BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

I thank the contender for posting his rebuttal as well as for going through the entire debate. The final round will be for counter-rebuttals of Round 3 as well as for the conclusion.CR: #1Dropped by the contender.CR: #21.) When Eric saved PG from the guy that tried to break the all-way tie I was under the impression that he actually did it to save PG, not to help himself. If he was somehow planning his final move that far back in the Circle, he is even more intelligent than I gave him credit for.2.) Dropped by the contender.3.) He wanted to live. The movie does not show us if he felt sorrow for killing the others but we can see by the fact that he hesitated before killing the fetus that he was not a bad person.CR: #31.) My argument was completely valid. It is a fact that men have more physical and emotional strength than women and are needed to provide defense and labor force for the women and children that survive.CR: #41.) Dropped by the contender.2.) This point is not that he could get a girlfriend but that he would pass his good looks on to future generations. Good looks inspire many other important virtues (such as confidence) that are held in high regard amongst society.3.) That is not at all what I was implying. I purely meant that he has good fashion tastes. But now that you bring it up, his clothes did have an expensive look, implying that he was successful before the Circle and could bring his skills to the post-Circle world.CR: #51.) We do not know that he had no qualms about killing the others. He could have spent the entire first half of silence having a debate with himself about how he deserved to survive more than the others.2.) He hesitated before killing the fetus, direct proof that my opponent's argument has flaws.3.) Sweater Vest is openly a very hostile person and is not comparable to Eric.4.) Eric is not cruel. He only did what he needed to in order to survive.5.) It does appear that Eric thinks of himself first but (as I stated earlier) he could have had the same debate we are having now about how he deserves to live and how he could benefit the post-apocalyptic world more than a child or a pregnant woman could.6.) Being crafty is not necessarily a bad thing. No one in the Circle would have willingly let him survive since the "moral" DT wanted LG and PG to survive and the KT were all in it for themselves. Conclusion:Eric is, as even admitted by the contender, a very clever person. He is also a fit, handsome, and young male who could hold his own in the apocalypse. He does appear to have qualms about killing since he hesitated before killing the fetus which would suggest that he is decent human being. The contender's proposed survivors (LG, PG, Armless, NV, and the volunteers) all have reasons why they would not be ideal choices to survive. The Marine, despite having many things going for him, is not a more deserving choice than Eric is. Therefore, Con is not able to pose a more fitting choice than Eric.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

This round will serve as my rebuttal for Pro's round 2.1# ClevernessI have nothing to say about that, Eric demonstrated his intelligence and craftiness. But the fact that he did only begs more questions.2# Decent personNow this point suffers greatly from the consequences that point 1 implies. 1: You say that "by all appearances", he actually wanted the LG or the PG to survive originally. Except that, by all appearances, he wanted to survive since the start. His cleverness allowed him quickly evaluate the situation, and side with the team that would be the most likely one to survive based on human ethics. He was that clever, that he didn't allow human ethics, morals or values to slow him down in order to survive. 2: No, he wasn't rude and obnoxious, but he isn't the only one in this case. I could make the case of a character that I didn't introduce before, that being the black doctor woman, who would fill in this perfectly. But since she's implied to have done wrongly in the past, I will not talk any further of her. 3: That in itself is subject to controversy, and is, in my opinion, purely subjective. We don't know how Eric feels about what he done, since we had a rather bizarre ending that didn't show much, aside of flying saucers. The DT team clearly considers going against human ethics makes you a bad person, whether it's to live or anything else. And the KT team is the opposite of that. To each their side, even though I'd rather go with the DT team(obviously, I'm Con in this debate).3# MaleNo offence Pro, but that has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Males as much as females are needed in order for the human race to survive, and being one or the other IS NOT an advantage OR a disadvantage. In other words, being a male or a female doesn't give you any more right to live than the other gender, since both are just as necessary.4# Physical condition 1: He seems to be physically whole and fit, I'll give you that. 2: This is a subjective matter, even though myself has to admit he probably would end up with a girlfriend without too much trouble based only on his looks. This point shouldn't be used. 3: I assume I know what you're implying, and that is he comes from a rich/cosy financial situation. In my sense, this SHOULD NOT be an argument. It has been demonstrated in the movie itself, with everything involving the Sweater Banker guy.5# Eric rantI wish I could have included this in the previous round, but due to character limit, I wasn't able to. And due to character shortage, I can't include it in this round too.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

