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.