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

The British Empire is something to be Proud of

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
mackeeper has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 116118
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

Pride is a funny thing. In this debate being proud should refer to having a positive feeling towards something that has been an objectively good thing for humanity. The British Empire was a force for good in the world.

Let me be clear. This debate combines two tiers. Anyone wishing to take up arms in this debate must be aware of the 2 questions regarding this big question. The first is an historical question. I will prove that the British Empire in its historical context was objectively good for the world. I believe that the burden of proof is heavily on my side concerning this question. Secondly there is the moral question. Can we be proud of something which is relatively good in its context or are some things moral absolutes and therefore always wrong.

So why was the British Empire a force for good in its time. First of all, needless to say that the countries the British Empire invaded and colonised were improved as nations by that invasion in most cases. The likes of India wouldn't have even existed had it no been for the unifying force of the British. The same can be said for many African countries. Now in some cases this has lead to problems like in Sudan but in many there have been successes such as in Nigeria which is overall, a stronger more unified nation as a result of colonialism. Secondly, the basis for the rule of law, the judiciary, democracy, freedom and economic development was a laid down by the British. Infrastructural benefits are the very least Empire can be praised for. The likes of a parliamentary system exist in so many ex colonies and they function much better than most other countries. Just compare Kenya and Uganda to the DRC the level of corruption is far less and there is at least the basis of a democratic and just process. So I believe that Britain was a force for good in the world in that respect. Furthermore, the British Empire got rid of a lot of injustices which were far worse than those they brought in. Time and time again politically correct, revisionist nut jobs like Owen Jones lecture us about all the horrible things the British did while conveniently forgetting the fact that Empire got rid of more injustice and immorality than it replaced it with. Take the Sudan for instance. Now yes the British Empire brought racist policies with it towards the Black Sudanese when they colonised the Sudan however revisionists like to forget the fact that the British Empire actually got rid of the Arab slave trade in the region and used its small colonial army to stop tribes from going on genocidal rampages against each other. In the case of India of course Britain brought in racism towards native Indians however the British also got rid of the burning to death of widows and overturned the likes of Sharia law and Hindu violence towards the Muslims in many regions. This was arguably an overall benefit to India. Moreover, those who criticise Empire also have to show that realistic alternatives were better unless they should at least be honest and instead argue that the period of time was all bad. What alternatives were there to the British in a dog-eat-dog world. Colonialism was the inevitable and unstoppable context of the time. Either you argue colonialism was totally all wrong or you fall into the trap of arguing that the British Empire was the worst. If not the British then the French (objectively more brutal), the Dutch (objectively more brutal), the Belgians (literally genocidal) or the status quo (in India the Mughals and the Sikh empire). The British empire was the best realistic regime that a poor undeveloped country could have wished for.

So, the British empire in its context was a force for good in the world. The question now is whether this means we can be proud of it. Yes we can. Why? Because if something is relatively good then it is morally acceptable. This is because if it was the best possible option out of a range of terrible options then it must have led to the least suffering out of all of those options. Its a case of: would you rather 10 or 100 people die? Given this considering utilitarianism the British empire was the the most moral model and therefore the moral option.

In a tough dirty world of injustice and unfairness, exploitation and rape the British Empire was a shining beacon of hope and progress. Better than any of the other options, we must not peer through the rose tinted spectacles of the 21st century and instead judge the British empire on its contextual merits. Doing this we will see that the British empire is a source of relative righteousness and freedom. This is surely something to be proud of.
mackeeper

Con

It seems that the negative position I should be arguing would be: 'The British Empire was a force for bad in the world', but I feel like this constructs an overly simplistic narrative that I reject, what I wish to argue instead, is that: the practices of the British Empire were immoral and unjustifiable.

Not only did the British Empire commit dozens of horrendous atrocities and enslave millions of people over the course of its existence, it extracted the resources and wealth of colonised territories all over the world, systematically disenfranchising native populations and imposing systems of governance that consolidated power into the hands of the ruling classes and subjugated the colonised peoples.

