azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"Modern road asphalt was invented by a Belgian immigrant in the United States. And yes, an innovation is not the same as an invention "John Metcalfe, a Scot born in 1717, built about 180 miles of roads in Yorkshire, England (even though he was blind). His well drained roads were built with three layers: large stones; excavated road material; and a layer of gravel.Modern tarred roads were the result of the work of two Scottish engineers, Thomas Telford and John Loudon McAdam. Telford designed the system of raising the foundation of the road in the center to act as a drain for water. Thomas Telford (born 1757) improved the method of building roads with broken stones by analyzing stone thickness, road traffic, road alignment and gradient slopes. Eventually his design became the norm for all roads everywhere. John Loudon McAdam (born 1756) designed roads using broken stones laid in symmetrical, tight patterns and covered with small stones to create a hard surface. McAdam's design, called "macadam roads," provided the greatest advancement in road construction.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I suppose we read the same article.You are missing the point. What started as an ancient invention, was popularized by the Romans, improved by the Brits, and Improved by Belgians and Americans. The products and outcomes we see today come from a string of innovations and contributions from all over the world, throughout time. Your patriotism blinds you. Your spite of Americans, blinds you.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

How pathetic do you have to be to go back 300 years to find a war you won on your own, and that was with a country 100th your size.Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?Unless you happen to be Russia.Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me.We invented the road how can we drive on the wrong side of it?Ha, good one.Because you are the one's who go around blowing up towns with nukes.Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked saved millions of lives, however it was an idiotic move as doing so breached the terms of war: we killed civilians. In actuality if we had taken to invade and conquer Japan it would have taken several more years to island hop until the deed was done, it would have cost millions of lives as the emperor would not have surrendererd until we were beating down the door to his palace.Was the bombing a necessity? It could go both ways but I'm not going to delve into it any further as it would be pointless and end up in a totally different debate which has been addressed on this site many times before.That's just stupid logic: if loads of people got it wrong that means its right.That is equally stupid logic.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?Unless you happen to be Russia.Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me." Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer it as we would have had a large amount of land to conquer.Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island. I think it was a pretty good attempt but we bit more than we could chew, so what?"That is equally stupid logic."what is?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer itYou used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country.what is?Try reading my post again.Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island.Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"You used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country."I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against. "Try reading my post again."I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking about"Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?""1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."(from http://americanrevolutionblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-did-british-lose-american.html) )Notice that the first one clearly states that land size was a big point.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against.You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S. I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics...I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking aboutYour quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed.1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either.2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war.3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart.Notice that the first one clearly states that land size was a big point.I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S. I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics..."I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated."Your quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed."You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician."Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either."We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion."Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war."Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning."A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart."exactly my point."I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain."Took you a while.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated.Rodger that.You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician.I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly.We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion.Nothing to argue with there.Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning.Nothing there either.exactly my point.Excellent!Took you a while.I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

"I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly."You should, its outrageously funny"Nothing to argue with there.Nothing there either.Excellent!"by the sound of this you aren't actually disagreeing with me."I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made."nothing to argue with there
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

with regards to the statement "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." i think he was summerizing what the other guy was saying.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Well I mean...if we drive on the right side of the road, then that can only mean that they drive on the wrong side of the road!
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

One very important note, that a lot of Americans don't seem to realise about the Revolution- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War If not for French aid, and French forces providing distractions for British forces, there was no guarantee at all that the Revolution would have been successful. In fact, without French support, it almost certainly would have failed.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Since when did Germany invade Britain?Plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Inventions  is coolerOperation Sealion FAILED
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Historically and as a whole the US. This country has done more to further the natural evolution of man and our state of being than any country in history.Recent history, England.They've been on the correct side of most global debates in retrospect for the last couple decades at least, they've built their government so that they have a higher mean standard of living, live longer, have less infant mortality, and maintain actually more freedom if one discounts guns - but really you can hunt with a knife if it is truly for "sport". That said, as the political party that went along with Iraq lost power, it was replaced by one that thinks cutting student subsidies instead of bank CEO bonuses is smart - it is not. England isn't the shining example either.As for "following" the US on the other side as one mentioned. They've placed undue trust in our government's intelligence, and the political party in power paid the price. The US went through 8 years of quickly spending its world trust, and we're about broke in that regard.Luckily Obama is attempting to turn that around, and has done a stellar job restoring world opinion in a couple short years.God forbid a Palin or Huckabee is elected next. We've worn most of the world's patience with this manifest destiny laced with weird religious fervor bs.None of it was the founding of this country's intent. And one side of the political debate's continued ignorance of the US past mistakes only sets us back, it does nothing fulfill the potential.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"... Obama..."Obama sucks, you're gay
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

U.S.A.!!!!!!!!!!! U.S.A!!!!!!!!!!!!! u.s.a is sooooooooo much better than england. really dont even try to compare england to the united states.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

USA for sure!! America comes out with most of the popular movies (Titanic and Avatar), we are the only people that have been to the moon, we are the most technologically advanced, we have a pretty stable society, we have a lot of rights, religion is seperate from the governement, we are just better!! many of the world's smartest people came from here
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I would dispuite the seperation of Church and State- you need only look at how Republicans insist upon a quasi-religious mentality over nearly everything. Which I will grant is not the entirety of the US.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

