CreateDebate


Axmeister's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Axmeister's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

Too much to drink?

1 point

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?

1 point

Still being provocatively ignorant.

2 points

No

1 point

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

1 point

Now you're just being provocatively ignorant.

1 point

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?

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

Are you talking about before or after the American revolution?

1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

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

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

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

1 point

"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.

1 point

"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.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

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.

1 point

"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.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

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".

1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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

1 point

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

3 points

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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".

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

2 points

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

5 points

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.

2 points

"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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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?

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

3 points

"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.

1 point

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

1 point

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

1 point

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

1 point

"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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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

Should we raise taxes on hitmen?

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

What is there to be jealous of?

5 points

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

1 point

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?

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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?

1 point

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.

1 point

"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.

3 points

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

1 point

Isn't this debate a tad racist?

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

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

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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

2 points

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

1 point

You have no evidence that my statistics are incorrect.

2 points

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

1 point

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

4 points

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

1 point

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?

1 point

"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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

I believe the USA had the Philippines as an ally in the Spanish-American War and the Republic of California as an ally in the Mexican War. I'm aware that both these nations were hardly sovereign states, but the USA were only supporting their revolutions.

1 point

Considering that any conflict between major powers will inevitably lead to a nuclear missile stalemate, I find you claim impossible to prove or disprove.

It's also peculiar that you consider it a "fact", as history would imply the exact opposite. You oversized military budget didn't guarantee you victory in Vietnam.

2 points

Actually, it was you who "sat out" in WWII and only joined in after Britain started winning.

2 points

You "won" the Vietnam War? I think you'll find you lost the Vietnam War.

1 point

Big talk coming from a country that has yet to win a war on its own.

1 point

Not any more.

When many countries followed the Gold Standard, the system would be that you could use the note to redeem it's value in gold from your bank. While this rarely occurred, as it is easier to carry paper than it is gold, every could trade happily with the knowledge that the piece of paper they were exchanging goods for was valuable as it was backed up by gold.

However, they've changed the system to FIAT money (I believe) which means that currency is as valuable as the government says it is and is backed up by the government.

1 point

It's the same over here with Cameron.

Before the Iraq War, Tony Blair made Parliament pass an Act saying that they approved of the military intervention, previously they would do this after any war to assess how appropriate the Prime Minister's actions were. Because Blair made it look as though Parliament supported his decision it enabled him to disperse the blame when the Iraq War started to become a scandal.

I believe that David Cameron tried to follow a similar strategy and took a bill to the House of Commons to try get Parliamentary approval. However, his own Conservative Party were outnumbered by the Opposition and Coalition partner the Liberal Democrats (who had also opposed the Iraq War), thus the bill failed and Great Britain is now not going to be involved in any military conflict.

Of course, our PM still speaks out that we should intervene alongside the US. But I'm not too sure many people are listening to him.

1 point

My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions.

The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations.

1 point

We say that we're not going to be involved in any military conflict. That doesn't mean we'll be ignoring the situation, we shall just be seeking a more peaceful solution.

It's wholly different to the speech made by the US state department a few days back, claiming that America isn't even intending to wait for the UN report before charging into Syria, it was only after the British Parliament stated that we couldn't be involved that Obama suddenly decides to consult Congress on the matter and try persuade the United Nations to approve of military action.

1 point

The key word there is "good men".

1 point

Most likely, a lot of the industrial and economical development has already been constructed by the time the British had left, the only thing left to do would have been to increase India's potential production.

1 point

"What is your definition of a mixing pot (it's actually called a "melting pot", I don't know why I keep saying "mixing" lol)?"

For me, the melting/mixing pot is used to describe a nation with such a high level of diversity that colour and race will only be physical features and have no relationship with wealth, class or status in society. The United States of America does not have this quality, but then no nation does.

"The phrase was actually coined by immigrants. I guess we just liked the compliment and stuck with it."

Maybe it was introduced by immigrants, but only the minority of the rest of the world consider the USA to be a melting pot.

