BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Giver (book) has a relation to the story of Adam and Eve (Bible).

Thank you for making this debate. I hope that, while it is small, it can get us, as well as the voters thinking. You have stated several ways that the Giver is alike to life in the Garden of Eden. However, I will attempt to show the voters that there are in fact, far more reasons that it is not like the Garden of Eden. The Garden of EdenI will also be using Genesis 2-3 (ESV)First of all, Adam and Eve do not want to leave Eden. Even after they become aware of shame and pain, they still want to stay in the comfort and happiness of the Garden. The Garden has bountiful food, beautiful climate and scenery, and they are allowed to do anything they want, save eating the Apple. The CommunityThe Community lacks any colour, memory, climate and terrain whatsoever, all part of Sameness and this emphasizes the dystopian qualities of the Community. This is what Wikipedia has to say about Dystopia- Dystopia is defined as a society characterized by a focus on negative societies such as mass poverty, public mistrust, police state, squalor, suffering, or oppression, that society has most often brought upon itself Most authors of dystopian fiction explore at least one reason why things are that way, often as an analogy for similar issues in the real world. In the words of Keith M. Booker, dystopian literature is used to "provide fresh perspectives on problematic social and political practices that might otherwise be taken for granted or considered natural and inevitable". ConclusionI believe that I have show the sharp contrast between The Garden of Eden society of Genesis, and The Community of The Giver.
The Giver (book) has a relation to the story of Adam and Eve (Bible).

This will be a short debate, but I'm sure an interesting one. The reason I think that The Giver (book) and the story of Adam and Eve (Bible) is the change that happens. I'm not saying that they are the same story of course, I'm just saying there's some sort of relation. I believe that they are alike because in The Giver, everything seems to be perfect, although their are no feelings. In the tale of Adam and Eve when they eat the Apple, they become more aware of their surroundings, they get feelings. Of course, they get new feelings of pain (As in The Giver), and also feelings of shame (their clothes). They both sort of get these feelings through an apple, where in Adam and Eve they eat it, Jonas seems to realise it's different color. My sources are The Bible (Genisis 2-3), and The Giver (Book).
"Regular" Cell Phones > Tracfone

I agree with you on the most part kenicks. However, though the dictionary does contain the word "better", isn't "better" really in the eye of the beholder? For instance, I'm sure a six year old little girl would much rather have a Barbie plastic cell phone, than an iPhone. Though a fancy cell phone does have more features, many do not want extra features. They just want a 'talk' and 'end' button with digits 0-9. That's all I have for this rebuttal. I look forward to seeing yours. (P.S., yes it does piss me off when I see an 8 year old with bluetooth)
"Regular" Cell Phones > Tracfone

I agree with you heavily, for I am an adolescent myself ^_^ And alas, you are not cool unless you have a cell phone. I have had both a tracphone, and a contract, and I love my Sanyo Katana II very, very much. However, due to the nature of this site, I must come up with an argument. Hmm...well, the term "better" is referring to a certain age group. And you didn't give a certain age group in the title, so I am free to do damage here. Let's take for example, my grandmother. She has a VERY old Tracphone and loves it. I believe it's from the mid 90s to be honest. Anyways, I'd love for you to provide evidence of the elder texting, and talking away on their cell phones for hours on end....unless you count the old woman off the AT&T commercial who's claims "IDK my BFF Jill". Elderly do not need complicated plans with unlimited texting, many middle aged people don't either. Most of them, just keep a few dollars worth of air time on their phones for emergencies. So, it all depends on what you'll use the phone for. I look forward to your rebuttal ^_^
The reality we see exists only in our minds

I extend all arguments dropped by Pro, including, but not limited to my study from the Brain Journal of Neurology and Pro's concession that we see the visible light spectrum, which Pro agrees does not ONLY exist in the mind AND which Pro agrees is part of reality. But I like debating Pro, so I'll entertain his 5th round. Pro requests: "Imagine a house with a apple tree a few feet away from it." My response: Done. Pro continues: "Depending on where you stand, the tree will either be next to the house, in front of the house or behind the house." My response: Ok, depending on my perspective, the position of the tree relative to the house will change...this is called relativity. Pro furthers: "Each of these images only exist when you are on one side of the house. We can use the image to imagine the other views,but our view will always be subjective." My response: Because there a different places to observe from the observations are therefore subjective? Non sequitur. Pro goes on: "So where does this subjective image exist? Is it a property of the location?" My response: Yes, what you see from a particular perspective is a property of the location of the observation. "Specific to our location" is another way to say "perspective." Though there are different perspectives, that does not mean that each perspective is subjective, it just shows there are different perspectives to view things from. Pro thinks: "Trees do not move...depending on the time of day." My response: Since the earth is always turning, trees are always moving dependent on the time of day (rotation of the earth). Thanks Pro for another new age deism topic.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

