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

you put any us marine against any british marine. seriously try it.This is merely a conception, and it is a useless point as all humans differentiate from eachother. Sure you can say that any one British Marine could handle any one American Marine, however do not suffer from the misconception of thinking that all British Marines could handle any American Marine. As any Marine ( despite nationality ) could defeat any other marine in combat.and yes i have a few friends in the marines who all say that its hilarious how many americans it takes to get a ship runningOnce again this is merely a conception, since you are also telling me that your friends are explicating to you how many Americans it takes your friends are obviously biased. Just about any American in the military will tell you that British Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done, then you go over to England and every British Soldier will tell you that American Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

that would be a valid argument except we brits arent liars
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

that would be a valid argument except we brits arent liarsIf you truly believe that the British people are not liars, then you truly are an idiot.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

im sorry, who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

im sorryApology accepted.who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?Colonists were British, that dammed British education system must of missed a couple centuries...You see the colonists came from England ( want to take a guess at what language they spoke? ), and eventually broke away from British rule after being victorious in a war to free us as the American people ( who are English ) from the oppression of England.So what you are trying to say is that the British stole their own language from the British?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

no what i am suggesting is that you (an american) are speaking english - pure lazinesslet me know when your iq increases enough to work out what is meant in a basic sentence
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

no what i am suggesting is that you (an american) are speaking english - pure lazinessDo you not understand that America broke away from England? let me know when your iq increases enough to work out what is meant in a basic sentenceI really lack any form of a graspable idea as to what in the hell you are talking about.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Do you not understand that America broke away from England? -yes i do im just disgustd at what theve turned intoI really lack any form of a graspable idea as to what in the hell you are talking about.-that was my point, let me know when this changes
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

your own, american languageSo do you not understand that America broke away from England? that was my point, let me know when this changesLet me make a point: you are an idiot if you think that England is better than America due to America using the same language as it's founding country.You are a redundant dolt.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I understand that America BROKE AWAY (notice the capital letters, it means that it is a key point in my arguement) and this is exactly my point if it wanted to break away i have no problem with that, but it is not broken away if it uses our language.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

but it is not broken away if it uses our language.So let me get this straight: you are saying that America isn't its own country due to it having a similar ( not identical ) dialect as England?So Australia probably isn't its own entity either, due to them using a dialect based off of English. Yeah going by your logic that makes perfect sense.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

im not saying your not your owncountry, just that your a lazy country. and dont get me started on australia
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

So you are saying that any country that breaks away from another should create its own dialect? That is the most asinine statement I have heard in awhile.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe's
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe'sOr you are ignorant of how new languages are born...
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

This guy is a complete ignoramus. I have tried talking some sense into him ...
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

no, actually im pretty sure that im arguing the first one...
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

no, actually im pretty sure that im arguing the first one.I didn't ask what you were arguing. I stated that you were ignorant of how languages are born. New languages generally begin as a dialect, there simply hasn't been enough time or enough cultural isolation for a new language to emerge. To suggest this is due to laziness, is a blatantly ignorant assertion.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"I didn't ask what you were arguing. I stated that you were ignorant of how languages are born. New languages generally begin as a dialect, there simply hasn't been enough time or enough cultural isolation for a new language to emerge. To suggest this is due to laziness, is a blatantly ignorant assertion."Your "new dialect" is just the worst parts of our language and now you are trying to force your "new dialect" onto us.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

What constitutes the "worst" parts of a language is entirely subjective. And no one is forcing anything on you, you are simply being exposed to a different culture, poor you.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe'sSo you are saying that after we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War we should have spoke an entirely different dialect. This isn't in the form of a question, this is what you are saying. And if you cannot see how ridiculously stupid this idea is, you have serious mental issues mate.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

mental issues aside, you know you want to be british. only two good things came from america, chuck norris, and jokes abut americans.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions Those are all pretty good things that have come out of America.And my own personal point has been proven: that you truly are unable to discuss anything in a serious or coherent manner.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

i think you will find that i am able to discuss a subject in a reasonable matter on a genuine issuebut on this subject you have made arguements just as immiture as i have and while i have tried to continue the topic in an upbeat way by including jokes and trying to laugh aboutit, you have been nothing but stubborn and down right rude.and that is the real reason america cannever truely compete with the UK because while we brits are polite and enjoy a joke, americans have the social skills of a monkey.now i dont know about down your end but in england its pretty late and so i shall say good day to yougood day
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I dont know where you get your facts we would own you in any category you choose.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