In regards to the 2 questions - i reject that there even is an "objectively good" - we can only debate the morality of a given topic, and in my eyes you have not made a particularly strong argument for why the actions of the British Empire are morally justifiable. In response to your second question - can we be proud of the British Empire? - short answer, no, we can't be proud of an empire that killed, enslaved, displaced, detained, and disenfranchised millions of people worldwide. But I feel like this question is really a proxy for a debate about whether its ok to be proud of ones history and heritage - and to that I say - you can choose what to be proud of? like, yeah, I'm proud of the achievements of Isaac Newton? I think Jane Austin was pretty cool? I like a lot of the theatre and art and music and science and philosophy that was produced under the British Empire - but I'm just not so keen about the slavery and the genocide and such - actually, I'm deeply ashamed that my ancestors did that, and I'm pretty ashamed that I continue to benefit off these historical atrocities and I think that's pretty healthy and reasonable.

In regards to the body of your opening statement, I think this could go one of two ways.

1) We could go into pedantic detail about each of the cases that you have brought up, and have a scholarly historical debate about whether or not the actions of the British Empire were justifiable on some abstract level.

2) Or, and this is the direction I'd prefer to go - we could have a more philosophical discussion about ends/means rationality, in which I would take the position that even if we could definitively prove that conditions for people in former British colonial nations are on some abstract level 'better', it would not justify the moral injustices that I have outlined.

It is simply not sound reasoning to consider the state of a place before colonisation, compare it to the present day, and conclude from this, that the British Empire was either good or bad. For one, we just simply do not have a control group - we can't compare present day Nigeria to a Nigeria from a different timeline where it never came under colonial rule. Secondly, all of the countries you have brought up have declared independence from the British Empire ages ago, India (1947), Sudan (1955), Nigeria (1960) Kenya (1964) and Uganda (1962). To say that they are relatively prosperous now could be arguably attributed to the fact that they LEFT the British Empire. Finally, your argument about Britain's cruelty in comparison to the French or Dutch empires proves nothing. I concede straight away that they were ALL immoral and I'm not particularly interested in arguing which was better or worse. The question is whether Britain's actions were morally justifiable, and the definitive answer is no.

In your final paragraph you say we need to: " judge the British empire on its contextual merits", but what are these merits again? that they weren't AS genocidal as Belgium or Holland? That the colonised people were all savages anyway? that there was no better option than to be enslaved and genocided?

Was there nothing good about the British Empire? obviously not, cricket is cool if you're into that? they made a lot of cool looking hats? they did the whole train thing? they put all of the worlds artefacts in one convenient location in central London (no wait, i mean).

The point is, nothing comes close to justifying the worst of what the empire did, and I feel like if your unconvinced of that, we will need to rake through the mud a bit more in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

I understand that you want to have a discussion about whether the actions were justifiable but that is not what the debate is about. As Pro, I have the right to set the parameters of the debate. At least that is the common practise of standard competitive debating. Let me explain why this debate will be about my two premises. Firstly, this is a historical debate. Therefore, to argue about solely the moral side is completely baseless since we need to understand what actions cause there to be a moral dispute in the first place. There simply must be a historical discussion and that's why it is so important. The second premise is there because I am trying to prove the first premise and therefore in order to satisfy the terms of the motion I need to link my conclusion for the first premise with the motion. Therefore, I need to evaluate whether the relative righteousness of the British Empire is sufficient to justify pride.

With these parameters in mind, I want to point out a few problems with what you have just said. Firstly, you made a lot of claims about the Empire's supposed crimes. Although this was extremely unspecific, I will agree that a lot of crimes were committed. Slavery however was not one of them. There was exploitation but never slavery. Not once was the British state involved in slave trade. Britain was the first major power to abolish and launch a war on all slavery. There was undoubtedly exploitation but relatively minor to other powers this was extremely minor. The British Empire is often lambasted for supposed genocide and yet there is not one case of obvious genocide at all. The aboriginal people of Australia engaged in a war with the colonists and there is no evidence of genocide. It is so often exaggerated but the reality is that the British Empire was one of the fairest and most moral empires in existence.

The second problem I picked out was when you said that equally independence is what has led to development. I understand your argument however to deny that colonialism and the commonwealth was not a reason for development is very naive. British imperialism laid the bedrock for much of the stability and democracy we see in the ex-colonies. In comparison to the absolute basket-cases of countries left by other completely murderous colonial powers like Belgium and France, commonwealth countries are remarkably more democratic and stable than their close neighbours. What is even more interesting is that in the years after independence in many colonies, growth slowed because colonial expertise and guidance just evaporated leading to immense economic problems. But fundamentally, parliaments and the rule of law left by the British have stayed with ex-colonies greatly aiding their development.