Pro does not agree that there is a reality that we see that does not ONLY exist in the mind. We do not see reality. We see an image created by our minds because of light which is reflected off objects and strikes our retina. Con is still under the impression that the image we see is reality. Let me try to explain why it's not. Imagine a house with a apple tree a few feet away from it. Depending on where you stand, the tree will either be next to the house, in front of the house or behind the house. Each of these images only exist when you are on one side of the house. We can use the image to imagine the other views,but our view will always be subjective. So where does this subjective image exist? Is it a property of the location? No it's not. At night the image is different, if we even see an image. So not only is the image we see specific to our location, but also to the moment in time. Well reality is not subjective. Trees do not move or change color depending on the time of day. Only the image in our mind changes. That image exists nowhere else and it is not reality.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

There is one major flaw with Con's logic. Human minds may not be necessary for reality to exist, but without human minds we have no way of knowing anything actually exists at all. Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is just electrical impulses interpreted by our brains. It's possible these electrical impulses are artificially created and the reality we perceive does not exist at all. People under the influence of drugs or suffering from mental deceases actually see and hear things that are not real. There is no way of proving anything without relying on our perceptions, which in themselves are unreliable. But this in not the point of my debate. Con keeps arguing that because our perception of reality is contingent on reality, it does not exist in the mind. Please note that i never made the claim that this image we see is independent of reality or that it is manufactured by the brain from nothing, but just because the image is a result of external stimuli, does not prove that it exists outside of the mind. Con please answer the following 3 questions. 1: Is realities existence contingent on light? 2: Does reality cease to exist when there is no light? 3: What do we see when there is no light? You seem to think that the image we see and the visible light spectrum is the same thing. You are mistaken. The visible light triggers a reaction when it strikes our retina. The retina sends electrical impulses too our brains optic center where pictures are created. This image exists only in the mind but is contingent on light. The fact that the image wouldn't exist without light proves that the image exists only in the mind.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

*Pro's Concession* Pro says: "Human minds are not necessary for reality to exist." My response: Then the reality we see CANNOT exist only in the mind, because reality itself is not contingent on the mind, according to Pro. Pro continues: "What we see is a very limited version of reality." My response: Pro admits that what we see, though a limited version, is of reality, and, given that Pro also says reality needs not humans, this demonstrates that we see something that is not contingent on humans or the mind; the reality we see does not only exist in our mind, and Pro agrees. Pro goes on: "What we see...is merely a 3 dimensional visual representation of reality, created by our minds from input received from our senses." My response: Pro has not acknowledged my point on this, but notice that Pro mentions that what we see is "created from input received." If the reality we see is created from input received, then it is not ONLY created in the mind; at its inception, the reality we see does not ONLY exist in the mind, the reality we see exists in the input. *VOTERS LOOK HERE* Pro completely concedes: Me - "Pro, would you agree that we can detect the visible light spectrum?" Pro - "Yes." Me - "Does the visible light spectrum only exist in our minds?" Pro - "No." Me - "Is the visible light spectrum part of reality?" Pro - "Yes." My response: Pro concedes... 1. that we can detect (see) the visible light spectrum, 2. that the visible light spectrum does not only exist in our minds, 3. and that the visible light spectrum is part of reality. By these answers above, Pro concedes that the reality we see, the visible light spectrum, does not only exist in our minds, which effectively negates the resolution...this is a huge slip up by Pro. Pro brings up how our bodies make glucose from food, how sounds, including falling trees, require a listener, and things contingent on external reality do not necessarily exist in external reality. This is all unimportant, because Pro has already conceded. Pro has conceded that the visible light spectrum is the reality we see and this reality does not only exist in the mind, so glucose, sounds, and contingency need not be addressed, because Pro has already negated. I negate this resolution, and so does Pro.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

I agree that human minds are not necessary for reality to exist. But we are not debating reality. We are discussing the reality we see and what we see is a very limited version of reality. There are wavelengths of light which our senses can't detect. Color does not even exist in reality and the picture we see is snapshot, taken from one position, at one specific moment in time. That image exists in one and only one place, our mind. As for your tree falling in a forest, many have made a similar claim. Many claim it makes no sound. I can claim that a rainbow turns into a unicorn when nobody is around to see it. Please provide your proof.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

