etc."

You seriously have the audacity to claim all these things of sole American origin? Has your country blinded you into such nationalist arrogance?

I have never met an individual who has claimed that their nation is the provider of all music or restaurants or food for that matter. Let alone literature and commerce as well.

Sure, Apple and Microsoft are undeniably American companies, but your culture is just a pick and mix of the Old World, with us being the primary influence.

"We have an enormous influence on your lives."

We created your nation, I doubt there is any greater influence.

" Sure, you guys have your fair share of important products and inventions,"

But clearly our inventions are insignificant to the American invention of "food".

", but go ahead and travel around the world and tell me which country seems to be more relevant. Britain or the US?"

Let's look at the globe shall we?

Britain has invaded 90% of the globe, we have shaped and defined nearly all the nations on this planet, including yours. We physically owned a quarter of of the world's landmass and governed over a great percentage of its population, the sun literally did not set on our Empire for a century.

Our sole influence has led to English being one of the most dominant languages speakable, democratic values being widespread, capitalism being the primary economic system and the very borders of the nations in the continent of Africa.

The only reason your country is as powerful as it is today is because we had to fight two whole World Wars while the USA profited at the start and joined in towards the end.

And if you persist in the question on which country is more relevant between our two, I would have to say the United States of America on the parallel that in the 9/11 attacks, I'm sure the madman doing the threatening was more relevant than the fellow flying the plane.

Following that logic, the 13 colonies are rightfully British land and should be returned to us.

What dark past? And how on Earth would a revolution resolve that?

Britain will always be relevant, unlike your nation we actually have some history and respect in the world.

"I am a British republican, I don't see the role of a Monarchy in a modern Democratic society."

Please explain why a "modern democratic society" is more preferable to the constitutional monarchy we currently have?

"Firstly they don't do anything anymore, the Queen is just an ornament, they are just a relic of the old Britain."

The Queen can be very influential in politics, she meets with the Prime Minister weekly and most approve of all bills which are to be made into law. The monarchy may be a relic of old Britain, but I for one found nothing wrong with old Britain, I actually find it preferable to the apprent "new Britain" we have today.

"They get millions of tax payers money to run there palaces and manor houses every year when they have done nothing for any of this, they only get it because of the Family they are born in to."

Every family is born into something, you were born into your parent's wealth. As was every else on this planet, if your argument against the monarchy is that they unjustly inherited their position then you're arguing against inheritance itself and thus are arguing against one of the fundamental aspects of a capitalist society.

And surely you must know of all they have to go through to maintain their position, to study foreign affairs, languages, culture, history, diplomacy and etiquette, to live through their lives untouched by scandal and to ensure that their own opinions do not taint our democracy. One really has to wonder whether being part of the Royal Family is as much a blessing as it is a curse.

"Why should they get such all of that money given to them just because they are the descendants of a long line of tyrants? It just isn't meritocratic and does not make any sense. Or all of that attention and media focus, seriously what is so interesting and amazing about the royal baby? Why is it superior to other babies just for being somebodies son?"

You complain about the royal family, but this equally occurs to all those celebrities who are rude, scandalous and do little for society at all.

What is interesting about these people? The tabloid covering actresses who's lack of weight leads to young girls staring themselves and editing their photos due to peer pressure or the footballers who glamourise an industry that is filled with racism, sexism and hatred, these "famous" people who apparently are "talented" and whom draw attention away from the real pioneers of our society, the scientists, doctors, servicemen and others.

At least the Royal Family value the right things and they promote aspects of our society that we should all be concerned about.

Tradition and history are the central points upon which the rest of British culture revolves around. Our monarchy is a living testament of our ability to adapt and mould our government without the need for mass bloodshed and revolution, almost every other nation on the planet who has removed their monarch did so with huge losses to the population and soon afterwards resulted in a void of administration, which were soon occupied by whichever group had the most power at the time.

Historically our monarchy (like many other monarchies) existed to limit the power of the nobility, but uniquely had their power limited by the nobility, thus resulting in a careful balance of authority that was able to be shaped as time developed, resulting in the constitutional monarchy in which we find ourselves today.

Politically, I find our Queen a crucial part of our democracy, in that she is Head of the Armed Forces as well as being responsible for almost all official appointments, thus all British nationalism is directed towards her and not to whoever is Prime Minister at the time. Therefore leading to the Prime Minister and other politicians being scrutinised more heavily without the fear of scrutinisers appearing unpatriotic. In comparison to the U.S Republic system, their armed forces and their school pupils must pledge allegiance to the President, thus any action that criticises their elected Head of State could easily be interpreted as an act of treason.

Additionally, and most obviously, the Royal Family provide a vast economic benefit in the level of tourism they provide to our nation. They are iconic not only to us but to the many parts of the world upon which our nation has affected.

I did create a few debate with the following debate rules written in the description:

"All arguments must be at least 1 paragraph long, they are to be serious arguments backed up with some sort of tangible evidence that actually brings something into the debate, your argument should consist of an interpretation of this evidence or reasons on why it supports your argument.

There is to be no personalisation of arguments, I know this is extreme but it to avoid any conflict between individuals within the debate, these debates are supposed to be thought and language developing activities, one shouldn't leave a debate feeling that their beliefs were violated or that they hate somebody for life. Thus, there will be no insults within this debate nor any personal remarks, please do not openly state your opinion, but instead appear to be open-minded and neutral on the matter, allowing debaters to arrive at a consensus. Avoid speaking in the first person.

Swearing and other fowl language should be kept to a minimal, its understable that some may feel a need to aggressively express themselves. But ultimately, debating is supposed to enhance language not to dirtify it.