The problem with your argument is that you claim that the British empire was simply less genocidal and evil. But this is not true. The British Empire was a shining beacon of development and democracy in a world that was lagging far behind. Colonialism through the British spread these ideas and many historians such as AJP Taylor believe that had colonialism not have occurred, many colonies would not be nearly as developed as they are now. What really needs to be considered is what were the alternatives without colonialism. Subjugation by a more barbaric power in the region or continued oppression and violence coming from corrupt leaders was the reality for most colonies before the British came. There is a very strong argument that despite some abhorrent injustices, the British empire was on the whole a beneficial force for good. And at least towards the end of the Empire, it became a force for justice and democracy - something that benefits the children of many countries today.

Next onto the moral discussion. Now I'm sure we can both agree that, at least in this debate, being proud is being able to feel happy or satisfied at the overall positive achievement in something. I argue that the British empire left a positive humanitarian effect on the world which could be seen as morally right. I want to start by looking at what morality is. Ethics are very hard to reason with. Its not obvious that there is any truly morally right action. I propose a way of reasoning what is moral. The most moral action should be an action which causes the greatest advancement towards the ultimate goal of mankind. The "ultimate goals of mankind" are a cause of great debate within philosophy. I believe that one of the clearest goals is striving for every individual to achieve their best possible social and economic goal. I basically want future generations to be high achieving and as fulfilled and happy as possible. I'm sure you would agree that this is clearly an achievable and reasonable goal for mankind. With this in mind, for me, a moral or "humanitarian" action is one which brings us closer to this end game. Logically, the conclusion of my first premise (that the British empire brought about a positive humanitarian effect for mankind) is a moral course of action according to my model. This model is a logical and reasonable way of rationalising morality. Really, morality is so abstract and in philosophy there isn't actually right and wrong unless you are religious. Therefore, anyway to rationalise morality in this debate is a logical way to prove a moral hypothesis. The British Empire not inly set up a basis for growth but pursued a moral and humanitarian objective either intentionally or unintentionally.

For these reasons, even if you claim the British Empire was merely better than other all equally bad alternatives, this still makes it the most moral and thus it follows that under my rationale that it is moral. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is the best way to rationalise morality. Human gut feelings however - are not rational. So that is why the British Empire is something to be proud of.

Before I conclude I want to point out something very important. This is context. Now, society is constantly changing and evolving. In the same way, our ethics and moral stances evolve too. The moral beliefs 100 years ago are truly quite different from what they are today. Homosexuality for example was considered to be a great sin 100 years ago and yet now bigotry towards LGBT people is considered by many to be sinful. In this same way, the ethical mindset of society and leaders of the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries was different from what it is today. Considering this, we must be very careful to accuse the people of the time for being immoral. Since they knew no different for them what was moral was very different from now. We must be careful not to judge history through the rose-tinted spectacles on modern society but judge people on their contextual merits. There is no such thing as absolute morality. You can justify anything in the right context. I have never heard a convincing case for absolute morality. By revisionist historians rationale, the suffragettes were immoral since they were racist and the ANC was not progressive considering its homophobic and sexist stance. The action and not the people or society is immoral. The individual cases of British brutality are completely wrong but the people who committed are not necessarily immoral. Arguably, they were progressive and this is further evidence of the righteousness of the British Empire.

To summarise this long philosophical rant, I reflect on my thoughts last evening. I felt proud when England beat Colombia on penalties. Kane played fantastically. Why did I feel proud? Because they achieved something I could rationalise as good. Now in the case of the British Empire, it achieved something that we can rationalise as good. It pursued a policy of democracy, law and order and blind justice as well as stamping out many of the great evils that haunted the world at the time. Without the British Empire, even if you denounce all other colonialists too, the world would be a much sorrier place. It could be justified at the time. Of course I can't justify empire now but that is not the question. Can I say I'm glad that the British Empire existed? Of course I can. And thus in its pursuit of allowing making to achieve its ultimate goal of happiness and prosperity for all I believe the British Empire was a positive effect on the world and thus I am proud.