Thanks Pro for the debate. I saw no definitions 1st round, so I shall supply my own. reality - existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... see - discern visually. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... exist - have objective reality or being. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... only - exclusively. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... mind - the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences; the faculty of consciousness and thought. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I reject the resolution, because by definition, if we are seeing reality, we are not seeing something contingent on humans' faculties. The moon, that wee see, is part of reality and does not only exist in our minds. Basically, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound...human minds are not necessary for reality to exist.
The reality we see exists only in our minds

When we see something, we are actually seeing an image which exists only in our mind and it is not an accurate depiction of reality. The moon appears roughly the size of an orange, when in fact it only appears that size because of the distance away from it we are. That image exists only in our minds. Although we may know that things appear smaller if they are far away, what we see is not a true reflection of reality. The moon does not shrink.
Should vending machines be in school

SafetyVending machines are dangerous. More dangerous than sharks. 37 innocent people were killed after trying to get a snack from a vending machine [1]. Are the deaths of innocent children worth the snack? No. HealthVending machines carry unhealthy foods. “Having unhealthy foods and sugar-sweetened beverages in vending machines makes it harder for people to make healthy choices and promotes consumption of energy-dense foods and beverages that can contribute to obesity,” [2]. Banning vending machines would make people healthier.ConclusionThings like life and health outweigh the pleasure and ease that come with vending machines. Thus they should be banned. [1] http://wnyyradio.com...[2] http://www.preventobesity.net...;
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

< > Then you shouldn't have made it a point to villify him. The debate is set as it is. Accept it. <> And one just as easily could could hate Trudeau and think he were an good person who was an excellect Prime Minister. < > I did not know George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or John F Kennedy, but you know what? I KNOW they were good people. I never met Princess Diana, but I knew that she was my hero. Your argument does not stand up. < > No, because I had never heard of him before I took this debate, and am simply arguing for the sake of argument. But thank you for acknowledging my suspicions. < > Yes, "awfully hard", but not impossible for an evil man. < > Irrelevant. I negate this point because it has no merit and I don't think it's appropriate to bring up one indication from my profile without bring all of them up. <> "In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death." - Anne Frank < > Neither point make him a bad Prime Minister. He was just a good man that did what almost all leaders did... he made mistakes. He was a good Prime Minister.
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

Had this debate been about character, it would have reffered to Trudeau being a good person, rather than prime minister. I can for example say for example that "MacDonald was a good prime minister" due to benefits of confederation he brought to my country, but I most certainly would not think that alcoholic racist to be a good person. Likewise, even one if is friends with Trudeau they could assert that he is a bad prime minister. Seeing as it is awfully difficult to observe a poltician's mind and modern democratic polticians never do any radical thing that makes their character obvious one should logically assume that someone of my age category knows nothing about Trudeau the person (seeing as I never even met him) and is refferring to the historical legacy of said politician. "It was an act of a good Prime Minister. And evil Prime Minister wouldn't have bothered with such formalities [Patriation]." "Yes, but Trudeau being the good Prime Minister that he was, supported them. An evil Prime Minister never would've backed the Charter of Rights and Freedomes." What makes you think things like this? If someone was selfish and evil and they saw this sort of thing as way to help them project their own populairty/ reelection bids, wouldn't they have done it? You blamed me in your last rebuttal that I was too emotionally involved with my disdain for this poltician, and this was affecting my perspective. But in that same thing you praise the man and assert that you like him. Couldn't these postivie feelings affect you just as much as me? "If Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister, Canada would have fallen apart during (and even after) his term. It's still a global powerhouse that is greatly respected in our global neighborhood." It is awfully hard for one leader to destroy an entire nation's palce in world (though some have certianly succeeded). On your profile I notice you are "against" George Bush, thus connoting that you beleive he is not a good president. Yet has America fofeited it's place as number 1 economy and milatary? Of course not, becuase one America is tough enough to survive much mismanagement, as was my country. In a more extreme example the Roman Empire survived the rule of the mentally deficient craze Nero. As you seem to beleive this arguement revolves around chracter I will concede with this arguement in addition to my previous ones. What makes you beleive Trudeau was good person at heart? Like most polticians he was power hungry, cocky, and had a big ego. PS: Bill 101 is a Quebec law banning English from adverstisments and forbbiding it be taught in schools, which the supreme court has ruled unconstutional, the Charter was uanble to protect agianst this. Also Trudeau is the onyl modern PM to completly abridge the constitution by declaring martial law at one point during his reign.
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

