CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
25
U.S.A Britain
Debate Score:43
Arguments:14
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 U.S.A (6)
 
 Britain (8)

Debate Creator

Cuaroc(8829) pic



U.S.A Vs. Britain

If the U.S.A and Britain went to war against each othe who would win?

U.S.A

Side Score: 18
VS.

Britain

Side Score: 25
5 points

I'm British, but I do think that America could hand us our own arse in a war because they have so many fucking guns. They have the biggest army in the world because they apparently love shooting people. Well, that's the impression I get anyhow.

Over here, instead of having such a big military (which is difficult anyway because physically, Britain isn't very big) we spend the money on other stuff, like helping the poor and the sick, (a practice which seems rather frowned upon in America).

However, military supremacy is NOT an indicator of how "good" a country is. In fact, the fact that America have so many guns and soldiers is probably one of the reasons they are one of the most violent countries in the world.

And I'm not saying Britain is good either, I'd just rather live here.

Side: U.S.A
Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
2 points

"I'm British"

Then why aren't you supporting us?!

"America could hand us our own arse in a war because they have so many fucking guns"

Guns do not define who will win - guns define how many idiots there will be carrying weapons that kill people. Guns and money are nothing compared to the colossal intelligence that resides within British soldiers and military leaders.

"They have the biggest army in the world"

No, they do not. The amount of soldiers in America is about 500000, and the largest armies in the world have about 2000000. Almost four times as much.

"Apparently they love shooting people"

There have been many cases where American soldiers have gone rogue, and one of them happened earlier this year. Such a catastrophic thing is never a good trait, and something that rarely happens in Britain compared to America. If America has such poor discipline to allow this to happen, then of course Britain would win.

"We spend money on other stuff"

In my opinion, Britain is a morally better place to live. We have all sorts of advantages over America when it comes to helping the sick this could work hugely in our advantage if there were a war. We could appeal to other countries for help and what would they see? Two sides to support, and one has no help for the poor whilst the other has all sorts of things like the NHS and free healthcare.

"In fact, the fact that America have so many guns and soldiers is probably one of the reason they are one of the most violent countries in the world"

Yes, America loves guns.

There is more gun crime in America than any other country in the world, and it has been that way for some time, now.

"I'd just rather live here"

That would go to our advantage if we asked other countries for help.

Side: Britain
5 points

"Then why aren't you supporting us?!"

Because he's a traitor who doesn't believe in bounderies between countries.

Side: Britain
Thornberry(9) Disputed
2 points

The question isn't "who spends their money more wisely?" or "which country is your favorite?". It is "who would win in a war?". Regardless of what country you are from, you can't logically argue that the U.K. would win. The US has a military budget that is higher than every other country's in the world. We have WAY more soldiers, weapons (nuclear and convential), vehicles, and military bases than UK. You would have to be completely delusional to ignore that.

Side: U.S.A

I think the USA would win because this country has a better military.

Side: U.S.A
3 points

America, by itself, has the most amount of money invested into their army. However, the intelligence British leaders such as Winston Churchill has proven that we could not be defeated strategically. Our current leader is a legend who was educated fantastically at Eton College and would have all of the help that he needs - which isn't much, as he is a capable leader. I don't know how familiar any of you are with the tennis player Boris Becker, but in his time he was almost unbeatable and, in an event to support charity (yes, the legend got charity into the works, too) David Cameron won!

Britain also has greater friends than America and would definitely have help from countries who may have been involved in the Commonwealth, or countries that just get annoyed with Americans always boasting about their military force and then being surprised when they are ridiculed for shooting innocent civilians and not foreseeing the idea that someone might take action against them - flying into the Twin Towers.

There have been several stories against America having not such great intelligence as they may have liked. A story that I have experienced first hand was when I was on a cruise, chatting to an American schoolteacher, and the teacher did not know that 'pence' was the plural of 'penny', or what the word 'plural' even meant - and she was teaching other people.

Supporting Evidence: David Cameron is a Legend (www.telegraph.co.uk)
Side: Britain
Thornberry(9) Disputed
4 points

I like how you try to say that Americans are big headed and you are the one who is generalizing an entire nation based on a 5 minute conversation you had with a school teacher. Also, the argument is about a war between the US and UK. Trying to incorporate allies defeats the purpose considering this scenario is completely hypothetical, as the two countries have one of the strongest alliances in the world. As for us not "foreseeing" 9/11 happening, that has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Why didn't the UK foresee any train bombings or other terrorist attacks against them?

Side: U.S.A
Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
4 points

"Based on a 5 minute conversation you had with a schoolteacher"

I don't base everything I know about America from that conversation, but I think that you should be thankful that person wasn't a doctor. It would have been a very British, and good thing to do if I had stopped her from ever seeing another patient by reporting her (something I may have done if they were a doctor).

"The argument is about a war between the US and the UK. Trying to incorporate allies defeats the purpose"

Well, I wasn't told that I wasn't allowed to do that.

It defeats the purpose of being a real war if it does not have realistic aspects about it.

I was doing the realistic thing that clearly had a purpose - involving allies is something that is done in almost all modern wars, why should this hypothetical one be any different?

"As for us not "foreseeing" 9/11 happening, that has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Why didn't the UK foresee any train bombings or other terrorist attacks against them?"

Prove to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that your current president at the time did not have anything to do with the planning of it.

Anyway, who says we didn't have any knowledge of those train bombings? At least we weren't being hypocritical by saying we were undefeatable.

Side: Britain
2 points

America has so many geographical weaknesses, as it's two main cities, NY and Washington, are exposed. London, however, is harder to reach. Also, Britain can easily defend itself from the sea.

In history, Britain used many intelligent techniques in WW2, as all German spies in Britain were actually double agents working for Britain, and Britain created a false 'base of operations' with inflatable bombers and tanks- so that it was thought that they had been dealt a crippling blow when this was bombed.

Side: Britain
2 points

We're smaller- and more protectable.

Side: Britain
2 points

And we are in the EU- instant 26 allies!

Side: Britain