Instigator / Con
10
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4690
THBT: On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
8
1498
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Description
BoP is shared. PRO argues that SG is not an accurate representation of capitalism in SK. CON argues that it is.
Definitions to be used in this debate:
Squid Game - A South Korean survival drama television series created by Hwang Dong-hyuk for Netflix.
Accurate - 1. Free from error, conforming exactly to truth.
Capitalism - A system in which the voluntary exchange of goods and services is legal.
South Korea - An East Asian nation on the southern half of the Korean Peninsula.
Rules:
1. Pro is allowed to use ChatGPT and cannot be penalized by voters for doing so. (Pro doesn't have to use ChatGPT, but they may not be punished for having it write their arguments, should they choose to do so.)
Con may not use ChatGPT for any purpose.
This is a Practice Debate for my eventual rematch with Savant, so the setup is deliberately made to give me a harder position to argue and defend.
2. Con must waive Round 1.
Round 1
Pro
#2
I will make this very casual as it's mostly for practice.
First off, let us explore the state of capitalism in SK.
For the purposes of this debate, I will define positive capitalism as laissez-faire capitalism
Negative capitalism would be government involvement anywhere from light regulation, to full control of capitalism by the state.
SK currently has a ranking of 15th place on the economic freedom score, 10 places above the USA.
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.
So the state of capitalism in SK is actually pretty good relative to other nations.
In this debate, I need to show why the show Squid Games is not an accurate representation of SK capitalism.
While there ae many arguments, I will limit myself to only 3.
1. The show is build on extreme and radical situations. Most people who take part in SK capitalism never deal with extreme situations.
The average Korean seems to earn a comfortable level of wealth.
For comparison, state run capitalism nets a much lower level of wealth in China.
Squid Show situations would most nearly resemble Chinese capitalism than South Korea's capitalism.
2. The show doesn't seem to have any safeguards for breeches of contract.
The contestants agree to participate in the games under the assumption that they will compete in fair and controlled conditions with clear rules and guidelines. However, the organizers of the Squid Game manipulate and deceive the contestants, leading to breaches of the implied contract. Sometimes allowing contestants to die.
Under South Korean law, there are several remedies available for breaches of contract.
The legal system employed in South Korea is included in Constitution of the Republic of Korea and involves a thorough judicial process based on a civil law system.
3. SK capitalism is based on freedom and opportunities.
As I explained above, SK is ranked 15th for economic freedom. The Squid Games show centers on choices made under duress. Most of the contestants are given a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. In laissez-faire capitalism, there would be many more opportunities than the false dichotomy presented within the framework of the show giving contestants only 2 options to either play the game or to continue to suffer their current misfortunes.
I think these should be really easy to debunk, enjoy the practice!
Round 2
Con
#3
Preamble
I will be arguing that the competitions in Squid Game are an accurate symbolization for Capitalism in South Korea. SK's violence, economy, and government is operated on a very similar level to the system as displayed in Squid Game. Therefore, I wish to show that as a social commentary, the TV series hits the nail on the head.
Kritik
Accurate, as defined in the description is applied too literally and thus makes my position as Con impossible. Plenty of movies and TV shows use hyperbolic humor to showcase the points they're making for entertainment because entertainment drives focus. So my case requires me to use a more metaphorical interpretation of the resolution to prove my side. With this in mind, I propose an alternate definition for accurate be used.
Accurate- “Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.“
Origin Story
The main character of Squid Game, Gi-Hun, serves as a stand-in for the Korean citizen living in debt. We experience his situation from his viewpoint. As the story of Squid Game is based on a real life situation. The accuracy of the events is therefore a reality. SsanngYong Motors laid off a bunch of workers in 2009, which ultimately led to many becoming jobless long-term and unable to make a smooth transition or find work. Gi-Hun, much like these people originally had a stable career but were forced into circumstances beyond their control.
Competitors
Most of the participants of Squid Game were either middle-aged or elderly. Most of them were in extreme debt and needed to find some way to obtain the financial resources to get out of their situation. In South Korea, the majority living in poverty are generally very old. Parents who reach their nineties find themselves homeless or struggling to support themselves because they spent their money on their child's education or other circumstances. Raising kids has become too expensive, so the fertility rate is exceptionally low.
While this means children usually have to live with their parents longer, they too find that they are having to work to not only support themselves but their parents. However, some parents are turning down assistance from their children because their kids are also struggling.
Games
While the game themselves are irrelevant, the conditions do. Nothing about the rules changes.
- The games are high-stakes.
- If your opponent dies first, you win.
- No Hold's Barred.
The high-stakes environment led to people betraying their friends or being forced to take one for the team, with their sacrifice so that other opponents could prosper. In The Glass Tile game, one of the competitors pushes someone so that they and the other team could live. Someone also kills themself just to get even with one of the competitors. In The Marble Game, a competitor kills herself so her partner can live. SK's real life situation is no different. The suicide rate is exceptionally high with many people killing themselves because they realize their living situation is permanent. Some parents even choose to kill themselves to remove the burden from their children.