You SERIOUSLY think the UK military can take ours? What, are you high or something? We have far better training, AND weapons. Man, you must be real messed up.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Nice comment. Let me say it in Russian way.If you have a dick you better be in England or Russia and if you dont than USA is the besy country for you....
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Social welfare and universal healthcare all suck theres a reason we would straight rape you in any contest. Besides those ridiculous sports you play. Your just jealous you have no penis or a motorcycle
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Social welfare and universal healthcare all suckWe have a republican! theres a reason we would straight rape you in any contest.Who is we?Why is a straight rape construed as a positive thing?And that is dependent on the type of contest. Besides those ridiculous sports you play.You mean like rugby, which is essentially American Football without armour of forwards throwing?Your just jealous you have no penis or a motorcycleBah humbug.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Strongest military as if we went to war with you and we nearly won but you ran to get reinforcements to take on a island you don't publicize that war in your history books now do you, unknown to most uneducated Americans. Secondly better thN US may you be forgetting we may have bad government in power that's cutting our war budget for their own gain but ours isnt breaking the constitution you brag about so much and preparing for civil war and lastly remind me again who saved who ass in the wars with less amount of population. Whos currency is stronger. and who is calling them self a american when most u so-called Americans are not Americans u originated from uk and surrounding countries killing of the true Americans so u are byproducts of the Uk that at 1 point was controlling most the world.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Actually, China has a better military than the US and you can't talk about economy when your country is filled with pollution.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I live in the US but it got all messed up when trump was elected. But now I'm in NYC so it doesnt matter.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Well, England has a longer history, used to rule the world, has a royal family, and is an island (which has it's advantages). But, the US was the fastest rising super power ever (well, that is until the Chinese over take us), we have more natural resources, and frankly things are just easier and better here (with the exception of Indian food). England is a great place to visit, but I think the US is awesome!
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

But, the US was the fastest rising super power ever200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.we have more natural resourcesAnd how does this equate to a better country? frankly things are just easier and better hereSuch as?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.And look at how long the English have been around. You would expect them to be ruling the world.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

And look at how long the English have been around. You would expect them to be ruling the world.And... that's exactly what we did.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

that guy fell into such an obvious trap XD
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I don't get how the trap he fell into was an obvious one, past tense was used in the rebuttal where Poisonous said that they should be presently ruling the world and the rebut to that was And... that is exactly what we did. Which puts the implication that England no longer runs the world ( which it doesn't ), which was Poisonous' point.How it was a trap is completely unbeknownst to me, as the rebut was solidifying Poison's argument.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"I don't get how the trap he fell into was an obvious one, past tense was used in the rebuttal where Poisonous said that they should be presently ruling the world"He claimed that because of England's length of existence compared to the of USA, they should have ruled the world. Though he claimed this as a present day situation, he gave no acknowledgment of Britain ruling the world in the past. He only chose England as a example for his argument as a form of personal insult to Enigmaticman, which failed greatly because of Poisonous' ignorance."And... that is exactly what we did. ""We" as in USA? The British Empire dominated the world centuries after the American revolution, though you could argue that America did finish off the British Empire by not assisting them as much as they could have through both World Wars.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

beautifully playedi think the only way you coud improve this arguement is by working in that we a the victors of two world wars
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

1. The USA was built upon Britain.2. Britain had, at one point the largest empire - EVER3. America is generally SHITE4. You voted George Bush as president5. Americans are stupid, You are Stupid6. Sorry America is a lovely country. But it's like France, ruined by the French.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

200 years is not fast (I do not measure it from independence, as all of the initial infrastructure was built under British rule). The Mongolian empire was fast. The Roman empire was fast. I'd call the USA average at best.The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years."Of course the British empire took the longest we had the largest empire and nothing like the level of communication speed which the U.S has been lucky to live with. we also had to travel all around the world to manage our empire whereas you only had to wait till we were worn out after the wars
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

The United States became a Superpower in about 169 years. 1945 is generally recognized as the date the U.S. became a superpower. Not the fastest, but certainly faster than many. By comparison the British Empire took about 260 to 340 years to reach it's height. The Roman Empire took about 90 years and the Mongolian Empire took about 88 years.I'm sorry; what are you disputing? You have agreed that it was not fast, and the median of the other three times (videlicet the average time taken for a superpower to emerge) is about 180 years.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I'm sorry; what are you disputing?I was disputing your date of 200 years. It was 169, not 200.You have agreed that it was not fastI have agreed it was not the fastest. There is a difference.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I was disputing your date of 200 years. It was 169, not 200.As aforesaid, I do not measure from independence. The initial infrastructure; the means by which a functional state was contrived, was built before the revolutionary victory.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Then where are you measuring from? The Roman Empire's initial infrastructure was built by the Roman republic. So unless you happen to be the first civilization in a given area, your infrastructure is going to already be laid out. Few nations can be said to have started from scratch. The Romans were building in Great Britain long before it became a recognizable nation.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