Based upon this evaluation, I urge the voters to be good historians and try to question what truly is moral. Somethings need to be rationalised and contextualised carefully. But once you've done that with the British Empire you will find that (at least if you are British or a member of the commonwealth) you can be proud of it.
mackeeper

Con

You want to debate whether the British Empire was a force for good, but you cannot have this debate without invoking some kind of moral framework to determine "what is good" and "what is bad". You yourself spent the majority of your last response constructing a moral argument, so let's just agree that the question of morality is an important one. The study of History cannot, by itself, determine what is 'good' and 'bad'. It can shed light on all of the many conflicting reasons why something happened and why people did what they did, but it cannot tell us whether it was good or bad, right or wrong, that requires a completely different discussion.

I kept my historical examples deliberately vague in my opening response as I assumed we would get into them later, so I'm glad you've brought it up.

Firstly you say that the British Empire was never involved in the slave trade - this is totally and demonstrably false. The British Empire was one of the biggest participants in the international slave trade and imported 1.6 million slaves to their settlements in the British Caribbean and nearly 400,000 to the colonies in North America. By the 18th century, the slave trade was a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, who were engaged in "Triangular trade" between Britain West Africa and North America. In this scheme ships set out from Britain loaded with trade goods which were exchanged on West African shores for slaves captured by local rulers from deeper inland; the slaves were transported across the Atlantic, and were sold at considerable profit for labour in plantations. Modern historians have argued that the British slave trade "allowed the formation of capital that financed the Industrial Revolution". Not only was the British Empire involved in the slave trade, the trade was incredibly important to its economic success and expansion.

Secondly, you say that the British Empire never committed an act of genocide, citing Australia as your example. This is again, totally false. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term "genocide", and the person who set the definition of genocide adopted in the UN Genocide Convention, has explicitly stated that the colonial replacement of Native Americans by English and later British colonists is one of the historical examples of genocide. The British invasion and colonisation of Australia and the subsequent Frontier Wars fought against the indigenous peoples represent one of the most brutal acts of violence ever committed by the British Empire. According to Patrick Wolfe in the Journal of Genocide Research, the "frontier massacring of indigenous peoples" by the British "constitutes a genocide". Historian Niall Ferguson has referred to the case in Tasmania as "an event that truly merits the now overused term 'genocide'". The overwhelming historical consensus is that the British violence enacted against the indigenous Australian population, constitutes a genocide. To say that it doesn't qualify because the First Nations people were at war with the British is preposterous because for the majority of the period the official state policy did not even recognise the indigenous peoples as human beings. There are many accounts of British settlers hunting and killing indigenous people for sport.

With regard to your second problem - I did not actually argue that independence from colonial rule is the sole reason for the countries prosperity, i merely used that argument to point out a flaw in your reasoning. As I have already stated, you cannot contrast a country now to the same country in a hypothetical timeline and conclude that the relative prosperity is therefore solely due to the policies of the British Empire. You keep asserting that the only alternative to British Rule was an eternity of death and corruption, but you simply cannot prove this because we cannot access alternative historical timelines and check - maybe Kenya would be worse off, maybe Kenya would be a glittering space utopia, we will simply never know. Sure, you can compare, say, modern day South Africa with, say, modern day Mozambique and maybe (mayyybbbee) conclude that the British Empire was 'better' than the French Empire. But... EVEN IF, please let me stress that I don't believe this, but EVEN IF it were true that British colonisation was more morally justifiable than French colonisation, that DOES NOT prove that the British Empire was therefore "a force for good" it simply means it was the better of two evils.

Now onto the moral argument. The moral framework you have provided here can be described as a consequentialist moral philosophy. You have said that a 'moral' action is one that "brings us closer" to a paradigm in which all people are able "to be high achieving and as fulfilled and happy as possible" - this is to say that a moral action is any action that produces this outcome. Firstly lets just point out the obvious - the British Empire certainly didn't care about the fulfilment and happiness of the ethnic groups they murdered, so the British Empire fails to clear even this low, low bar for moral righteousness. Nonetheless, this framework ostensibly SOUNDS reasonable, but it begs the question, how can you possibly quantify the level of achievement and the fulfilment and happiness within a population? And once you have this figure, what do you compare it to? Lets say Kenya is a level 7 on the happiness/fulfilment scale (whatever that would mean) is that good? bad? better? worse? Then we must ask, what role did the British Empire play in this process, was it 100% causal or just a contributing factor? You have still not come close to demonstrating that the British Empire was a force for good.