The Game and The Economy
The shady corporation that controls the game obtained power by receiving and thriving from white men spectating and paying to watch the games, usually by betting on one of the competitors to live. The Chaebol who control South Korea managed to make significant gains for the economy when the switch in 1961 led to South Korea seeking out foreign investment from other nations. Squid Game's way of recruiting players usually has strange men enticing potential victims at a train station with vague promises of money.
When Kennedy established The Peace Corps, American volunteers were visiting South Korea as a way to provide assistance and give help to those in need. This resulted in them arousing suspicion from the South Korean citizens who believed they were spies.
Rebuttals
For the purposes of this debate, I will define positive capitalism as laissez-faire capitalismNegative capitalism would be government involvement anywhere from light regulation, to full control of capitalism by the state.
South Korea's version of capitalism is already established as its own unique brand.
By trying to apply a different definition, we are essentially reframing the debate into an entirely different conversation. SK, being a mixed economy doesn't have laissez-faire capitalism.
1. The show is build on extreme and radical situations. Most people who take part in SK capitalism never deal with extreme situations.The average Korean seems to earn a comfortable level of wealth.For comparison, state run capitalism nets a much lower level of wealth in China.
South Korea's pop culture tends to use hyperbolic humor in its social commentary.
However, as a metaphor. It is an accurate depiction of SK's capitalism. Those in poverty and in debt are in a similar position as that of the Squid Game competitor. Even the average korean living a life of comfort has to sacrifice certain dreams like marriage or having children just so they can build careers or support themselves.
3. SK capitalism is based on freedom and opportunities.As I explained above, SK is ranked 15th for economic freedom. The Squid Games show centers on choices made under duress. Most of the contestants are given a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. In laissez-faire capitalism, there would be many more opportunities than the false dichotomy presented within the framework of the show giving contestants only 2 options to either play the game or to continue to suffer their current misfortunes.
Most Koreans lack the financial adequacy for independence or freedom.
Money is scarce and hard to come by. They don't have many options when choosing careers, so any job is better than no job. It's hard to find work if you're jobless.
Pro
#4
1) The show "Squid Game" portrays extreme and radical situations that are not representative of the average experiences within South Korean capitalism. The majority of people in South Korean capitalism do not face life-or-death circumstances. In reality, the average Korean earns a comfortable level of wealth, which contrasts with the extreme situations depicted in the show. Comparatively, state-run capitalism in China yields lower levels of wealth.
2) The show lacks safeguards for breaches of contract, while South Korean law provides remedies for such breaches. In the show, the organizers manipulate and deceive the contestants, leading to breaches of the implied contract and even deaths. However, South Korean law offers various remedies for breaches of contract, and the legal system in South Korea is based on a civil law system that involves a thorough judicial process.
3) South Korean capitalism is characterized by freedom and opportunities, while the show presents choices made under duress. The show limits contestants to a false dichotomy, forcing them to choose between playing the deadly game or continuing their current misfortunes. In reality, South Korean capitalism offers a much wider range of opportunities beyond the narrow choices depicted in the show, as it is ranked 15th for economic freedom. It is much closer to laissez-faire capitalism than it is to crony or Fascist Capitalism as portrayed by Squid Games.
Round 3
Con
#5
1) The show "Squid Game" portrays extreme and radical situations that are not representative of the average experiences within South Korean capitalism. The majority of people in South Korean capitalism do not face life-or-death circumstances. In reality, the average Korean earns a comfortable level of wealth, which contrasts with the extreme situations depicted in the show. Comparatively, state-run capitalism in China yields lower levels of wealth.
That's a common theme in South Korea's Pop Culture.
Violence is their way of providing entertainment in nearly all their social commentaries. The hyperbolic humor doesn't make the criticism less legitimate.
With the amount of rioting taking place to ensure SK citizens get paid more, there are more people ending up unemployed and in poverty because they cannot afford basic shelter. The debt and inability to care of themselves has made suicide one of the leading causes of death in South Korea.
People who fail to keep up with the competition in that nation are left behind and forgotten completely, which is also true for the competitions in the Games. People in the Games were killing themselves or if they broke on of the rules, they were eliminated.
2) The show lacks safeguards for breaches of contract, while South Korean law provides remedies for such breaches. In the show, the organizers manipulate and deceive the contestants, leading to breaches of the implied contract and even deaths. However, South Korean law offers various remedies for breaches of contract, and the legal system in South Korea is based on a civil law system that involves a thorough judicial process.
The Chaebol of South Korea also leverage their power to keep SK in a state of perpetual inequality. Laws themselves are often unenforced which allows the mistreatment of the poor by those with the money to persecute them.
3) South Korean capitalism is characterized by freedom and opportunities, while the show presents choices made under duress. The show limits contestants to a false dichotomy, forcing them to choose between playing the deadly game or continuing their current misfortunes. In reality, South Korean capitalism offers a much wider range of opportunities beyond the narrow choices depicted in the show, as it is ranked 15th for economic freedom. It is much closer to laissez-faire capitalism than it is to crony or Fascist Capitalism as portrayed by Squid Games.
With the authorities abusing women and protesters, SK possesses a mostly authoritarian government.
