Instigator / Pro
7
1740
rating
23
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#4374
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
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Savant
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
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 - 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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
Abbreviations
BoP = Burden of Proof
SG = Squid Game
SK = South Korea
BoP
The BoP in this debate is shared. I must show that SG does not accurately represent capitalism in SK, and CON must show that it does. To avoid the fallacy of composition, a valid representation of capitalism must accurately represent it in all aspects, not just in some. Note that dogs have legs, but a drawing of a leg is not an accurate representation of a dog.
My Case
SK has a mixed economy. Therefore, I will focus solely on the capitalist aspects—that is, forms of voluntary exchange of goods and services that are legal. The distinctions between the competitions in SG and capitalism in SK make it clear that one is not an accurate representation of the other.
1. Legal vs. Illegal:
Overview
- P1: Illegal activities are categorically different from legal activities.
- P2: The competitions in SG are illegal.
- P3: The capitalist components of SK’s economic system are legal.
- C1: Therefore, the competitions in SG do not accurately represent capitalism in SK.
P1
Illegal activities are those deemed by the state as too immoral or dangerous to be allowed. Legal agreements are the exact opposite.
P2
The illegality of the competitions in Squid Game is a central point of the show. The competitions would not qualify as euthanasia under South Korean law and would therefore be treated as murder in court. Furthermore, the contract signed by participants is too vague, misleading, and unconscionable to be enforced.
P3
See definition of capitalism in the description.
2. Risk of Death:
Overview
- P1: Unsafe activities are categorically different from safe activities.
- P2: Competitions in SG result in a much higher chance of death than capitalism in SK.
- C1: Therefore, the competitions in SG do not accurately represent capitalism in SK.
P1
Fairly self-evident.
P2
Of the 456 players who joined SG, 440 of them died in the games. That’s more than 96%. In 2021, 2,080 of 25 million workers in SK died from workplace-related accidents. That equates to 0.00832%.
3. Creation of Value:
Overview
- P1: A system that does not produce essential goods and services is not an accurate representation of a system that does.
- P2: Competitions in SG do not result in the creation of essential goods and services.
- P3: Capitalism in SK results in the creation of essential goods and services.
- C1: Therefore, the competitions in SG do not accurately represent capitalism in SK.
P1
Fairly self-evident.
P2
The only thing produced by the competitions in SG is entertainment for a select few. No essential goods or services are produced in exchange for the money given.
P3
In addition to entertainment, capitalism in SK also produces many essential goods and services. Essential goods and services produced by capitalism in SK:
- Bread
- Clothing
- A significant portion of healthcare
- BTS
For reference, socialism does a lot worse.
4. Opportunities for Social Mobility:
Overview
- P1: A system that offers few opportunities for social mobility is not an accurate representation of a system that offers many opportunities for social mobility.
- P2: The competitions in SG offer few opportunities for social mobility.
- P3: Capitalism in SK offers many opportunities for social mobility.
- C1: Therefore, the competitions in SG do not accurately represent capitalism in SK.
P1
Fairly self-evident.
P2
Everyone is stuck playing the games, until the ending when one winner survives and wins the jackpot.
P3
In SK, people who choose to go into profitable fields can make well above average:
- A computer scientist in SK makes an an average annual salary of ₩96,403,336, or $73,101.
- A petroleum engineer in SK makes an average annual salary of ₩109,630,551, or $83,131.
- A biomedical engineer in SK makes an average annual salary of ₩72,468,962, or $54,915.
5. Transparency of Risks and Rewards:
Overview
- P1: A system with generally unclear risks and rewards in mutual agreements is not an accurate representation of a system that is generally transparent about both of those things.
- P2: SG is generally unclear about the risks and rewards of its competitions.
- P3: Capitalism in SK is generally transparent about the risks and rewards of transactions.
- C1: Therefore, the competitions in SG do not accurately represent capitalism in SK.
P1
Fairly self-evident.
P2
In the first game, the contract shown is extremely vague and does not tell players they will be killed. Later on, it is implied that multiple players can survive, although the intention is clearly to kill everyone except the final winner.
P3
In the vast majority of jobs, workers in SK can quit at any time, so tricking someone into accepting a dangerous job is hardly tenable. The riskiest jobs are those offered by the government, such as military positions, which hardly count as unfettered capitalism, especially with the draft. Any job with considerable risks would need to be clear upfront about potential risks and rewards. Otherwise, the employer could be sued.
Con
#2
People hate Resolution Kritiks, but it’s necessary in this case.
I believe voters should reject Pro’s definition in the description.:
Accurate - Free from error, conforming exactly to truth.
This sets an impossible BOP to meet as Con because no comparison between fiction and reality could meet such a standard.
That said, I believe my definition is more applicable and sets a fairer discussion.:
Accurate- “Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.“
Pro says.:
To avoid the fallacy of composition, a valid representation of capitalism must accurately represent it in all aspects, not just in some.
I respectfully disagree. If I prove that the representation is at least significant enough to warrant a valid comparison, or prove that it represents capitalism in most of its aspects, I believe I win this.
Secondly, the definition of Capitalism in the debate makes Con unable to argue their side.
capitalism - A system in which the voluntary exchange of goods and services is legal.
Most of what occurs in Squid Game and South Korean Capitalism is not always legal, but such laws are rarely enforced. So I suggest changing it to the standard definition.:
Capitalism- “An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.”
