Britain should not be apologetic about it's history.

The opponent has stated in his opening argument that he would ike to consider Ireland aswel in this debate. If the opponent wishes, I will leave the burden of evidense for 'Ireland' up to him, providing he is happy about it. It would also be suitable since I am from Northern Ireland. ______________________________ "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. " - Con Correct me if I am wrong, but the Con is implying that I do not believe minorities are part of the British nation. I would like to rebute this. I believe minorities are a large part of the British nation, which is obvious, since I am a Northern Irish citizen that belong's to the UK. I believe that everyone should be welcome into Britain, as long as they go through the proper channel's and have something that we can benefit from. With that out of the way I would like to address the Con's opening statement. I concede that pride is not alway's positive, but that is only the case in large dose's. Having pride in yourself, help's you to respect yourself, and in turn have other's respect you. It is the same with a nation. A nation that does not respect itself cannot expect expect it from other countries. I will also concede that the British did their fair share of conquest, and pillaging. However I would like the Con to give more specific example', so we know exactly what we are addressing. The Con also asked for an example of 'servility and sycophantic behaviour' on behalf of the UK. I would like to point to a more contemporary event that happened in Inda last week. David Cameron, Prime minister of Britain and head of the conservative party travelled to India, upon where he said he was expressing utmost 'humlity' to India. Instead of addressing the Indian government as an equal, he adopted the stance of a child pretending to feel shame for what it had done. In the eye's of international diplomacy this was a farce, and it was also a major let down to those who still have a healthy pride in their country. __________________________________________ "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" -Con Although Con and I agree on this point, I would like to point out that not one politican in any governing body within the UK, whether it be Westminster or Stormont has even a shred of the backbone that Winston Churchill had. ___________________________________________ "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. " -Con I was referring more to the state than to parental influence, it's up to parent's what they want their child to know I guess, so I won't touch that area. As for state influence,if you look at the sylabus for a child in Junior high, you will cover event's like the Battle of Hasting's and local history. I was under the impression that what is important, is teaching children about more contemptorary history such as the World War's, Napoleon and British empire in India. All which have a strong relation to our current situation, and show Britain at it's best. I guess I feel strongly about this subject because I am training to become a history teacher. ___________________________________________________ " 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. " - Con Modern-day India, after all, is a success story built on sturdy Anglo-Saxon foundations. Now the world's secondfastestgrowing economy, it would probably not even exist as a unified state were it not for the legacy of British rule. It was the British, let us not forget, who outlawed Indian slavery, infanticide and the horrendous practice of suttee, whereby widows were burned to death on their husband's funeral pyre. It was the British, too, who introduced to India the rule of the common law, parliamentary democracy and, perhaps above all, the English language — the greatest asset for any country in today's globalised marketplace. Of course, British rule had blunders, cruelties and prejudices. And yet, by comparison with the other great empires, from the Romans and the Persians to the French, the Dutch and the Spanish, Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law. The Raj survived not at the point of a bayonet, but thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of thousands of ordinary Indians, who relished the order that their colonial partners had brought to a subcontinent torn apart by religious and ethnic conflict. And it is no accident, either, that uniquely among the great world empires, British rule carried within it the seeds of its own dissolution. For quite apart from the roads and railways, the bridges and ports and institutions of law and order, Britain bequeathed a much more precious legacy to its colonies: the idea of liberty. Since I am running out of character's, I will address the African slave trade in the next round.