Now for my rebuttal. Rebuttal: LGAs a child she has neither proven her worth to society nor will she be able to for several years.1. ) As the contender states, she is young, but she is too young. She has yet to make any major decisions that will determine her future and whether she grows up to be a decent and beneficial member of society or not. If she was an adult she may have been no more deserving to live than the guy who beat his girlfriend. 2. ) She would most likely not be able to survive the apocalypse that followed the Circle due to her weak physical and emotional state. Why waste a capable human life such as Eric on someone that would perish anyway?3. ) A traumatic event such as the Circle could easily destroy a young child's life, most likely leading to problems as she ages that would make her a thorn on society or possibly lead her to commit suicide. Rebuttal: PGSince the contender gave mostly a repeat argument I will add the previous rebuttals along with the new.1. ) Rebuttal 1.1 to the extreme.2. ) Rebuttal 1.2 to the extreme. How likely is it that a baby would survive in the apocalypse?3. ) The fetus (and therefore our future) is reproducible as long as you have one male, one female, and around one year. Eric, however, is irreplaceable since he is already an adult. 4. ) A fetus would have to be taught everything and, unless their are a few teachers in the surviving mix, is not going to have the education that Eric has.5. ) The fetus's death would affect no one except the mother (mute point: if it dies, she would already be dead). If the majority of the human race were to somehow survive, Eric would most likely have parents, siblings, and possibly a girlfriend that would all grieve at his death. Rebuttal: The MarineThe marine does have many properties that make him deserving of survival, in fact, he would be my second choice if Eric were to have died. My point, however, is that although most of the Circle had the right to survive, there could only be one with the most right to survive and since the Marine does not deserve to survive more than Eric, he must deserve to survive less.1. ) Horizontal arguments: He is level-headed, Eric is also level-headed. He is physically fit, Eric is also physically fit. He is a male, Eric is also a male.2. ) He lacks the speedy cleverness that Eric had, proven by his inability to solve the issue of the five-way tie that results in his demise.3. ) He was a soldier. The contender argues that through his active duty he earned the right to survive, I cannot disagree. All I can say is this: A soldier's ultimate duty is to die fighting for a cause.4. ) He appeared to be trying to save LG and PG but until the very end Eric appeared to be doing the same. Rebuttal: Armless1. ) He was not physically whole.2. ) He lacked Eric's cleverness. Rebuttal: NV1. ) Except for his unwillingness to let anything show, we know nothing about NV's character. Rebuttal: Volunteers1. ) Predisposition to die.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

In this round, I'll be posting my arguments. Round 3 will serve for counter-rebuttals of Pro's round 2, and round 4 will serve for counter-rebuttals of Pro's round 3 and possible counter-rebuttals of Pro's round 4. I thank Pro for having the idea of using abbreviations, and will be bringing in some of my own.Disclaimer: This debate is not about who deserves the most to survive, but who deserves it more than Eric, the canon winner. Hence, all the arguments will be comparisons between Eric and other characters, not between other characters other than Eric.Person 1: The little girlI will start with the most obvious persons, the first one being the LG. She isn't a genius, as evidenced by herself admitting she didn't have straight As. She isn't strong physically, seeing her age. She doesn't contribute much to society, again given her age. BUT, these are not reasons for her to die to the profit of someone else, especially for someone like Eric or the Sweater Guy. Humans morals and ethics dictate that the DT group was in the right in wanting her to be one of the last to be around. She has her whole feature ahead of her, and it would be morally wrong to terminate her before-hand.Person 2: The PGThis is one of the other obvious ones. Basically, this will be a repeat of the arguments for the LG, but adapted. It's not the woman herself that is important, but the baby she's hosting. The foetus isn't even born yet, and like the LG, has a whole feature ahead of it. If I had to give my personal opinion, I would say that this foetus is the most deserving to survive. But this isn't the point of this debate. The foetus is the future of human life(conceptually of course, not literally), and thus should always be given a chance compared to an adult, unless under VERY EXCEPTIONAL circumstances(hyperbolising here, but for example, if that adult is the only thing between humans and extinction).Person 3: The Afghanistan manThis guy always had his head on his shoulders. He never panicked once(except when he was designed to be killed), and always tried to help the general community. He has the moral values to not even consider voting the PG and the LG. He has fought a war for the safety of the people around him. This guy not only has the right mentality, but also not only deserve, he EARNED the right to survive the circle nightmare. He is quite fit physically, and doesn't seem dumb.Person 4: The Armless guyAnother example of someone who not only has a right state of mind(constantly defended the minorities, made fun of the stupid ideas that the KT side was coming up with), but also suffered enough without adding any more. He pretty much is the same as AM, but without an arm.Person 5: NVI think people will get where I'm going with this. His mentality is entirely respectable: he despises the idea of killing, and will never abide to it, even if it means his death.Person 6: Every volunteerI don't think I need to explain myself.On that note, I will leave Pro with round 3.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