When disputing try to address all of the points of the other person made, even if there is nothing else you can say other than an acknowledgement that they are correct, it can often been fustrating when a person disputes you and ignores half of your argument.

If there are any concerns that a debater has ignored some of the rules please put "Inquiry into Debate Etiquette" or (IDE) at the top of your disputing argument, many of you will probably have different ideas on what constitutes as 'evidence'. I will then attempt to look into it and take the matter to them personally. Please refrain from trying to interpret the rules yourselves as this tends to lead to the debate sidetracking on the subject of debating. Users will only be banned from the debate in extreme cases and if you have any disagreements or suggestions for the rules, please message me.

I hope these rules and guidelines are agreeable, I've tried to provide restrictions with the aim of augmenting the debating experience and I hope they haven't scared some of you away. Thank you for reading these rules."

However these debate received few participants, so it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of these rules, feel free to comment below this argument and provide feedback on how appropriate these rules are to this site and whether they are part of CreateDebate's ethos.

Great Britain.

However, I fail to see the logic posed in the debate title. The debate proposer seems to argue that if no other country on Earth is considered the greatest nation then by default it must be the USA, could someone please explain why as I for one do not see why I should compare my nation's greatness to America's low standard.

If you think the practice is wrong, why would you tax them for doing it?

Should we raise taxes on hitmen?

I've always understood that the key feature of Fascism is that it is extremely authoritarian, in that the state will control and dictate many aspects of social life. Which I suppose it neither left or right.

And how could you not have experienced that situation in another other of the many countries on this planet with "non-censored internet" and "music", though I disagree with you lack of worry about not being shot or blown up as there are a lot more gun owners in America than other nations.

What is there to be jealous of?

Still raising the bar higher, even though nobody is anywhere close to catching up with you.

So then it's not the fault of Obama for being non-white but in fact that fault of Republicans for willing to drive the country to economic ruin to uphold their racist values?

Would it have shut down if he had green eyes? Or blond hair? Or was missing a leg? Or was overweight? Or was homosexual? Or was a Muslim? Or a convicted criminal? Or over the age of 50? Or a woman? Or came from a working class background? Or believed in pastafarianism? Or had cancer? Or had 6 wives? Or had no children? Or had no grandparents? Or had a degree in textiles? Or thought that the Earth was the centre of the solar system?

It is due to the political disagreement between the Republican controlled congress and the democratic Presidency that caused this shut-down, President Obama's characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with it unless it would have changed his political viewpoint on healthcare, which I can guarantee is not determined by the colour of his skin.

I share your sentiments. However, we must consider that if this American folly continues it will affect the economies of the rest of the world, considering the amount of banks, pension/insurance companies and private investors have bought U.S Treasury Bonds on the understanding that it is a "safe" investment. Hopefully after this the rest of us will learn not to be so foolish with our investment choices and leave America to wallow in it's own economic breakdown.

It didn't need to happen, Congress and the Presidency are just holding each other at fiscal gunpoint until one of them gives in. Why is it that the branches of the U.S government can't collaborate with each other like civilised people?

I like pointing the finger at America, they have a lot to point at.

What I may not have conveyed is that I believe impeaching Obama will do little good, because he will probably do what Nixon did at resign beforehand and get a Presidential pardon before any investigation can occur.

"Honest Abe probably told a few lies,"

There shouldn't be a probably in that clause.

" His lies have cost lives and that to me is when it's clearly time to draw the line."

What about the lies that cost lives your "founding fathers" told you? About the apparent Lexington massacre and supposed tyranny of British rule?

The U.S has been launching a propaganda machine against its own population since the moment of its conception, don't be surprised that history repeats itself.

Most U.S President should have been impeached, I think you Americans need to change your system.

Isn't this debate a tad racist?

Well then you have my apologies, my statistics were equally inaccurate, though in my defence it is highly rare for Wikipedia to contradict itself.

Well if you look at this list of wars by Death toll the number given is 27 million.

What an absurd response, my statistics are considerably more accurate than what you originally presented, unless you are going to provide a real dispute instead of focusing on the elementary, then I will not bother replying.

Plus or minus a couple of hundred is a lot different to the difference in millions you ignored.

They were also fought by people who use tables, do tables cause wars?

You have no evidence that my statistics are incorrect.

If Obamacare is anything like Britain's NHS then it will create more jobs.

My figure isn't in dispute, your's is.

That figure is in dispute, the exact amount if unknown but estimates range between 3,000,000-11,500,000

Either way, I believe I can top that with the Second War between China and Japan with casualties of 27,000,000

Blaming all the world's problems on a single religious group?

Calling them "enemy of humanity"?

Nice little single slogan hate posters in the background?

Ring any bells?

"Well if we use nukes then we all lose because that will set off a chain reaction so you are right in that case, but without nukes and if America disregards innocent lives America would wipe the floor of any nation using todays current military technology."

Current military technology is nuclear missiles, America is not the only nation on the planet that could completely annihilate a country if they disregard the loss of innocent lives. You are lying to yourself if you believe that.

"American can wipe out a nation without setting a foot on the ground if we disregard the innocent, and even though other nations would try to do the same they still lack the resources and military might to do so."

I think, Russia and China have more resources each than the USA and individually have greater amounts of military might.

"Google American Military bases around the world, we have the world in (Chess terms) check mate."

I'm sure the spread of your armies would have been very threatening a century ago, before people had invented planes or bombs, but now it just shows a foolish waste of money and with the way your economy's going, you're going to have to cut back on all those bases anyway.

What do you mean same as everyone else? Britain and France joined in without being attacked and USSR joined in a few years later. If you hadn't been attacked the USA would gladly have sat aside making profit from the war.

If I remember correctly from the GCSE History, your main war goal in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism within the area. Something you Americans failed at miserably.