England has high taxes, no jobs, cold weather most of the time, lots of rain and fog, majority of people in England are extremely snobbish and unfriendly. America has much better looking people. America has better dental care, did you ever see their teeth? America is just a much better place to live and they know it and they are so jealous of us its pathetic.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"England has high taxes"at least it comes with healthcare."no jobs"I beg to differ" cold weather most of the time, "I'ld rather have the cool, crisp hills of England than the disaster-ridden cites of U.S we hardly ever get earthquakes or tornadoes the worst thing we get is rain."majority of people in England are extremely snobbish and unfriendly. America has much better looking people. America has better dental care, did you ever see their teeth? America is just a much better place to live and they know it and they are so jealous of us its pathetic"What is this some fucked up propaganda?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"What is this some fucked up propaganda?"i know right, it makes me laugh so hard, i mean from what ive read, these people genuiney beieve that at 4:00 every day we stop and have afternoon tea. how fked up is that.its as if they are all morons. it is hilarious, i mean we make jokes about their obeicity problems and the fact that they are hilariously stupid but we take it with a pinch of salt, we are clearly having a laugh, but half the people ive discussed with geniuinely think we all drink tea and end every conversation with toddle pip!!!
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

America has much better looking people. Hmm, yeah- much fatter too.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

England has high taxesAnd an excellent civil service.no jobsThat's a fallacy.cold weather most of the timeI don't consider it remarkably cold, but then don't mind me, I just live here.majority of people in England are extremely snobbish and unfriendly. I take it you've never been to it?America has much better looking people. I'll see you provide a demographic which demonstrates this, before I believe you.America has better dental care, did you ever see their teeth?Is should say that England has excellent dental care, as it's free.America is just a much better place to live and they know it and they are so jealous of us its pathetic.I can honestly say that I've never been jealous of the Americans in any regard.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Is should say that England has excellent dental care, as it's free."There's no such thing as free lunch." or in your case, dental care.If you are unable to comprehend, it means despite the illusion of being free, somebody is paying for it, it just means that you are paying directly.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

theres not actually that much differentce in tax. the only major difference is when we earn more than 35000 (roughly 60000 dollars) other than that by the time youve converted it and properly looked into it, the difference is not that bad and a lot of the time it is actually cheaper
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

How can you say England is better if you have never been there before. If you have never been to a country it is not entirely true on what you heard or seen on television about somewhere else in the world.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

england just knows how to rule it misuses its technology. it has a greed of power which according to me is very wrong. the small nation ruled the world and attacked usa but dont know what will happen if usa attack.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"england just knows how to rule it misuses its technology."the grammer in this sentance is terrible, either way, we don't misuse our technology in any way." it has a greed of power which according to me is very wrong"there was no "greed of power" in our empire and even if there was we used it for good reasons."the small nation ruled the world and attacked usa but dont know what will happen if usa attack."we have never "attacked" the United States we colonised North America and founded the United States, you then proceeded to be mean to harmless native americans to gain more land.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

we colonised North America and founded the United States, you then proceeded to be mean to harmless native americans to gain more land.And I suppose the natives just handed you North America, because you were just so nice to them, yes?PS. I would hardly call the Natives harmless.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"And I suppose the natives just handed you North America, because you were just so nice to them, yes?"There's a difference between conquest and wiping out a race of people, do you see any native indians today?"PS. I would hardly call the Natives harmless."they had bows, arrows and axes you had guns I'ld think they wouldn't be a problem but you gave them the worst land and claimed the best.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

There's a difference between conquest and wiping out a race of people, do you see any native indians today?Yes, in fact I do. Although they don't dress in buffalo hide and a loin cloths anymore, they are still around. In fact some of them fought in WWII.http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/NAWWII.html they had bows, arrows and axes you had guns I'd think they wouldn't be a problem .They had firearms too. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VQB8BYUyt8Q/Se84BijLtEI/AAAAAAAABO4/rMcyur0-HDk/s400/indians+with+guns.jpg Even so guns were not much better than bows and arrows in use at the time, considering many of them had to be reloaded after every shot. A skilled archer could fire off many more shots than could your average firearm. The bow and arrow was more accurate than your early firearms. The main advantage of a gun is that it could pierce heavy armor, which Native Americans didn't really have any to begin with. If you actually read the history, the Native Americans kicked our ass on many occasions. To suggest that they were just harmless savages is ignorant. They introduced guerrilla warfare to us, which is part of the reason why we were able to defeat your country in the revolutionary war.Your argument is simply uneducated.but you gave them the worst land and claimed the bestPrecisely what your country did. Except your country did it on a world wide scale, and not just in North America.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I'm not going to waste time quoting your enitre argument:The difference between our Empire and your country is that all our colonies still have their land and their traditions whereas your country has engulfed the native americans and now they have nothing apart from a memory.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Yes, let's ignore the fact that you thought all native Americans were wiped out, or that they didn't posses firearms. Let's ignore these embarrassing little mistakes.Let's also ignore the number of travesties committed against these people by your government, which historically is well known for it's insensitivity of native peoples. The Native Americans (or indians as they are known) have been, for the most part, assimilated into American society. Their culture is still preserved on reservations and elsewhere in the United States.I've actually been to about 3 or 4 Pow-wows, in which they share their culture with those willing to go to such events. If you wish to speak with me about Native Americans and/or their culture in my country, go ahead, but you will lose that debate.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

You contradict yourself- we do not have a "greed of power". In recent years, if a country has voted to become independent from us, then we will let it. Hardly greedy is it?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

The US rose up against England, you were the experts, but we won a war that was clearly not in our odds. Although, yes you do have a better economy, and fucking healthcare, so I can't beleve I'm doing this, but England would be the better choice.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

You had france to help. Scheming bastards- we should have let Germany have them.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I dislike a large intrusive government, so that's why I left Nottingham!
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

There is more diversity in the United States of America. We have soda AND tea. But they have that in England as well. There are obese people in England as well, too. America just has more because it is a bigger country.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

USA just is a better country- or it will be once Obama's out of office.