While SK presents the illusion of freedom and opportunity, most Koreans in their twenties are postponing marriage and having kids until they are in a state of long-term financial success. One of the biggest concerns right now for most Koreans is finding a long stable career, which is not currently accessible to many.
The Game's motto is "Play or die."
South Korea's Capitalism's motto is "Compete or end up in poverty."
Pro
#6
My opponent seems to focus on violence and poverty as being characteristics uniquely associated with capitalism.
He also suggests inequality itself leads to widespread poverty. Neither is the case.
Violence and poverty are not exclusive to any particular economic system. They exist across various societies, regardless of their economic framework. While capitalism, like any system, has its flaws, it does not inherently promote or perpetuate violence or poverty. Factors such as political instability, social unrest, and inadequate governance can contribute to these issues within any economic system along with scarcity of resources and uncontrolled population growth.
Regarding the relationship between inequality and poverty, my opponent makes a correlation and causation error. The mere fact that income inequality exists in capitalist economies does not automatically equate to widespread poverty. In fact, capitalist societies have proven to be highly effective in lifting millions of people out of poverty and improving living standards. It is the overall level of economic development and the effectiveness of social safety nets and redistributive policies that play a more significant role in addressing poverty. A rising tide lifts all boats, large and small.
Moreover, capitalism provides opportunities for upward economic mobility and innovation, which can contribute to reducing poverty levels. By fostering entrepreneurship and competition, individuals have the potential to improve their economic standing and create wealth. This leads to job creation, improved access to resources, and enhanced standards of living, depending on the supply of energy.
Capitalism is not inherently synonymous with violence or widespread poverty. Various factors beyond the economic system, such as governance, social policies, cultural differences, and overall economic development, influence these issues. Violence exists all over the world and is not exclusive to capitalist nations.
I love my opponent.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con Kritiks their own definition, which I have a hard time weighing since it doesn't get challenged by Pro. That said, I'm not sure how much it matters if Con is arguing that SG is a metaphor. The resolution does say "accurate representation," and while I argued against this exact point in another debate, Con's argument that the metaphor works for capitalism goes unchallenged for the most part. Con argues that some similarities make the metaphor accurate, while hyperbolic humor is a common part of TV that does not affect accuracy. With neither of these being challenged by Pro, most of the differences they bring up between the show and capitalism do not show it to be inaccurate under the framework that Con established. With Con framing the debate significantly in his favor, Pro had to either challenge this framework or talk more about the symbolism in the show. In the absence of that, arguments to Con.
Con gives a source to support their definitional Kritik, but Pro gives a lot more in terms of evidence. So sources to Pro.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Not too much to say here. I buy Con's definition of "accurate," though it's odd that the definition Con is arguing against is the very one he put into the description as the instigator. Once that's established, there's not a lot else to talk about here. Con establishes that his comparison allowed to deviate in some ways from the existing system in South Korea, and he demonstrates through his argument that there are multiple accurate applications of existing issues under the capitalist system in South Korea showcased in the show Squid Game. They may not be perfect or, as Pro argues multiple times, accurate representations of what the majority of people experience in South Korea under their existing economic system, but that doesn't mean that these aren't accurate depictions of what anyone experiences.
Telling me that this would be more accurate for China doesn't tell me that it's inaccurate for South Korea. Telling me that capitalism has positive attributes or that capitalism may not be the direct cause of all these problems isn't enough, either. It's too broad, and doesn't get at the specific cases Con brings up in his argument. I need direct responses to the comparisons that Con is making in order to show that he is making inaccurate comparisons. At most, what I see from Pro is that he's demonstrating that Squid Game paints with a broad brush, but not that it's inaccurate in representing how at least a sizeable minority experience the economic system that exists/has existed in South Korea recently, and since neither side is particularly willing to explain what goes beyond a "slight" or "acceptable limit" for deviation "from a standard," it's unclear that Pro has met any threshold for demonstrating inaccuracy, which is his burden in the debate. Therefore, Arguments to Con.
Pro gets conduct because of the forfeit.
It’s not really a kritik. It’s more like you’re running a topicality/resolutionality on yourself, which… yeah, it’s weird and I don’t know how much mileage it will have with other voters. It works from where I’m sitting because GP didn’t bring up the original definition after that, and just seemed to accept that your definition could supplant it. When it’s part of the description rather than an opening argument, it’s easier for me to put some space between them and assume they’re separate.
I wondered how voters might react to my Kritik against my own definition.
hugs
Thanks whiteflame.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
greyparrot makes better arguments, so i give points to bird boy.
sorry lancy
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify either point allocation. The voter does not even mention legibility, and his basis for awarding arguments is not explained beyond asserting that the side is being awarded better arguments has better arguments. The voter must evaluate specific arguments presented by each side in order to award these points.
**************************************************
You might not enjoy reading through and voting on this one as much because this was a practice debate.
But I can guarantee you will like judging on the one me and Savant are doing currently.
Please remind me to vote on this. I have another of the same topic in my head right now, and don’t want to risk undue influence from that one.
I love you all.