Furthermore, at what point can you definitively say that a particular action produced a particular outcome? As we have established, England/Britain was involved in the slave trade for hundreds of years, later on, they passed legislation that outlawed the practice. Does that mean that the previous hundreds of years of slavery were morally justifiable because it eventually lead to an historical moment where it was abolished? If Hitler had won the war, and hundreds of years later Germany was doing relatively well as a country, does that mean Hitler was morally justified? You're logic can be used to argue that literally any action is moral as long as at some point (even if it's tens or hundreds of years later on) there is some kind of positive outcome.

You also pointed out that: "the ethical mindset of society and leaders of the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries was different from what it is today" and because of this: "we must be very careful to accuse the people of the time for being immoral. Since they knew no different, for them, what was moral was very different from now." While this is true, all it tells us is that the people in the past who committed moral atrocities did not think that what they were doing was wrong. Well duh? The KGB didn't think what they did was immoral, the SS didn't think what they did was immoral, Charles Manson didn't think what he did was immoral - does that mean all of these people were morally right? obviously not. Just because the people were able to rationalise their actions at the time, does not mean their actions were rational.

You also say that "The action[s] and not the people or society is immoral. The individual cases of British brutality are completely wrong but the people who committed [them] are not necessarily immoral." Again, I agree with this, but I was never arguing that every individual person living under the British Empire was evil on a personal level - it is precisely the actions of the British Empire and not its citizens that I am taking issue with.

To summarise, feel free to be proud of the English football team...? You do not have to morally agree with the actions of the British Empire in order to feel proud of an English footballer...?
Debate Round No. 2
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

You are right that the key concern in this debate is the morality of it all. However, the history matters greatly. You mentioned that we can't used the history to answer questions concerning whether actions in the past were right or wrong. This is true however if we don't have a historical discussion then we are unable to actually evaluate actions in the past and so have absolutely nothing to base our moral discussion on.

In this debate I feel that sadly all that has happened in the historical discussion is that a narrative of "murder by the British" has become the face of what the empire was. We seem to only be arguing over the very bad bits whilst ignoring the good things that were done. I want to address your point on slavery because there is a lot of nuance relating to Triangular Trade. Firstly, the British Empire never was involved in the trade itself. The British state harboured and permitted slavery. However, slavery was entirely conducted by private corporations and individual plantation owners. Shipping routes were policed by British ships and plantation countries were protected by British troops. Pretending that somehow the British Empire directly conducted slavery is completely, demonstrably untrue and very disingenuous. On slavery, Britain abolished in 1807 and outlawed continued servitude in 1838. Furthermore, slaves were legally free in Britain since the 1772 Somerset case. These actions I argue were very moral actions. Britain and its empire were clearly well ahead of their time both morally and philosophically. To have the moral backbone and insight to go alone in the world, subsequently depriving your still very poor country of a massive source of material wealth, is a remarkable feat that does not get enough credit. Following this, the British navy was crucial in literally destroying Triangular Trade and forcing other European countries to stop their trade.

On to the example of genocide. What needs to be made very clear is the difference between individual acts of racial murder and state-sponsored genocide. Genocide has become a very loose term recently which is a shame because it deeply undermines the genuine victims of such horrible crimes. The individual racist murderers in Australia of course killed aboriginal people because of race however to claim that this means the Empire is guilty is a kin to arguing that one racist killing on a British street is evidence of state-sponsored murder. The native populations were at war with the British forces (mainly actually local civilians and not the state) and thus this cannot be confused with genocide. If some historians argue it was genocide then I disagree. There were individual acts of race-based murder but no evidence of an institutional strategy to ethnically cleanse Australia. I have no doubt war crimes were committed though. One thing that actually does not get credit is that the British Empire was one of the few Empires to always keep records of what it did. Acts of murder and exploitation were always written down. This is one of the reasons why we know so much about the misconduct of British soldiers during the MaoMao uprising in Kenya. In this sense, there is an element within Empire that says that we should make sure we make people accountable and try to keep watch on our behaviour. In other words, there is an element of "blind justice" within Empire - this is truly unique to Britain at the time.

