Britain should not be apologetic about it's history.

Thanks to vivalayeo for the opportunity to debate this topic. I think it's perhaps appropriate for a fellow Brit to accept such a challenge. I'm glad that my opponent has expanded somewhat on the resolution and clarified the intended subject for debate. At face value, the resolution itself is somewhat nonsensical, as landmasses can't express emotions. It would also be quite hard to argue in such purely emotional terms as to whether "being apologetic" was the appropriate response to a specific stimulus. As well as in his first round, Pro has clarified further in the comments section. It seems that the actual resolution he intends is something along the lines of: "That the British Empire has no reason to be apologetic to former colonies because they brought more good than bad during their time.", specifically the issue that "the pro's[sic] outweigh the con's[sic]" Pro has indicated that specific cases to consider would be "the African slave trade [and] the conquest of India" as well as North America. I'd like to also consider the case of Ireland, if possible. _____________ Pro: "I will bear the burden of evidense in this debate." I'm glad to see Pro accept his responsibility as instigator and Pro, for bearing the burden of proof. I shall also, of course, attempt to back up my points with clear evidence. Pro: "I believe that what once was a proud, civilized nation, has become a servile, sycophantic minority pleaser." Pride is not always positive, it is one of the seven deadly sins after all. As far as civility goes I don't see how rampaging across the globe murdering and looting is particularly civil. Minorities are a part of the British nation, not external to it and I'll have to ask for something specific to rebut in terms of servility and sycophantic behaviour. Pro: "Our politician's are spineless" Pretty sure that most have fully intact vertebrae but couldn't give account of the average MP's level of physical courage. I think it takes a modicum of gumption to put yourself forward as such a prime target for abuse and ridicule, but if my opponent is implying that politicians don't have the balls to stand firm to their mandate to the public, in the face of partisan and corporate lobbying, then I couldn't agree more. Pro: "our current political system is a farce" Yeah, I know. I don't really see what this has to do with the pros and cons of our previous empire building activities though. Pro: "we are brought up to believe that we should not be proud of our history." Don't know if my opponent means in terms of parental influence or state education here, but I'd have to see examples to know what he is referring to. Pro: "We should not feel shame for the African slave trade, or the conquest of India, because the good deffinitely out-weigh's the negative." I disagree with the measures on Pro's scales. I'll need to see how he clarifies what is good and bad here. I think that arguing for technological innovation at the expense of innocent lives would be a tricky one in terms of utilitarian philosophy, assuming that's what he intends. Pro: "What ever happened to the British bulldog? I can't see one politican in Westminster that would stand up for Britain like Churchill did." I think our leaders now are ready to go to war with much less evidence of any impending threat than in Churchill's time, and if the British people wanted a belligerent bulldog as PM, we would have stuck with Gordon Brown. ___________ Let me say before we get going that I'm white, English and a British citizen and I'm no way ashamed of who I am. I'm proud of Britain's history in terms of literature, art, science and invention. I'm proud of football (soccer to most readers of this debate), the NHS, jungle/drum and bass, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and many other British institutions, inventions and innovations. I'm not proud of a lot of the things Pro wants me to be proud of though. I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate. Thanks. Con.