The United States is the most influential nation of all time.
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is acceptance, second is arguement and third and fourth are rebuttals with the last round also havimg a conclusion.
Accepted, under the pretence that we refer to America as the country USA, or US, in its foundation and recognition by other countries including the U.K. of September 3, 1783.
C2) The United States pioneered sports beyond them being just "a leisurely game." Because of the U.S., athletes are now superstars, rich, admired, famous, and idolized. Big organized sporting events are a worldwide tradition and bring people together in the way that little else can. The U.S did not invent sports but they commercialized it and brought it into humanity's way of life. The reason why sports are included on this list is sporting events are the only televised event able to generate anywhere near a billion viewers.
C3) The U.S has revolutionized the world with Democracy. Before the rise of the U.S., there were many forms of government. Whether it is the best or not, the Democratic form of government is the way of life today. People vote for their leaders and people's rights are established and enforced. Capitialism and Democracy were not created by the U.S. by because of revolution, commerce, culture, and the effects of post-war it has spread worldwide to the point where the far majority of the world is now Democratic. People have emulated America and envious of our freedoms and way of life, they have caused Democratic revolutions. From the Soviet Union to the Arab Spring, American culture or influence has had a part in everything. The American Revolution had a huge impact on the thinking in Europe and led to the French Revolution and other movements towards Democracy and greater freedoms.
C4) Non state owned corporations and large companies brought America to the forefront of the world, and other nations have copied this by starting their own stock markets and successful corporations. This has transformed the economy, employment opportunities and life in general. American style skyscrapers and cities have transformed the look of all big cities and transformed the way people work. People all over the world are able to work and share ideas in the same place at the same time, all while working next to hundreds of other corporations. Mass transit was not wholly created in America but subway systems, railroads, trollleys, buses and the mass production of cars and commercialization of airplane travel transformed the way we live, our infrastructure and our ability to travel and have productive commerce. Their massive industrial and commercial production has also been the model for other countries today who may one day overake them such as China.
C5) The United States pioneered social welfare in a capitalist, democratic setting without communism or fascism. Unemployment, welfare, insurance, disability, and child labor laws just to name a few...the U.S helped pioneer, spread and enforce this onto the world. Not to mention the American feminist movement was extremely influential on the world and inspired similae revolutions throughout the developed world.
C6) The U.S has done in 300 years what no other country has done. Rome, Greece, the Arab world, Great Britain, these civilizationans took double or triple the amount of time to get anywhere close to the same influential status. Plus, no other country has had anywhere near as similar of an impact of influence without the use conquering and empire building then the United States.
C7) There are countless other reasons that make the United States the most influential country in the world. America is the only country who will go as far as nuke a country and then help rebuild it and shape into an economic world leader. The fact America has done all of this being a formerly isolationist country, and with very little blood on its hands compared to similar candidates(besides the westward expansion, decimation of native Americans and slavery which we also helped enforce the world to abolish), I think is enough to support my claim. The United States revolutionized the idea of massive immigration, which always existed but not to a point where said country is made up of immigrants. It truly is the melting pot and other developed countries are now more open and willing for a massive change in population outlook and looking more and more like America (France, Britain, Canada). Our army is worldwide with bases all over the world. The world has never seen such military might, especially in a non-aggressive manner. America proved that you can have all this power and still withstand from imperialism and empire building.
Sorry for the long wait, been busy writing for other debates (which everyone subsequently wasted my time and didn't respond to).
I will split up my opponent's points roughly into two or three clash points, in order to stop gish galloping of too many topics to refute at once.
My opponent claims that "the culture of the United States has spread throughout the entire world", " The United States essentially created "pop culture"" and " The U.S has done in 300 years what no other country has done".
Firstly, the idea that the US culture has spread throughout the world is wrong. True, it holds some influence over the world, but in reality, it's cultural impact is incredibly small. The League of Nations, for example, could never survive due to the American culture not being part of other countries, something that was took for a given. America, until the late twentieth centuries, have been importing values from Europe repeatedly, producing second-rate works. In the late 18th century, some American artists produced high quality art, such as the paintings of John Singleton Copley yet wealthy American art collectors in the 19th century still bought works by the European masters of the trade. Then they ventured further in this field, seeking more exotic settings, especially items from China and Japan. By means of purchasing foreign works of art, wealthy Americans were able to buy the status inherent in a long historical tradition, which the United States lacked. So the U.S doesn't have a strong cultural tradition: the Europeans do, and Americans simply bought tradition. Doesn't make it Made in USA.