"What!? Have you been to America? Go to Chinatown and watch the Chinese parades. Little Havana celebrates Cuban culture. Little Italy is a well known Italian district. There are multiple areas within America where the Mexican culture is prominent. St. Patrick's Day is one of our most popular holidays, which celebrates Irish culture. We have Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month. The list can go on. America is one of the few countries that people from different countries can move to and not feel like an outcast."

I admit there has certainly been a change now, but America definitely has a history of strong assimilation, especially when it comes to political ideology.

"The British Empire did great things in India... including mass starvation, right? How about the near extinction of the Australian Aborigines?"

The mass starvation in India had little to do with cultural differences and was caused by the extreme famine that had occurred there.

Concerning the indigenous population of Australia, the vast majority of them were killed by disease, 50% of the Aborigines were killed by smallpox alone. The ones which did die from conflicts were the casualties from self defence and not a genocidal policy.

1 point

You spoke about the British in the 2nd term. As if you weren't part of it.

1 point

Aren't you British?

1 point

In another debate you talked about the 2nd amendment being "good for our people".

The 2nd Amendment, is within the US Constitution and only applies to Americans. The 2nd Amendment also proclaims the "right to bear arms" which does not exist in nations like Great Britain or most other (civilised) nations.

You are an American, it won't do to have a troll tarnishing the British image on this site. There is already that crazy nationalistic fanatic pretending to be a penguin.

1 point

You're an American aren't you?

1 point

Well it's nice to spot the differences, keeps the fun going.

1 point

"It's a PDF from the U.S. Census. Just scroll down to page thirteen to see the chart.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf"

Either way, the data shows that there is a clear correlation between ethnicity and class, which isn't really a "mixing pot" is it?

"Race is based on skin color. Maybe they have some French and German blood in them, but they are still black. Look at African-Americans, most of them have some Caucasian blood in them... but they're still considered black"

Well if you define race like that, then there is no way of proving that the U.S.A is the most racially diverse country on the planet.

"Let me explain what I mean. Other countries do have us beat when it comes to ethnic diversity. However, Uganda for example, contains different tribes and people from within their continent. You aren't going to find many people living there who were born outside of Africa.

However, America contains a large population of people from around the globe. That is why we are considered a mixing pot."

The idea of America being considered a mixing pot is something which the USA have created and promoted themselves.

The USA has had a long tradition of assimilation in which it matters little what ethnicity immigrants are as long as they conform to the "American" way of life. If you look at countries like Australia or Canada they promote multiculturalism in which a multitude of ethnic ways of life are considered acceptable.

"Wait... Uganda is the most diverse country in the world. You're telling me that they were even more diverse than they already are, while under British occupation?"

Well, Uganda had a lot more people of Asian background which were significantly reduced after British colonial rule.

"But none of these countries were more racially tolerant while under British rule."

How so? On of the British Empire's policies was to accept all local cultures and try to harmonise colonial rule among the indigenous lifestyle.

Using one of my previous examples, the Thirteen colonies had made a deal with the Native Americans in which the British agreed not to expand westwards, after the Revolution the USA committed mass genocide against the Native Americans.

In addition to this, the British Empire abolished slavery soon after the American war of Independence, yet the USA kept slavery for several decades afterwards.

I think it is fair to say that there was a decline in racial tolerance in that case.

1 point

I doubt an attack on Syria will lead to WWIII, the U.S and Great Britain have already been to Afghanistan and Iraq and nothing has happened.

1 point

It isn't WMDs this time around, it's "chemical weapons". Also, they've swapped "Threat to the West" to "Threat to Humanity".

1 point

Didn't most historical societies believe that? I doubt the Victorians were too keen on anally receptive sex either.

1 point

The Americans will probably be annexing Puerto Rico in a few years, they've already given them a delegate in Congress.

1 point

It's just a fact that history is taught differently in every country, whether this is a good thing or not is another debate.

For example in the USA I believe they're taught that they won the war of 1812.

1 point

Any intelligence should be presented to the United Nations so an international body can decide its legitimacy and the countries of the world can determine an appropriate form of action.


1.25 of 35 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]