The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 82689
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




This debate refers to the movie Circle (2015). Spoilers may/will occur.


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.


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.


I shall accept this debate, and thanks for having me. 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.
Debate Round No. 1


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".


- 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.


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 girl

I 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 PG

This 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 man

This 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 guy

Another 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: NV

I 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 volunteer

I don't think I need to explain myself.

On that note, I will leave Pro with round 3.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his argument. Now for my rebuttal.

Rebuttal: LG

As 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: PG

Since 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 Marine

The 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: Armless

1.) He was not physically whole.

2.) He lacked Eric's cleverness.

Rebuttal: NV

1.) Except for his unwillingness to let anything show, we know nothing about NV's character.

Rebuttal: Volunteers

1.) Predisposition to die.


This round will serve as my rebuttal for Pro's round 2.

1# Cleverness

I have nothing to say about that, Eric demonstrated his intelligence and craftiness. But the fact that he did only begs more questions.

2# Decent person

Now 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# Male

No 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 rant

I 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. If Pro allows me to, I will post my fifth point in the comments, because I don't want to add extra arguments in the final round.

Debate Round No. 3


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: #1

Dropped by the contender.

CR: #2

1.) 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: #3

1.) 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: #4

1.) 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: #5

1.) 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.


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.


I thank Pro for his argument. I will be now bringing my counter-rebuttals for round 3 and my conclusion.

Counter-rebuttal 1: LG

1: What Pro states here is pure conjecture. And I personally fail to see how being too young would make you more deserving to die than an adult in his forties. You can't kill a LG on the basis that she may not be a good person in the future.

2: What apocalypse? The ending was weird, but it set straight certain things:

-A major number of humans survived.

-After the Circle, the aliens just seem to be hovering above cities, not destroying or anything else.

Hence not at all comparable to an "apocalypse", where the world has been destroyed as we know it. At best, this is a re-processing of civilisation.

3: The movie leads us to believe that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN has passed the Circle challenge, or at least a great portion of humanity, and hence the LG CAN'T be the only case to still have nightmares of the Circle after it happens. Implying they have a future at all after the Circle.

Counter-rebuttal 2: PG

1: CR 1.1 repeated.

2: CR 1.2 repeated.

3: Your logic is flawed here. If the foetus is replaceable, then so is Eric. There are a lot of adults around after all.

4: Teachers aren't necessarily needed. Adults can improvise themselves teachers, and if you intend on humanity to survive, foetuses will have to come anyway.

5: You don't know that. The only confirmed thing about the mother is that she isn't married to the father. That's it. As far as we know, PG has as much family/friends that would care about her than Eric has.

Counter-rebuttal 3: AM

1: Horizontal arguments work both ways, except for the male one.

2: Conceded.

3: Pro conceded one point, I'll concede another for the "ultimate duty". I'll add this however: this fact only strengthens his worthiness to survive, since he is ready to die for others to live.

4: For reasons I already explained, Eric didn't have the same way of thinking.

Counter-rebuttal 4: AG

1: I fail to see how this would make him more worthy to die than another.

2: Conceded.

Counter-rebuttal 5: NV

Pro's statement here is false. We know all there is to be known about his character: he doesn't like killing, and will not kill even if it kills him. It's a respectable moral standard to abide to, and would make him deserving of survival.

Counter-rebuttal 6: Volunteers

Same argument than for AM: their sense of sacrifice honours them, and makes them more worthy than Eric just for that.


Well, this debate has suffered from character shortage on both sides. Pro has been going on the practical side, while I have been going on the ethical/moral side. Interestingly enough, we have reproduced the movie: me as DT and Pro as KT. Therefore, I believe we didn't manage to put into place a middle ground for the voters to decide on. If the voters manage to find a middle ground however, Pro and I will be grateful. I am Con, and I uphold my arguments Eric is far from the more deserving of survival. Good luck to Pro, and vote Con! ^^
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wipefeetnmat 11 months ago
Good debating man and good luck. Sorry about the 3k char limit, was my first debate created.
Posted by Blade0886 11 months ago
Fair enough, it is something that was supposed to be in the debate itself after all. Here it is:

We've come to a point where I need to bash Eric a bit. It is my job after all, as contender of this debate.

Eric by many ways, is actually one of the most despicable persons around in the Circle.

He doesn't hesitate to manipulate the people around him in order to have his ways, and also doesn't hesitate to kill ten year old girl, a pregnant woman and it's foetus single-handedly.

He is actually no better than say, the Sweater Bank guy.

The only difference is that he was more intelligent, and pretended to be a compassionate humane human being.

Being inhuman is a thing, pretending to be humane is another entirely.

You could say Eric is an example of the wolf hiding behind the lambs. Cruel, egocentric, crafty. These are the words that define Eric.

And that's about it. I would like to note that I noticed our debate may not come to a valid conclusion, since both of us have different views on who deserves to survive: you use pragmatism while I use morals.
Posted by wipefeetnmat 11 months ago
Eric rant? I'm intrigued. You may post it in the comments as long as I can post the rebuttal I may have for it in the comments.
Posted by Blade0886 11 months ago
Yeah, same for me here
Posted by wipefeetnmat 11 months ago
Really shot myself in the foot with that 3k word limit...
Posted by wipefeetnmat 11 months ago
@Blade0886 It's fine. What good is 20/20 vision if you don't use it? lol
Posted by Blade0886 11 months ago
Do you want me to copy-paste in the comments?
Posted by wipefeetnmat 11 months ago
lol I can barely even read it with my monitor's crappy res
Posted by Blade0886 11 months ago
Aaaaaand I broke the character size policy xD. I'll make sure to not make the writing so tiny next time.
Posted by Blade0886 11 months ago
Well then, I'm up for it. I'll just accept and possibly add one or two definitions, and we're good to go.
No votes have been placed for this debate.