But who were the major cultural 'players' in the world? Well, let me ask you this: Who produced the poetrysuch as Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? How about Kublia Khan? Or maybe She walks in beauty, Ode to autumn, I wondered lonely as a cloud. Who produced Shakespeare, Chaucer, Wilde, Coleridge, Wordsworth, the list goes on. Who created the plays such as The Yeoman's Tale, Henry V, Romeo & Juliet, Much Ado about Nothing? Who brought musicals to fame, such as Phantom of the Opera, Starlight Express, and many others? Oh, Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.
And regarding sport while we're at it, America is the sporting centre of the world? You stole the word football and created a game from it independant to the rest of the world: get with the times, and stop stealing our words! But seriously, as the UK is the home of real football, rugby, and cricket, I think it unreasonable to claim to be the largest impact regarding sports. After all, how many countries have a large following of baseball and American football outside of America? Nowhere near football, and in many countries nowhere near rugby or cricket.
The political aspect is definitely not American. Let's go through some of them:
Democracy - Greek direct democracy, Roman Republic, Switzerland Democracy, Scandinavian Things (yes, they're called things, strange name), British Constitutional Monarchy, United States Democracy, massive amount of revolutions.
American Democracy - Constant stream of unending slander and lies of the other side and a large majority agree the entire system is broken.
British Democracy - The Westminster system became the basis for countless countries: Spain, France and Russia being a few of them, and one of the most celebrated democratic systems around the world. Also, well known for being one of the first constitutional monarchies.
Social Welfare: Social welfare massive in Spain, France, Germany, large in the UK, minor in the USA. The idea that you... I don't even know the point of it. You started social welfare? you started Freedom? I'm not even sure you understand the point you are trying to make. If it is starting feminism, I would like some citations.
Foreign Relations: Maybe the most vilified regarding this, does that count as influence? But then again, with even Iran standing against you, I don't think you have that much influence...
Largest growth/Biggest Country/something about size maybe?: Greece: Brought culture, philosophy and democracy into the world: Whitehead (Also British) said "History is a footnote to Plato". Rome: Empire with culture that has permeated all of Europe and America throughout history. Britain: Record for Largest Empire in the world, which took maybe 400 years of rapid expansion. Mongol Empire: Empire a shade smaller than Britain in 20 years. America: Colonised a country with no threat of invasion or loss of land whatsoever, with no claims over any land whatsoever. Now, you may say it is Greece, Rome, Britain, even the Mongols as the top of the pecking order, but USA? Sorry, don't see it.
R.M.Hare, B.Russell, Coplestone, Ayer, Dawkins, Hitchens, Housed Marx, Housed Wittgenstein, Housed Simone Weil, I can keep going.
Young Earth Evangelism.
Hmm.... which one?
Now, I imagine I have not addressed all my opponent's points, but there were so many, I had to pick specific ones out to address. I hope my opponent feels fine about this, and I shall address other points later. However, if there are another eight or so clash points, I hope my opponent will realise that I cannot express a proper argument with that limit on the words. Thank you.
1 - http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie...;
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
5 - http://www.economist.com...;
6 - The History of Rome, Boris Johnson (English)
1) The League of Nations was pre-war America. America did not have the prestige and power that it gained after the war. And the United Nations? Created with the League of Nations as a predecessor, both an American idea regardless that America didn't join the League of Nations.
2) America may not have the rich history of art that other countries with a much longer existence have, but the United States and its art scene thrived with American Realism, Harlem Renassance art, and most importantly Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art (Andy Warhol).(1) American artists have buyers and collectors from all over the world. Warhol's go for millions. Also, every country's collectors buy foreign art so I fail to see your point.
3) I don't know if you're trying to just misquote me with the intention of gaining points by funny business, but I never said America is the sporting centre of the world. I said America is responsible for the commercialization of sports, and its massive success among the world. Some of our sports aren't popular in other countries, but the point is that games are televised, athletes are paid highly, and athletes are super famous and idolized. America changed sports from just being a leisurely game into a huge business, and a huge opportunity for people to make it big by excelling in a sport. I don't understand why individual sports really have anything to do with anything. Youre saying Britain popularized Cricket, Rugby, Soccer etc...the United States popularized basketball, baseball, extreme sports, American football, golf (whose more famous then Woods or Palmer) and MANY other minor sports that like any sport are popular is some regions in the world and unpopular in others. Now to answer your question, baseball is HUGELY popular. It is one of the most popular sports in the entire world and is a huge success throughout Canada, Mexico, the entire Central and South American continent and the Carribean, as well as Japan and China.(3) Why do you think so many of our baseball players are Latin American? Basketball is popular basically worldwide, and Football is gaining ground in popularity in Canada and parts of Europe (remember NFL Europe). Only reason it isn't more successful is there are too many similar sports already available. Now where is Cricket and especially Rugby popular besides former British colonies?
