The United States is the most influential nation of all time.

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.Politics "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[1].Laicitéan politics: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[3] to Rome in 400 AD[4], to the Magna Carta Charter[5] of the 13th century (we're getting closer to the US mark here), or the two constitutions in the 1650s under Cromwell[6] (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[7], 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 BSI 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.CultureFirstly, 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[9]. 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[10]. 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[11], Football remains popular in China, followed by hundreds of millions[12].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[14] 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 & influenceNow, 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 :D1 - 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...11 -http://www.atimes.com...12 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 14 - http://hotlist.uk.msn.com...