Is the Community in the book "The Giver" better than Americas whole government and society?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Argument
Round 3 - Supporting Statements/Closing Statements
Rules: Do not copyright other peoples work. Don't Troll. Remember this is for fun!
The community which Jonas and his family live in, to most people in the United States is some what scary or not appropriate in a sense, mostly because that is not what we are accustomed to. However the government is so well organized and collected, everyone is at piece. The way they choose jobs is very smart for many reasons. People get their jobs based off their certain skill sets. This means that the work needed to be done would be getting done faster, and more efficiently than how our jobs are today, in fact people are losing jobs because they didn't do well in their first job! But if they where assigned jobs based off their skill sets instead of emotions from the person receiving the job, the job wouldn't be lost because the skill set would keep them working.
The rules that are in place may not be the most reasonable, but they help the community thrive, and work better together. Such as the Psychological process of aging and maturing, showing the children discipline and steps to becoming an adult at an early age. In the beginning of the book it explains so much about how the aging ceremonies work! They would even put buttons on the back of the children's jackets so that it would encourage them to work together as friends and adults in the community. Another thing that I would like to say is the whole spouse selection, and baby delivering process is not thought through very well. Honestly that's the only thing I see that you have going for you, but Good luck! :D
And while the system for job choosing is effective and insanely efficient, people's wants are not taken into consideration when being placed for a job. Would you rather you were forced into a job you hate and have to do it every remaining day of your life until you are killed by your own government that you have spent your entire adult life working for, or have a choice in what job you can do, retire after years of work, and the opportunity to live out the rest of your life in peace? So while the society is efficient, the needs and wants of individuals are never thought of, while in America, we can choose ( to an extent) what job we get, and we are not killed by the government for dissenting or being to old or weak to work.
I used these sources because it's been a while since I read the book. Good luck next round!
You had also mentioned that the people deserve the rights that we have. Once again this brings me back to my point that Americans are so caught up with the comfortableness of their version of peace yet in reality the people of Jonas community are living in bliss because of their indifference which in our case differences causes our entire world today to kill or rob or even rape. Then in the Givers community murder is extinct, except in the comfortableness of the release process. Deaths (accident) almost legitimately extinct, robberies never happen, they don't even know what war is! These people are living in the earthly Heaven.
Thank you Con for this fun, relaxing, and most of all interesting debate. I had a great time and I hope to have another with you again soon.
Rhinoak15 aka Ryan
P.S. I never used any resources for this debate ever except for my memory and the book itself.
Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. Also, the reason that the people believe release is a good thing is because their government keeps it under wraps. I can guarantee that if the people found out that release, a supposedly good thing, was actually murder by the government, they would not feel so positively about it. This is not my "comfterble American position", this is basic human rights that most of the free world has agreed on. But yes, I am viewing this from a 21'st century perspective, because that is the world I live in, and in the 21'st century, governments are expected to help, support and protect their citizens, not kill them when they can't contribute or think differently. The human rights violations the government in The Giver are as follows;
1. "When children are born, they are free and each should be treated in the same way." This right is violated when the government kills newborn babies.
2. "You have the right to live, and to live in freedom and safety." This right is violated because the government can release you at any time, for any reason.
3. "You should be considered innocent until it can be proven that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done." This right is violated because you cannot defend yourself if accused of rebellion, you are just released.
4. "As soon as person is legally entitled, he or she has the right to marry and have a family." This right is violated because the government chooses all partners, and people's opinions are not taken into account.
5. "You have the right to think what you want, to say what you like, and nobody should forbid you from doing so." This right is violated because the government releases anyone who has a contrary point of view or dissents.
(These are all actual human rights, as designated by the United Nations. )
Finally, yes, crime is very low, but at the same time, differences are extinct, free thought never happens, and the people don't even know what real love is. I for one would rather live in America, where my rights are protected, I can express emotions and differing points of view, and where my government will not kill me for no other reason than efficiency.
P.S. Great job; that was a tough debate, I thought it would be much easier, but you raised some really good points and had evidence to back them up. -Drummer1
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.