4) I fail to see my opponents point about bashing America continously. The success of the American system gave the risw to abolishing constitutional monarchy's. Once again, I never said America "created" democracy. America rebranded it and popularized the idea of freedom from religion, seperation of church and state, etc, something that most European countries did not offer. The U.S. Constitution provided the world its first formal blueprint for a modern democracy! The easygoing transfer of power between presidents was much easier and simpler then the violent French upheavels and the British corruption pre-reform(4). Then, you state that America is just a place full of a bunch of revolutions? Haha, care to elaborate? Besides the American Revolution, I can think of the Sexual Revolution, the Feminist Revolution and now the LGBT revolution, something that's going on everywhere and aren't violent. Is there a big part of American history I'm missing here, contender?
5) Germany was the first welfare state, all other European countries developed their policies around the same time (Great Depression) as America developed its new-deal social welfare policies. The reason America is more important is that our culture is what you see on TV, read about, and hear about worldwide. We helped pioneer social welfare in order to created the largest middle class the world had ever seen. American policies spread to Latin America and East Asia, because that was our sphere of influence. Modern Social security was an American development, created from the ideals that guilds held and performed and influenced by the English Poor Laws.(2) Creating something doesn't necessarily mean that you are the most influenial. The one who spreads it to others or pioneers is more influential. Example: Apple didn't create mp3 players, but it is undeniable that they are the most influential corporation in that regard.
6) I fail to see why largest growth or biggest empire means "most influential", and why that prevails over America's non-violent method of culture exporting. You failed to explain further on that.
7) It's funny you quote Whitehead since he moved to Massachusettes and died there. America in 300 years has produced as many amazing philosophers as many countries have done in double. John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Paine, all the founding fathers, Josiah Royce, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Fiske, Charles Sanders Pierce, Chauncey Wright, William James, John Dewey, George Santayana, Thomas Kuhn, W.V.O Quine, Ayn Rand, John Rawls.
I won't respond to your America bashing because it has nothing to do with the debate and shows you have poor consuct. Once again everyone please notice that my opponent did not follow the rules. I await his rebuttal.
Regarding rule-breaking, seeing as you tried to say USA was better in political, social, cultural, technological, military and economical aspects, If I did not refer to the clash points, then the debate round would have constrained me simply to the moral side of things, making it all pointless. Also, instead of doing 1), 2) etc. which splits clash points into a random sprawl of points which hold no value.
"The league of Nations was pre-war America"
Oh, so are we supposed to disregard history? Hey, you know art? That was pre-5 minutes ago, therefore not relevant: this kind of argument won't get us anywhere. And the UN was made on completely different grounds to the League of nations, with European nations leading the UN's signing, while the LON, which had Wilson's support, was a flop. Also, I want a citation of it being an American idea, as it was well known to be an idea that originated with Kant.
My opponent has not used the words, probably not knowing was laïcité is, which will be a point in a moment, but the idea of laicitéan policies is to seperate the church and state. Which is, of course, why one prays on a Bible in court, pays bail money to get out of said court which says "In God we trust", and why being Christian is almost required in runups to election.
"America rebranded [democracy]"
Explain how. What specifically did it rebrand that was not done anywhere before.
"first formal bluprint for a modern democracy"
Oh, nice little qualifier there, "modern" democracy. So I cannot refer to the fact that it is an age-old idea, from the Solonian Constitution of Greece in 600BC to Rome in 400 AD, to the Magna Carta Charter of the 13th century (we're getting closer to the US mark here), or the two constitutions in the 1650s under Cromwell (so not only did we have them first, but we've had more). However, unless we are going to say modern does not inlcude sweden for their constitution five years before the US, I've think I've cracked this nut.
However, this still ignores the uncodified constitutions, such as the British one through most of time.
Something about revolutions maybe?
I still don't understand the point...you have revolutions, internally, therefore your external influence is greater? Not only do other countries have these "revolutions" - The Glorious British Revolution (we're so good at revolutions, ours was Glorious, beat that!) for example, but the LGBT revolution isn't a real revolution: find me the fundamental change of power that happened due to this "sexual revolution" (which sounds like the feminist revolution but involving more condoms). If we use Aristotle's test, where is the constitutional change that has been unique to America regarding this - or even America first?