< > You did not make that distinction. If you wanted to make an effective argument, you should've stated: Trudeau did not do a good job as Prime Minister. Instead, you left it open to interpretation, which I did within reason based on your debate that attacked his character, not just his abilities as Prime Minister, so the debate will remain on the course for which it began. < > It was an act of a good Prime Minister. And evil Prime Minister wouldn't have bothered with such formalities. <> (I'm having difficulty fully understanding some of your arguments. Are you reviewing them before you post them?) Yes, but Trudeau being the good Prime Minister that he was, supported them. An evil Prime Minister never would've backed the Charter of Rights and Freedomes. <> I'm still not convinced. You seem to seethe with hatred for Trudeau, which is why I can defend him as a good Prime Minister, as I do not think he was evil. If Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister, Canada would have fallen apart during (and even after) his term. It's still a global powerhouse that is greatly respected in our global neighborhood.
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

First of the topic of this debate was not whter or not Trudeau was a good person, but whether he was a "good" prime minister, that is whether or not his service in office was benefitial to the country. Of his achievements that you have commented on you (and many others) name the patriation of the consitution as one of them. Why? All he did was put his signature on a piece of paper fixing a minor red-tape thing so that stuff wouldn't have to pass past London's gaze. Evne though they had never shown the slightest inclination to control us by any form of the imagiantion. Also by opening this can of worms like the ammmending formula, he helped divide the country over a useless piece of red-tape that could have just as easily been left alone. As for the notion that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an asset, you must relaize that Canada supported basic rights and freedoms before and never has notioned to abridge them. Along with Difenbaker's Bill of Rights these documents were all show and actually do nothing protect rights and freedoms, they are mere words with no push (as we can see with Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause over Bill 101). As for your assertion that I am merely venting steam and my hatred for Trudeau is casuing me to critizize his leadership abilities, you are sorely mistaken. Trudeau came long before my time, and looking back it is acutally the other way around: I detest him becuase of the directions he took my country. Lastly we must remember that the chief priotirty of any elected official is bring greatness to her (or his) country. For all practicality declarations of "freedom and rights" (odd seeing as he seemly perfectly willing to ignore the mass killings instigated by his Hitleresque buddy Mao, yet got all fired up about the assults on human rights when some provinces grumbled against his martial defintion) but better correlates with what sort of economic situation his country is in because of him, such as not contiuing to run a unpayable deficit (basic math, you cna't spend more than you make, especially during nomacly) which trudeau complelty faield at. I for one don't really care much about London de jure's screens our laws as much I do that inflation in under control, taxes are low as possible, and our social programs are as funded as fiscally viable.
Pierre Trudeau was not a good Prime Minister

Pierre Trudeau was NOT an evil Prime Minister. Your attempts to vilify such a good man will fail. He was a good Prime Minister that brought about positive change for his beloved Canada. The 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution, including a domestic amending formula and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is seen as advancing civil rights and liberties and, notwithstanding clause aside, has become a cornerstone of Canadian values for most Canadians. It also represented the final step in Trudeau's liberal vision of a fully independent and nationalist Canada based on fundamental human rights and the protection of individual freedoms as well as those of linguistic and cultural minorities. Court challenges based on the Charter of Rights have been used to advance the cause of women's equality, establish French school boards in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to mandate the adoption of gay marriage all across Canada. Section 15, dealing with Equality Rights, has been used to remedy societal discrimination against minority groups. Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 has clarified issues of aboriginal and equality rights, including establishing the previously denied aboriginal rights of Mï¿½tis. I personally loved him for the passage of his implementation of official bilingualism. Bilingualism is one of Trudeau's most lasting accomplishments, having been fully integrated into the Federal government's services, documents, and broadcasting. While official bilingualism has settled some of the grievances Francophones had towards the federal government, many Francophones had hoped that Canadians would be able to function in the official language of their choice no matter where in the country they were. A man that can implement such an invaluable gift can be nothing other than good. <> I think your personal feelings are clouding your judgment on a good Prime Minister. He was not evil, as you suggested. < > He wasn't to blame and you even admit that he wasn't the cause. You're just angry and you want someone to blame. < > None of this makes him an evil Prime Minister, as you've suggested. It just means that he had an appreciation for something that you did not. < > So what? So what if he was a Communist sympathizer? I am a Communist sympathizer. That does not make me a bad person; nor did that make him a bad Prime Minister. You are not only judgmental, but mistaken. < > The masses used good judgment and elected a good Prime Minister. As Trudeau had the support of the people, I'm inclined to believe they were right, thus making you wrong.