THBT: On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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.