Social Welfare BS
I can't even be bothered to read the article, simply because of two revelations:
a) It says somehow that it appeared in the Great Depression, when it was originally waaaay older, and blatant in the works of, say Bentham. A good ol' Brit. Because we have more influence.
b)" Modern Social security was an American development, created from the ideals that guilds held and performed and influenced by the English Poor Laws." I rest my case.
Firstly, it is good to see that my opponent concedes poetry, prose, plays, and musicals, but has left art open. However, he also leaves art until the 1900s open as well. The Harlem Renaissance was a minor movement, criticised for its inability to have its own message, preaching acceptance while speedily abandoning its own culture. However, I'd like to point out books such as Death of a Salesman were censored to due American government. With the most modern of movements, such as Warhol's works, the extreme modern context, due to the advent of the internet and other such wonders, it would take me literally ten hours to go to you and scream at you for some of these problems [ ;) ], the point being Warhol was a well travelled artist - and the only real successful artist out of America for the past few decades. But the facts are there: better in musicals, poetry, plays,
Secondly, the sports you've mentioned have been of interest. After all, the british invented Baseball. Secondly, you say how it does not matter of the individual sports, but America-led baseball is struggling to even get a spot in the Olympics, Football remains popular in China, followed by hundreds of millions.
Finally, regarding commercialisation, you've stated something that happens EVERYWHERE. "games are televised". WOW. I am IMPRESSED. We don't even have elecricity yet! And most famous sportsmen being Woods? I'd disagree and so do people. And who is Palmer? Unless you follow golf, you've never heard of him. At least woods is in the public spotlight a little, spreading good ol' American values about.
Philosophical contribution & influence
Now, let me just go through the torrent of names you threw out: Winthrop was English and a lawyer, Edwards is a triple jumper (and a theologian, but more well known as a triple jumper), Paine was English and a politician, the founding fathers were politicians, Kuhn was a priest, Emerson was a political essayist, the rest are equallyobscure and dull that I am left with only Quine, Rand, and possible Rawls (he was a political philosopher, so I'm wondering where to place him).
I could similarly spam google and British Philosophers to get 185 philosophers, and I will add to my previous list Francis Bacon, Bentham and Mill and Anthony Flew. And Turing, Sidgwick and Priestley, each of which has made a massive contribution to their philosophical field, and revolutionised the field time and time again.
All in all, I think the debate could easily be wrapped up now. I have, as my opponent said, gained points by funny business (which is a great phrase), explained the lack of cultural influence, lack of political influence, lack of philosophical influence, and lacking...well..influence.
I also do not take kindly to the remark that I have commited poor consuct. Consuct is something very important to me, and insults at my consuct are poor consuct in of themselves.
My opponent is also guilty of ferretting: trying to be excessively strict to rules without looking at the intention of their placement, especially as this debate is not reliant among rule-making and breaking. I will also state this now to be clear: If my opponent tries to post more than 5 clash points again, I shall simply ignore them past the limit. It is not that this is unreasonable: I have split mine up clearly into three sections, five is not difficult, and it will keep everything ordered to some respect. Thank you.
Also, if you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a fan of wikipedia :D
1 - Perpetual Peace: A philosophical sketch: http://www.mtholyoke.edu...;
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
8 - http://www.princeton.edu...
9 - http://www.thefileroom.org...
10 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
12 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
14 - http://hotlist.uk.msn.com...
Democracy, "revolutions", social welfare:
Since you said you like Wikipedia so much: "The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture. It is the oldest charter of supreme law in continuous use, and It influenced later international figures establishing national constitutions."(1)
Wikipedia also states: "George Athan Billias, studying the Constitution and related documents, describes six waves of influence:
From 1776-1811, after the American Revolution began, it influenced northwestern Europe and its colonial connections.
1811-1848, after the decline of Napoleon's reputation, it was referenced by Latin American, Caribbean, and European nationalists.
1898-1918, after the Spanish American War, nationalist movements borrowed from the U.S. Constitution in Asia and Latin America.
1918-1945, after World War I, its influence spread with movements for decolonization of Africa, Mid-east and Asia.
1945-1974, after World War II, independence movements consulted it. Most recently,
1974-1989, after United Nations expansion, once nondemocratic regimes, including European ones, transitioned towards constitutional democracies incorporating elements of the U.S. Constitution."(2)
The U.K developed proto-constitutions but these lacked many rights, which is why people fled to North America to govern themselves.
