The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Britain is a war criminal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Stranger1221 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 377 times Debate No: 98649
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Round 1, accept challenge, state position and basically outline argument.


Thanks for the debate, Pro.
I accept the challenge.
Pro didn't bother to supply definitions for the resolution, so I will.


Britain - the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland.

island - a piece of land surrounded by water.

war - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.

criminal - a person who has committed a crime.

person - a human being regarded as an individual.

human being - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens.

*My Position*

I reject the resolution that a piece of land surrounded by water is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens who has committed a crime in a state of conflict.


Being that Britain is a piece of land, it does not qualify as a member of the Homo sapiens species and therefore cannot qualify as a criminal, in times of war or otherwise.

Debate Round No. 1


I feel the opposition is being pedantic as I referred to the Britain as an island who's government and army colonised many countries and fought many wars.


Thanks for your lengthy response Pro and for accepting the definitions.
Also, thank you for calling me pedantic.
I pride myself on being excessively concerned with displaying academic learning.
I am a teacher after all.

*Pro's Case*

Pro claims that "an island who is government and army" fought many wars.
There are three problems with this.

1. An island is not a government or an army; it's a piece of land...just check the accepted, though considered pedantic, definitions in round 1.

2. Neither colonizing many countries nor fighting many wars necessitates criminality; both colonization and wars can be executed while no crime is committed.

3. An island is not a who; the pronoun who is generally reserved for people or animals.

Pro also claims that this is how he "referred to the Britain."

Let's see what Pro wrote before round 2:
"Round 1, accept challenge, state position and basically outline argument."

My response:
I fail to see any mention of Britain, an island, a government, or an army.
Pro, when did you refer to "the Britain" as a government or army, before round 2?
If the answer is that Pro didn't refer to "the Britain" before round 2, then how could I have been aware of Pro's reference?
Also, this surely flies in the face of the accepted pedantic definitions, no?


Pro is just not giving us enough evidence that an island is capable of being a person or committing a crime, even if Pro inaccurately tried to refer to the island as a "who."

So I maintain my rejection of this resolution, because Britain is a piece of land, as accepted by Pro, and not a person who committed a crime.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by scroobiuspip 1 year ago
wins by technicality, love it
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
cold war criminal?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.