I left this a while.Then where are you measuring from?The establishment of the last of the Thirteen Colonies in 1733. It represents the consolidation of initial political boundaries, and allows for the difficulty encountered in taming an entirely new land with primitive technologies.The Roman Empire's initial infrastructure was built by the Roman republic. The distinction, in this context, between empire and republic or colony, is merely a political technicality. I take roughly 200BC as the beginning of Roman expansionism abroad; for it was then that all of the Italian peninsula was under their control. I consider this starting point as roughly analogous with that of the United States. The Romans were building in Great Britain long before it became a recognizable nation.If I may suggest that you pay a visit, you will see that my countrymen did not make great use of the Roman relics; allowing nearly all of them to fall into ruin.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

I think you are constructing a standard specifically to produce a desired conclusion. I will demonstrate why it is in fact a double standard.When measuring how long it took for the United States to become a superpower you measure from 1733, the establishment of the last of the thirteen colonies, which if I am not mistaken is merely a "Political technicality".Yet...When measuring how long it took for The Roman Empire to become a superpower you measure from 200 BC, not from it's origin as a political entity, but from when it had control over the Italian Peninsula. If we are being fair, and not coming up with ridiculous rationalizations, should we not also begin from the time that The United States had control of it's respective lands, North America from Atlantic to Pacific coast?Furthermore, when the colonies were still under British control, it was still part of Great Britain, you must calculate from when it became independent of foreign control, especially given the fact that The American Colonies prospered more when they were independent than when were under British Control. Great Britain exploited the colonies for it's natural resources as a source of revenue for England. Great Britain effectively slowed it's progress and development, not hastened it. The United States was much more unsettled wilderness when it began than was Great Britain.What does or does not constitute a country is itself a "political technicality", as we are NOT comparing ethnic groups, clans, or races. And so we should start from the beginning of said country (a political entity) up until the time it became a superpower. This is the only fair and objective way to make this kind of comparison.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

You confuse the terms country and nation. A country is indeed a political entity, but a nation is not.The debate title says Country, not Nation. I said country, not nation.If you want to do that, we could say the following:1776 - ~1945 = 169 years.27BC - ~60 AD = 87 years I could say that and I have said that. Realize the durations you list here are well in-line with those that I listed from the beginning, the only difference is that our dates for the rise of the Roman Empire are a mere 3 years apart. I think that still supports my argument quite well. The rise of American Dominance was still fast.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

The debate title says Country, not Nation.You disputed my assertion, which was written in the context of nation, not country, as you well know. Therefore you should speak in the same terms as I, without changing your terminology to connote something that is subtly different to what I had originally meant. To use political technicalities such as declarations of independence and other revolutions, and changes in governance; is to needlessly confound the matter. One could thereby create any number of starting dates for the development of a people. Would one take England's development from 1066, 1536, 1558, 1651, 1688, 1707, 1783, 1815 &c., all years of significant political upheaval, reformation; religious realignment, economic shifts or monarchical transition? Obviously, I should take 1066, when the realm was successfully invaded by the Normans under the Conqueror, and when it was for the last time established as one kingdom, under the rule of one people. The United States was founded as a colony, not a conquest or annexation, and therefore its existence cannot be entirely emancipated from its time as a subject, when it was sustained by a home power, or when it later contributed to the sustenance of that home power.I could say that and I have said that.Then the development of the American superpower, taking that starting point, is nearly twice as long as that of Rome. I submit that two times what is considered a short time, cannot relatively be considered a short time.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

sorry accidentaly double submit ignore this
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

America has more guns, freedom, land, people, nukes, rednex Whats not better about it?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Rednecks? Really? I would leave that part out while arguing that the country is better...
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Yesss... Well I find this debate to be rather silly anyways, considering that, "better" has yet to be defined.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

With the exception of sidearm illegality, English firearms laws are not nearly as totalitarian as often portrayed.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

"America has more guns, freedom, land, people, nukes, rednex Whats not better about it?"I think you will find that your country is bigger and therefore will have more of nearly everything so I will reply with this:America has more crime, pollution, wasteland, obese people, homeless people, robbers, orphans, and lots of shit, Whats not worse about it?
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

Guns are terrible things. And GB has freedom too, and it's shaped like a man riding a pig, so you could say we have rednecks too.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

Who do you think made all the stuff that's around today? U.S.A! There's no way you can say england invented the lightbulb, or that they built the first big bomb.
Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: ENGLAND!

What about the harrier jump jet, the lynx helicopter, the computer, the internet, the radio, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, trains, bicycles, The concept of vitamins, DNA, gravity and the police. Subway systems, the modern Olympics, the paralympics, Viagra, the tin can, the sandwich, the ymca...And yes, England DID invent the lightbulb.