My point of bringing up the sexual, feminist and LGBT "revolutions" was to mock your statement that America is just a place with a bunch of revolutions. The fact that most of these revolutions subsequently happened in other places does not make your statement sensible to me at all. Although, the American feminist movement was the leader and hhelped incorporate women into non-traditional roles throughout the world. So as I'll say again, what are these revolutions I hear about?
The Social Welfare (besides Germany) in European countries was a proto-social welfare. The inventor does not always master it. You also don't tell me exactly what aspects of social welfare the British developed and progressed on its own to modernity. Also, just because the SSA was influenced by the English Poor Laws and workers guilds doesn't make the English more influental in that regard and doesn't make America's contribution to the advancement of it any less significant. Don't forget that our SSA laws have been copied by many many nations.
My oppenent consistently seems to think that just because someone creates something, his influence is better.
Culture and sports:
There are tons of great poets, writers, and musical artists from America then and now. I didn't go over it just like you didnt go over more then half of what my original argument was. It would take me forever to list the great literature, poems and music to come out of America. You also say Warhol was well travelled, but so too were most artists born in Europe during the 18th-20th centuries. Now as far as music goes, there are more top selling musical artists from the United States then any other country. The U.S has 79 of the worlds best selling musical artists of all time. The UK only has 32.(3) America is young, and it may not have as rich of a history and culture in art and other forms. But, music is the oldest medium of entertainment in the world and is performed by all cultures. Music is a way of humanity creating social bonds and expressing emotions or ideas while entertaining and inspiring others. Modern recorded music in other countries is a direct result of American influence and creation. The UK has been influential in music as well, but you cannot deny the far greatest reach American artists have had. The U.S is the country where foreign artists go to reach a broader audience and gain the ability to distribute further then they ever could at home. In today's world musical artists, actors and actresses, and athletes make the majority of peoples role models from the richest to the poorest countries This is why the spread and creation of music genres in America, as well as Hollywood and the commercialization and success of sports is so important and makes America so influential.
The UK invented baseball, but where is the dominant league? America. Where were the modern day regulations and rules formed? In America.(4) Besides the sports I mentioned in my last post, we also created and spread Ice Hockey to Canada, Russia and the Nordic countries. Basketball and Baseball are two of the most popular games on the planet, and America also created pin bowling and developed Lacrosse from the Native Americans into a competitive sport. As I also stated before, Americans created extreme sports such as skateboarding and surfing which has spawned entire subcultures which have been absorbed by other countries. Americans also dominate in almost every sport on the planet(basketball, baseball, golf, swimming etc) besides soccer, cricket and rugby. Also, for the third or fourth time you have misquoted me, I said Golf although not an American sport has been traditionally dominated by Americans such as Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer. Regardless, the point is that sports as we know it would be nowhere near as prominent in human life as they are now without the American influence and commercialization of them.
As for the philosophers, all of those Americans contributed to philisophical ideals. You do know that people can do more then one thing? Most of these people I have learned about in philosophy classes. Being an essayist doesnt mean you aren't a philosopher. Alot of the most famous philosophers were mathematicians, scientists and politicians. Secondly, Paine WAS English, but being part of the American Revolution made him American. Thirdly, the founding fathers WERE philosophers. The Constitution is based on philosophical values that were deemed fair and defended freedom. They were legal philosophers. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin etc., all debated and compromised on the relationship towards religion, checks and balances etc. Just because they are more known for other things doesnt make them not philosophers.
My opponent has been a good debater compared to who I've faced on here and the amount of forfeits I've seen. Yet, he misquoted me with malicious intent numerous times in order to give the voters an impression that I said something that I clearly didn't. Or, maybe they were all just accidents. Regardless the voters will decide. I also don't enjoy the multiple attempts at bashing America which have nothing to do with the debate and only serve the purpose of insulting me. Also, since you didn't follow the rules and am now going to get an extra rebuttal after I post this, I will use whatever format I want. I never specified a format. YOU accepted this debate with the rules posted, so don't criticize how I formatted my arguments and rebuttals.
In conclusion, the short time that America has taken to become a world giant and the culture, music, arts, democratic values, business structure makes me feel that the United States is the most influential nation of all time. Con has only occasionally pointed out that some of the things Americans have influenced others with in fact came from other countries, but it is my opinion that this alone isn't strong enough to take credit from America for progressing, transforming, mastering and spreading these things. Entertainment, music, invention of video games, responsibility for modern internet and computers, government and law, business, the racial and cultural outlook of cities, skyscrapers.
