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

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".Not at all. the physical acquisition and development of new territory is not a technicality. It represents a tangible change in the composition and extent of a nation. It would be unfair of me to measure the development of what would later become the United States from the establishment very first English colony. I pick 1733 because it represents the consolidation of the original territory from which the United States would grow, which is exactly the case with the Italian peninsula. The pacification of native powers within those borders, too, is an important consideration. I refer you to any reputable work on the history of Rome, to see that until the subjugation of Italy, Rome was constantly harried by hostile neighbours, and had virtually no security from which to develop their society. Indeed, the entire city was sacked by the Gauls in 387BC, and never fully recovered the grandeur that was lost; "They bought stones from Veii, and to the poor the authorities granted bricks, and gradually a new, but ill-built, city grew up among the ruins, with crooked streets and lanes, and with buildings, public and private, huddled together just as happened to be the most convenient for the immediate occasion".Both civilizations grew from colonies settled in virgin territory, but in different eras, and with entirely different levels of support from the home territory. It is therefore, to my mind, fairest to measure from the consolidation of their original territories, as represented by the Thirteen Colonies of America and the Italian lands south of the Alps in Italy, respectively.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?No; for I have already dismissed political technicalities. We are not discussing the development of only the United States, nor of only the Imperivm Romanvs, but their original entities, as represented by their starting territories. Furthermore, your logic is peculiar. If the coast to coast territory of the United States represents its full extent (give or take some minor additions), then it is analogous to the full extent of the Roman Civilization. In the case of the former, it was not at the time a superpower, and in the case of the latter, it was at the height of its relative power. In any case, neither is a sensible point from which to begin the measurement the development of their power.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.The history of the civilization in question (A North American nation of English et alia origin) predates the declaration of independence, however beautiful and noble that document may be. It may be said that the Roman people prospered more under the Imperivm than under the corrupt and decadent republic, but that is simply a political change, not a great leap in political, military and economic power. It is important to distinguish prosperity from the system that engenders it.Great Britain exploited the colonies for it's natural resources as a source of revenue for England. And the colonists exploited the new territory as a means of escaping poverty, persecution and strife at home. Without either incentive, their would be no United States at all. The colonies owe their existence to their material worth to England.Great Britain effectively slowed it's progress and development, not hastened it.Completely false. All of the initial development was made by Britain. Without the initial manpower, military protection and investment that Britain contributed, their would be no nation to discuss.The United States was much more unsettled wilderness when it began than was Great Britain.If I have asserted that the British Empire rose faster than the American Superpower, I spoke in error.What does or does not constitute a country is itself a "political technicality", as we are NOT comparing ethnic groups, clans, or races.You confuse the terms country and nation. A country is indeed a political entity, but a nation is not. A nation is a group of people, linked by common characteristics, and who in this context integrate to from one society. The specific system of governance is, in my opinion, not significant to this debate. If we were debating the merits of diverse political systems, and their impact on the development of nations, your point would be perfectly valid, but our dispute is whence to measure the development, without reference to the influences on it. If you want to say that there was a disadvantageous influence upon the Thirteen Colonies, then I could easily cite their technological and scientific superiority as an unfair advantage over Rome.And so we should start from the beginning of said country (a political entity) up until the time it became a superpower. If you want to do that, we could say the following:1776 - ~1945 = 169 years.27BC - ~60 AD = 87 years (Assuming this to be the point Supremacy; practically speaking, Rome was a superpower from the transition to Empire).A short note is required to emphasize the difference between maximum extent or power, and superpower status. For example, compare American power today to American power in 1945.