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. PoliticalThe 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. [1]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.CultureRegarding 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[2], 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. SportsRegarding 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[3]. 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[4]. 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...;http://www.united-latest.com...;