I thank the contender for accepting. I am excited to hear his take on this great movie! Happy debating!Firstly, I will get some things straight before I make my argument.- Several (~10) of the Circle died right off the bat and without providing any substantial basis for an argument that they were more/less deserving to survive so I will be counting those void in the debate.- I will try to keep race/religion out of my debate since I do not want this to become a hate-fest of "Christians/Muslims/Blacks/etc are good/bad/etc people".Abbreviations:- KT (Kill Them) - the group that wanted to kill the little girl and pregnant chick.- DT (Don't [kill] Them) - the group that wanted to allow either the little girl or pregnant chick to live.- NV (No Vote) - the guy that is pointed out as having never voted/spoken.- SG (Skater Guy) - the leader of KT after Sweater Vest dies.- PG (Pregnant Girl) - obvious.- LG (Little Girl) - obvious.Main argument:The winner of Circle (according to IMDB his name was Eric) deserved to survive more than the others due to the fact that his overall positive qualities outnumber those of the other Circle members.He uses cleverness to get his way.1.) He knows when to keep his mouth shut and so avoids talking until he knows the tables are going to be in his favor.2.) "You know where I stand". Eric uses this response to avoid giving a definite answer and becoming a target when SG is evaluating the KT and DT.3.) Eric manipulates the KT to vote for NV in order to get rid of SG and defeat any chance of DT losing.4.) He manages to get the little girl to volunteer herself while he votes off the pregnant chick, therefore securing his win.He is a decent person.1.) By all appearances he actually wanted either the little girl or the pregnant chick to win originally.2.) He was not rude and obnoxious during his time in the circle, unlike many who tried using hate tactics to survive.3.) Wanting to live, even if it means using trickery, does not make you a bad person. He is of the male gender.1.) Since they assumed (rightfully) that the aliens abducted everyone, they could have also assumed that mostly women and children would be chosen to survive but (not being sexist here) without a lot of men, life could not go on. Not only are they half of the equation used to reproduce, but they are the brute muscle, the laborers and the warriors of our world.He is young.1.) I am a terrible judge of age but I say he has to be around thirty. This means that he is grown past his worthless adolescent years but still has maybe another thirty more years to work and reproduce (sixty year old fathers ftw). This is plenty of time to prove his worth to society.Physical attributes. 1.) He is physically whole and fit, something needed to survive in a world with a lessened population.2.) He is handsome and should pass those genes on to later generations.3.) That outfit choice. Ahem.Very much looking forward to my opponent's argument.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

So that everything is clear, I shall state what I must do. 1: I saw the whole movie. 2: I have in mind a couple propositions to contend for. I accept the definitions given by Pro, under the assumption that there can be only one winner. I believe that a clear separation between the different mindsets and beliefs expressed by the 50/51(since the foetus counts as a candidate, but cannot express opinions) candidates is necessary, in order to determine who deserved the most to survive, or at the very least those the more deserving to survive. I assume BoP is shared by both of us: Pro needs to argue why the canon survivor was the most deserving, and I must bring my own arguments+counter-arguments as to why others would deserve more to survive. Since Pro allows me to, I can bring up more than one person to take the winner's place, and will be doing so. I will allow use of the many different viewpoints that were expressed during the movie itself(ie racist vote, rich vote, etc. .. ), but the basis on deciding should be at the minimum commonly accepted human values, since these were accepted to different degrees by the candidates themselves. Good luck to Pro, and happy debating.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

This debate refers to the movie Circle (2015). Spoilers may/will occur.Rules:1.) The contender taking the con/against position must have seen the entire movie.2.) The contender must offer up one or more person(s) that would have been a more deserving winner as well as prove that my position is incorrect.3.) The first round is for acceptance or for challenging/advancing new definitions.4.) No trolls.5.) Keep it frosty.Definitions:Winner - In this case, the sole survivor of the main circle. Deserved - Justly earn the reward (of survival) due to properties (physical, intellectual, moral, emotional, sexual, and so forth). Survive - Body, consciousness, and motility remain in existence.
Homosexual Marriage