Onto the development of countries. You are right. In a hypothetical situation one can never be sure that had colonial rule not been there then they would be worse off. However, we can look at the realistic alternatives to British rule. What we do know is that there was a" Scramble for Africa" and if one power had not taken it then another would. Indeed, India surely would have fallen to the French, Dutch or Portuguese since they all had colonies there and all were struggling to control it. There is no doubt that in the context of colonialism that imperialism was inevitable. So, to an extent, we can say that the British Empire was likely, on balance, the best thing to have happened to that country. Since we are discussing an individual empire and not overall colonialism, we cannot say that they should not have been colonised in the first place. Furthermore, just look at the evidence for positive British actions: roads, railways, parliaments, police forces, laws, justice systems, schools, hospitals, organised religion as well as western thought and philosophy. The list of positive introductions to colonies are evidence that good things happened to these countries. Therefore, colonial rule did aid the development of those countries, significantly.

Now onto the morality. I want to ask the question: what is good? How do you know something to be good? Is it just a gut feeling or is it because you know bad? I do not subscribe to the belief that the British Empire was a lesser evil. I don't think the debate should be framed in this way. However lesser evil really is good in the sense that the only thing that you can compare it to is bad. This is the only way we can rationalise it. It you have an alternative then go ahead but ultimately you have to revert back to absolutist tactics of just listing things that "feel" wrong.

The way we quantify best possible achievement is the same method that scientists often use. We work to compare if our lives have gotten any better at all over a time period. If they have then we know that we are still not reaching that utopia. But if there is no improvement in our material lives then we know that we are just about there (don't even try to bring up the middle ages and then the enlightenment!).

The British Empire does bring us closer to this. It was the most advanced and developed system in the world that spread its achievements around the world. It committed crimes but it also did many, many good things. Those crimes are minor setbacks but since the positive achievements brought us closer to a utopia for FUTURE GENERATIONS then the crimes (however bad) are wrong but not enough to not constitute and improvement. Since there will be more people in the future than there were hundreds of years ago (GG4GN), crimes are allowable as long as the utopia is brought to us by the British Empire (which did much more good than harm).

Now, I know that my point on the "ethical mindset" is a bit of a stretch. Firstly, the SS did know that what they were doing was wrong but in many cases they did it anyway through hate. We also need to be careful not to compare this to the mentally ill who may believe that whatever they do is right. I'm talking about a society in which there is free thought (unlike Nazi Germany) and in which there is a belief that a level of exploitation is tolerable or that racism is not that bad. Look, I also believe that a society which believes in bad things makes those actions bad. But my point was that the people weren't that bad themselves. And in that sense, I am proud of the people for having some kind of moral philosophy (however flawed it may be). In the same way I think that those who came up with the 10 commandments (however flawed some of them are) were good because they tried to have some kind of moral code and stuck to it. In this way, the British society was doing a good thing and so I extend that to meaning that the empire (which was ultimately built around them) was principled and righteous. To an extent, I am proud of the citizens who made up that Empire.

To summarise, the British Empire did the world a great deal of good and was far better than any realistic alternatives. We know that it introduced so many good things to other countries and that this ultimately brought the world closer to a goal of happiness and wealth. Britain was well ahead of its time and brought a level development to us much faster. In this way, I am proud of parts of Empire and very un-proud of other parts. On the whole, I think that we can be proud of it as the whole system was generally good for our world.

By your logic, can I be proud of any system that has ever existed. Are you glad that the Roman Empire existed? Do you think that the Roman empire was good for the world?
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
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 13 records.
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
Anyone want to take me on?
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Debating_Horse
They had more territory than any other European nation, fought with the colonists, and attempted to burn down the White House in the war of 1812. And Winston Churchill's alleged starving of British Indians.
Posted by straightshooter 3 years ago
straightshooter
The Brits top 5 accomplishments -

1. Robin Hood (and his merrie(y) men)

2. King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table

3. King George the III, King of the British Empire for understanding they were outmatched during the American Revolution.

4. The Beatles

5. Winston Churchill
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.