Instigator / Pro
19
1499
rating
52
debates
35.58%
won
Topic
#3250
On Balance the Continuation of the Squid Game is Morally Justified
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
41
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Full resolution and details: On balance, the titular game within the show "Squid Game" is morally justified to continue (treating the story as real). The framework used here is utilitarianism (net benefits) as well as the social contract. Pro must prove that the game is "moral" taking in both benefits and detriments, while Con must prove the Game is Immoral and should be stopped.
Round 1
My argument is very simple. The social contract says if people agree to something, knowing in full the benefits and detriments, then they should be allowed to sacrifice their lives for entertainment. We have seen this in dangerous situations currently in real life: Racing, boxing, MMA, and other sports. Currently we allow people to sign a waiver and basically risk that they will lose their lives in accidents. We know from Squid Game that if a majority agrees to leave, the players are allowed to stop playing the game. They are not forced to play it. When they rejoined the game, it was because their real lives were just too horrible and they were willing to take the chance that simply luck would kill them.
Just as Squid Game is entertainment for the elite, Con must prove it is severely different from other dangerous sports. As injuries from Football alone state, "More than 3.5 million children ... get hurt annually playing sports or participating in recreational activities. Sports and recreational activities contribute to approximately 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among American children." [1] With almost 3/4 million treated in hospital emergency rooms, it seems to me that Squid Game's 250 deaths by comparison are a very measly number.
The players would not have contributed much to society even if they had lived. We see in their backstories everyone has debt, everyone has thought of a back up plan, someone else to take care of their family. There is vanishingly little benefit even if Squid Game didn't exist. We see people betray and kill each other during Squid Game -- who's to say they won't be abusive to their friends and family? Rather than violating innocents, at least everyone in Squid game signed up for injuries, unfairness and violence. They knew what was coming after the first game ended, and they continued on regardless of dangers.
Suicide is not necessarily an immoral act -- what makes Squid Game different, especially with money to gain?
g = game
s = squid
The 1st g
s = squid
The 1st g
Prior to g1, the circle guards are at the front, after g1 the armed triangles are. This is because of intentional deception. Since potentially 1988 (due to when il-nam realistically got the idea vs what the cop finds) or at least since 2015, the first batch that die in g1 never consented to a game where they die.
The contract is 100% deceptive, let me point something else out...
The 7%?
7% of the surviving players post game-1 that opted out didn't return. Despite this, with them not being eliminated, the front man says to 'keep an eye on them' and the prize money remained 4.56 billion Won. How did the prize money remain that amount if it's specifically said to be 100k won per dead participant?
The 7% were slaughtered outside of the games. If you opted-out you were killed. The entire notion of freedom was a lie. There was no opt-out, the contract you signed was with criminals that would piss on it before staying true to it.
How hasn't it been found out?
There is extremely likely to be police corruption involved with how the sg is maintained. I don't mean the cop that Gi-Hun went to but even someone inside of his department. Are you telling me Gi-Hun was the only one to ever run and scream? Some would even have reported the sg to the cops after that weirdo slapped them in that g and paid them, suspecting a scam. There's no way the cops hadn't heard about it, instead those that looked too far were killed or the ones reported too were corrupt and buried it.
Preying on the vulnerable
The business model of the g is to prey specifically on those who are prone to addictions, terrible at managing their money and who after being physically slapped by someone after they were pressured into signing away their bodily rights already, had the desperation to agree to go to a game they had no clue about. The very nature of the sg, given what's at stake (life) only works on the most vulnerable to gamble their life on a 1/456 type probability.
Round 2
I didn't think this through. I concede.
45.6, not 4.56 (error of statement of prize money)
Extreme hypocrisy
The front man preaches a mantra of 'they must all enter the games as equals' when he justifies killing the organ harvester(s) who were involved in a cheating ring. On the other hand, if you are build like Deok-su you are free to physically beat a smarter, superior competitor to death. When Gi-hun later one, in the sleeping area goes to stab Sang-woo to avenge Sae-byeok's death, the guards who neglected many deaths until then and even ignored Gi-hun screaming to them to get a doctor to save Sae-byeok, suddenly restrained him so that he couldn't hurt and kill Sang-woo or vice versa, just so that the final game could occur with 2 remaining.
Not only are they rigging the game for people who can kill others off during the non-game-phase but they are also anti-rigging it selectively, including when they decided to end the night-fight just because the old man told them to, conveniently leaving 4 teams for tug of war.
How on Earth can they say that the players entered the glass game as equals?
On top of this, there's a major fucking issue linked to said hypocrisy:
How is a place run by criminals so utterly crap at noticing cheating and thinking like a cheat?
During the honey candy game, the triangles were watching some like hawks, instantly shooting them and disciplining them if they in any way cheated or broke the candy. Psychologically this unequally makes any close to them withint heir eyeshot both less able to cheat and more prone to shaky hands because of the pressure. Meanwhile, Mi-nyeo was free to use a fucking lighter and cut her candy in a 100% antithetical way to 'entering the game as equals', not to mention the advantage gained by Sang-woo thanks to Sae-byeok noticing them mixing sugar.
Then, even weirder, they didn't catch a goddamn organ harvesting ring nor Deok-su cheating with the lighter method in plain view of multiple cameras (you can literally see him from the cameras they show).
Round 3
ded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3GPea1Tyg
Dunno about life and virtues and these stuff, but the games look like they could be possible IRL.
Unchallenged in the debate, but it's not known if they actually killed the drop-outs. When the game ended, player #1 had not died, nor had player #456; yet if trusting the count as actually being per player death, they should have been dead. It seems to me the money is actually a fixed amount, with increases during the game just being one more way to mess with the players.
thanks!
Actually, never mind. It's a vote based on a concession, so I'll just remove it. You're welcome to re-post anytime.
Just confirm that that is what you want to do and I will go forward with it.
I can remove it and you can re-post.
meant to vote con can it be edited?
why is bigpimpdaddy voting Pro?
It is like Lottery and game show, but most people are incompetent and the skills required for it are near useless, and you die if you lose. Close to nobody would do it realistically.
thoughts?