"I agree that there is no reason why people shouldn't have those rights, even beyond couples. Many of those rights we ought to be able to delegate to friends and relatives as well. This is why I think we need a reasonable way of going about civil unions." Ok I think we agree "False. Marriage is a societal institution. The government can't come down on one side or the other without changing society. The legal benefits of marriage are completely covered by civil unions. Given that and the controversy in society over this issue, there is absolutely no democratic legal basis for the government to intervene." Marriage is not societal, by giving legal benefits to married couples the government is intervening in marriage. This does change society, however society should not change legality. Because we grant some citizens legal benefits, we must grant all citizens those legal benefits. THAT is the Democratic legal basis for the government to intervene. All people are created equal, after all. "Absolutely. Look at it this way. Do you think the government has any right to say who can get married? I sure don't. This is because marriage is more than a legal institution. Marriage goes beyond legality. And because of that, the legal system has no right to interfere with it at all." Marriage must have some legality to make it official. Without that there is no commitment, and many laws pertaining to marriage would have to be changed. "Just to summarise, the only argument that you've put forth (that I can tell) is that we are denying homosexuals legal rights. These rights are found in civil unions, so that isn't much of an argument at all. I also contend that the government has no right to define marriage anyway." Civil Unions only provide the marriage rights provided by respective states, not the entire country. However I will put forth more arguments 1: Equality Other people are granted these benefits. There is no reason homosexuals should not be granted these rights 2: Commitment Marriage is a sign of commitment that people should be able to show to their life partner 3: It only affects homosexuals I really don't see the negative effect in allowing gay marriage. It only affects the homosexuals, and I don't see why it "bothers" people to see others expressing love.
Homosexual Marriage

"There is no reason that Heterosexual couples should have these rights while Homosexual couples don't." I agree that there is no reason why people shouldn't have those rights, even beyond couples. Many of those rights we ought to be able to delegate to friends and relatives as well. This is why I think we need a reasonable way of going about civil unions. "This is not about society, it is about the legal benefits and merit of marriage" False. Marriage is a societal institution. The government can't come down on one side or the other without changing society. The legal benefits of marriage are completely covered by civil unions. Given that and the controversy in society over this issue, there is absolutely no democratic legal basis for the government to intervene. "I need some clarification, So are you saying we destroy the government involvement in any marriage?" Absolutely. Look at it this way. Do you think the government has any right to say who can get married? I sure don't. This is because marriage is more than a legal institution. Marriage goes beyond legality. And because of that, the legal system has no right to interfere with it at all. Just to summarise, the only argument that you've put forth (that I can tell) is that we are denying homosexuals legal rights. These rights are found in civil unions, so that isn't much of an argument at all. I also contend that the government has no right to define marriage anyway. The end. (Well, not really, but a round closer)
the christian god is a metaphor for belief

You can't detect what's outside of space-time as I stated above. It's only conjecture. However, your debate statement is that the Christian God is simply a metaphor. As you did not respond to my ideas of evidence pointing in that direction (which I was expecting to elaborate on, but couldn't) I will try my best to sum up a counter side. Belief is a definable thing. Your statement implies the Christian God was only constructed by human minds, therefore is a metaphor. I tried to go the route of showing there is an intelligence behind creation and expected to elaborate on why here. However, as there is no follow-up, Ill finish with this: For those who believe in God, he is absolutely not a simple metaphor for belief. For those who do not believe in God, the idea of a being who created everything, is not a metaphor, but an option. Therefore, the Christian God is not a metaphor for belief, but is an option for belief. Thank you for your time and comments.
the christian god is a metaphor for belief

so how have you detected whats outside of space and time? santas monocle? no its simply means people are very easy to fool love=positive emotion+returning at energy human is a species, the bad part being love, by negative contrast by necessety of opposition for positive to exist only santa is outside of space and time belief that, to believe there is something or someone outside of space and time is the only way for someone or something to not be outside space and time dude my proof that you are wrong is your words.. there is just no way to put it better
the christian god is a metaphor for belief

Outside of space-time does not mean you cannot exist. It simply means our laws of Physics/time do not apply. Any statements beyond that would simply be conjecture. Furthermore, God has been described as a being of pure love. Love, being hard to define, probably shouldn't be used here in such a short debate. Furthermore, I fully disagree with belief = love. I believe many horrible things have happened and show no love towards them. I believe you exist, however, I can't say that I love you beyond the base amount of love I have (or try to have) for the human race. The amount of information (this could be another debate) pertaining to how our universe and the things in it appear designed are one of the many reasons I believe in a creator being outside of our space-time. Once I've arrived at that conclusion, the search was for "who" that could be. My search has led me to believe in the Christian God/Jesus. This conclusion then meaning the Christian God is not simply a belief, but an actual "thing".