Debate: Which country is better - England or U.S.A?
Side: U.S.A!

We founded India's infastructure we built its vast and powerful railway system,started many schools, bridges and roads. Sure we exploited them but I doubt that the U.S.A has never exploited a country.The United States has never had a Colony, unless you include the Philippines. Even then we did not exploit them to the extent, that India was exploited. We had a good relationship with the Philippines, especially after we liberated them from the Japanese invasion during WWII and granting them independence.Russia was invadedAnd...?I never said they weren't invaded. You still had the help of the Russians who had eventually beaten the Germans back to Berlin. Effectively cutting the German forces in half.No, you didn't help us, we stood on our own and you only joined after the Battle of Britain(1940)-U.S join war(1941Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still helping. Your argument is trivial.Liar, we helped you at:Indian ocean raidBattle of Badung StraitGuadalcanal campaignBattle of Admin Box-Battle we fought without your helpBattle of Imphal-Battle we fought without your helpBattle of Kohima-Battle we fought without your helpActually, you're right. You did fight in the pacific theater, I actually knew about these, and am extremely surprised that you did not bring these up much earlier. Perhaps you did not know about them until now...As I was ready to point out before and I am am ready to point out now. These were colonial battles, attempts to protect your own colonies from Japanese attacks. For instance the Battles of Imphal and Kohima, were fought in India (a British Colony) and were fought by mostly Indian troops. The Guadalcanal campaign occurred in the Solomon Islands, a British Commonwealth. You were not in the Pacific to Help us, you were only there to protect your own assets.The amount of land it has contributes to the amount of food it can generate and the amount of military it can recruit etc.Which would explain why The Canadian Army is vastly superior to The United States Army...An illustration of sarcasm.The fact that many other people fighting your side of the debate claim that U.S.A must be superior due to its size supports my argument.Then they are idiots.Now answer my question: what makes you think its ok to wipeout innocent people?As I stated earlier:"Had they have had the same technology, they would have done the same to us. We warned them extensively before use, and it prevented a long and bloody war on mainland Japan which would have also seen a high civilian death toll. Admittedly, we could have handled the situation better, I was not there when the decision to drop the bomb was made."The bombs had the multi-purposes of ending the war with Japan, preventing a war with the USSR using the fear of the atomic weapons, and preventing a communist take over of Japan. Under the stresses of war, decisions were made regrettably that cannot be undone.hindsight is 20/20http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htmWhat the "essay" fails to mention is that Japan would never submit to an unconditional surrender, which was the only acceptable surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration, a declaration made by BOTH American and British leaders.For example earlier on I listed all the failures of your country which you just ignored, on the other side of the debate answered against a completely biased argument and you then highlighted 1 sentance which you disagreed with and claimed I was wrong, at least I can admit when my opponent is right.You're list was ill-conceived. The idea that you could possibly construct a list of all of the failures of a nation and compare it accurately and objectively to another nation is grossly naive. A true historian could scarcely conceive of such a list, if he could even be trusted to construct it in an unbiased manner. I brushed off your list not because they were not valid failures, but because it is of little use in a debate like this.It is a skill you have yet to learnI was being facetious. Once of the few wars you actually wonUtter nonsense!American wars won:Revolutionary warMexican-American warSpanish-American warPhilippine-American WarWWIWWIICold WarPersian Gulf WarIraq WarAmerican Wars lost:Vietnam War.Stale-mates:War of 1812Korean WarOn-Going Wars:Afghan WarYou can see how you claim is complete BS.You fail to admit that it is completely immoral to nuke a town of civilians because you are at war with their leaders.I've already addressed this. You have yet to address the fact the fostering opium addiction in the civilians of a warring state is also very wrong.But our failures are debatable about, yours are just failsThe fact that we are debating them refutes this statement.It was a time of empires, if they weren't part of ours they would have been claimed but the Dutch, French or Spanish.Except this isn't a debate between The United states and France or the Netherlands.Why did you bring condoms into it?Because your contention was with, condoms, and then you started talking about abortion, as if the two were related.If anything condoms reduce the amount of risk taken by under-aged sex, implying that under-aged sex is ok.How so? This is akin to saying "Wearing seat-belts imply getting into a car collision is okay".Most of the media is mainly following that of the 1920's and when Media first started, if you know so much about your own countries history you will know how provocative and explicit it was at the time.It was provocative only by the standards of that time, but this still fails to address the question of "why was it provocative, what caused this in advertisement?". Many men see sex and think "hmm, I want some of that" and go rape girlsThis is not how it works in the slightest. I only have a degree in applied Social psychology. What do I know? "Most experts believe the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment. They consider rape an act of violence rather than principally a sexual encounter"http://living.oneindia.in/kamasutra/spheres-of-life/2010/why-men-rape-psychology.html On an individual level, rapists tend to have troubled childhoods, often times having been rape victims themselves.In fact there is some evidence to suggest that pornography can actually reduce the number of rapes, by acting as a release of pent up sexual frustration.http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/the problem of your country is that it has no traditional values, meaning no social barriers Such as?