Regarding rule-breaking, seeing as you tried to say USA was better in political, social, cultural, technological, military and economical aspects, If I did not refer to the clash points, then the debate round would have constrained me simply to the moral side of things, making it all pointless.
The Constitution, an idea that was taken from many, many countries before you, debatable on whether countries want one, and one that is influential only as the idea that it is the most well known. Nearly all constitutions take on a different form (for example, the German constitution holds a completely different role of a constitution, as well as a different setup. Also, I reject the idea that "it influenced later international figures" on this ground, and enjoy the first three paragraphs having no citation for that statement, and the talkpages talking of recently obvious bias.
Also, regarding Billas' waves of influence, I reject the idea that it is the American Constitution, but that it is simply Constitutions in general. The concept is what is important. In fact, due to the buildup of constitutions emerging at the time, before and after, I'd say that there is no reason here behind these ideas other than an argument ad verecundiam.
The idea of the movements are still lacking. The occupy movement, yes. (Effective much?) The American Revolution? Even though Britain was incredibly important, yes, America was the most important. But the Bolshevik revolution? The Xinhai Revolution? The French Revolution? Glorious Revolution? I can't seem to think of any others. The LGBT movement originated in America, but the movement actually picked up speed in Western Europe. Example: Americans still have illegal gay marriage. UK: The Bill is being proposed, and most political commentators are imagining it to go through. 
The Social welfare case is still unfounded. The idea the American system perfected it, or the "proto-social welfare" of England is unfounded. This case does not have a leg to stand on. If it was in Britain, however, it could at least take advantage of our NHS, while in America, your lack of social welfare would cause a problem or two.
And the idea that "just because someone creates something, his influence is better." is half-true: the thing is, when someone innovates an idea, it is accredited to them. Now, occasionally someone invents an idea, then another innovates it, and then the inventor does not deserve credit. But he who innovates it, makes it desired by the public, they are who has created the popularity and influence from it.
Regarding art, I concede the film industry is mostly influenced by America currently. The past had Britain as a lot larger industry player , and in the future, Japan is on the rise. However, Poetry, arts, prose and history all go to Britain hands down. The idea that America is the home of the artist is, again, unfounded. The most famous school of Art is easily the Bauhaus, its influence easily swamping any American influence. Also, regarding the music industry, for a country with a 5 times larger population, and what you seem to think as a greater culture, only having twice as many best selling songs seems quite poor.
Regarding sports, I disagree with nearly every single idea about external influence there. For example, as America has dominated at the sport, they are the largest influence on the world. This idea is clearly ludicrous: Britain has won darts almost every game. That is because it is constrained to its own country. Therefore, the more a single country wins, the less influential around the world, surely. Look at football: England has one once. yet it is well established as the cultural epicentre of football. Same goes for cricket and, to a lesser extent, rugby. With American football? The clue's in the name. Baseball? Well, baseball it is struggling in Asia. In comparison, with Football, there are hundreds of millions of supporters in asia.
And regarding commercialisation? I've still got no reason to believe this. And as no-one else spends as much on sport stars as you do by far, then it is more obvious to me that America has less influence.
And with Philosophers, I see ideas of political ideas for liberalism influencing the idea of the Constitution, but the idea that all politicians were philosophers is simply plain wrong. Hume, famous philosopher for his works ressurrecting Socratic Dialogue, refuting existences, and started, with Hobbes, another Briton, the compatabilist movement regarding free will and determinism. Nothing by Paine or Jefferson, Adams, Franklin. At most, they all together came up with a single thing, and that is all. Not much compared to the likes of Hume, Hobbes, Hitchens, Hare, and they're just the ones whose names started with a H!
In conclusion, the voting should be easy: Philosophically, Briton has an indubitably larger influence, Culturally, Britian has a much larger history and influence over the progression of the world, America only creating influence in the last 30 years, and politically, British democracy was the envy of the world, while America at most was a fast follower.
Vote fairly, criticise constructively, and rant righteously, thank you.
1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...;
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: All time, meaning that US has been and will be the most influential nation. Not possible because countries like britain, like con pointed out, was much more powerful before.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have easily won the debate just showing how other countries have contributed to an equal scale to society as the US, but he spent a majority of his arguments only showing that the US didnt create many great concepts, only built off of them from earlier models. Arguments are tied since Pro did have some good points, sources go to con, but conduct goes to pro since con did break the rules
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.