(Oxford Languages.)
l. The Gladiator Games
In South Korea.:
It’s pretty common practice for certain wealthy elites to invest or fund in startup companies, and then invest in competitors to watch the new entrepreneurs clash.
Then whenever one of the companies is put out of business, the elites come in and seize all the profits that remain. Sometimes this is done for greed, but a lot of the time, it’s purely for entertainment.
ll. Squid Game is based on a real life story.
All but the youngest Koreans will recognize this lightly fictionalized reference to a labor confrontation seared in the country’s memory. In 2009, the carmaker Ssangyong (“Twin Dragon”) Motors pleaded poverty and laid off 2,646 employees at its headquarters plant in Pyeongtaek, a city south of Seoul. In response, nearly a thousand employees went on strike, some for as long as 77 days, occupying the factory site and facing a violent assault by Pinkerton-style security forces and Korean police. For years afterward, the surviving workers sought reinstatement and compensation in the courts, and 30 employees and several of their spouses died, mostly by suicide.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Framework:
BoP
Note that CON agreed to this debate with clear definitions set in the description. CON could have requested alternate definitions in the comments or via private chat beforehand but did not. These definitions are not “suggested”. The description specifically states that they are to be used in this debate.
Per DebateArt voting policies, definitions favorable to one side are not grounds for violating the description, especially when the contender fails to request alternate definitions beforehand. These definitions aren't unfair, but even if they were, they would not be grounds for using alternate definitions.
These definitions don't hold CON to an impossible standard. We both agree that SG does not accurately represent capitalism overall, but this opinion is not universal. Many people would've accepted the debate with my definitions, or requested alternate ones beforehand. But CON decided he was better suited to accept this debate than any of them. Because of that decision, we’ll spend half of this debate arguing over something that could have easily been resolved in the comments.
High-ranking debaters have created debates with resolutions very favorable to them with definitions that are very one-sided. Oromagi has debated against the existence of Bigfoot multiple times. CON could try to twist the given definitions to support his side or argue that illegal activities can be accurate representations of legal activities. The point isn’t that these are good arguments. If I thought they were good arguments, I would be arguing for the other side. But these arguments can be made, and that is the position CON agreed to by accepting this debate. While some rules for Kritiks are left vague, favorable definitions are clearly not considered harmful enough to the spirit of debate for a Kritik to be “necessary,” per DebateArt rules. Plus, these definitions don’t explicitly give the win to one side, like defining capitalism as “A system not represented by SG.”
Many socialists have used SG as an analogy for laws allowing capitalist behavior, so it’s not an uncommon opinion that one is an accurate representation of the other. Trying to switch that argument to another, such as saying that capitalism is slightly similar to SG, is a clear motte and bailey fallacy. I’m not strawmanning, I’m holding socialists to a standard that many of them have set themselves. This debate was intended for someone willing to defend that argument.
Defamation Standard
An accurate representation as I defined it doesn’t mean one where every detail is exact. It’s one that is not false or misleading, that doesn’t leave out major components or “misrepresent” the comparison. Writing a movie implying that Obama is a serial killer is defamation. Writing one where he wears a polka-dotted t-shirt is not. One is clearly misleading in its equivalence to Obama, the other is not. The question we should ask is if a book implying that Jeff Bezos or some other CEO was secretly running SG could result in a defamation lawsuit for misrepresenting them.
Arguments 1-5:
CON dropped all these.
Rebuttals:
“I respectfully disagree.”
CON disagrees, believing that a drawing of a leg is an accurate representation of a dog.
“If I prove that the representation is at least significant enough to warrant a valid comparison, or prove that it represents capitalism in most of its aspects, I believe I win this.”
This does not follow from CON’s definition of the word accurate, which holds him to a much stricter standard of “deviating only slightly”. CON believes his definition of “accurate” is superior to the one in the description he agreed to, because his comes from a dictionary. Unfortunately for CON, my definition comes from a more esteemed dictionary. Oxford, another esteemed dictionary, defines accurate as “correct and true in every detail,” and CON seems to like Oxford’s definition of capitalism. So I think CON is harming their case by making these kinds of Kritiks.
“such laws are rarely enforced”
Citation needed. How prevalent are orchestrated deathmatches in SK? Certainly nowhere near as prevalent as in SG. Like the comparisons that follow, this doesn’t even meet CON’s own definition of the word “accurate”.
“The Gladiator Games”
- CON doesn’t provide a source for this, so there’s no measure of scale here.
- These do not result in death, let alone a 96% death rate.
- Might be a net gain; funding for startups leaves entrepreneurs with more experience.
“based on a real life story”
So was Nightmare on Elm Street. Sometimes directors take creative liberties. The only similarity here is that both SG and this event lead to death. But there are two problems here. First, dying because the police try to stop you from trespassing is not the same as competing in a death match with coercive unclear rules. You can say they’re both wrong (I think one is significantly less wrong), but even then, it’s like saying that murder is wrong and rape is wrong, therefore murder is an accurate representation of rape. Second, firing employees does not become morally equivalent to SG just because the employees commit suicide. CON is relying on the premise that if something you do causes someone to commit suicide, it’s well represented by SG. This is a classic example of proving too much, since clearly making someone sad does not become morally equivalent to SG just because that person commits suicide. Pretty much anything could become morally equivalent to SG by that standard. CON can say that I’m strawmanning him and that he doesn’t believe that premise, but then how does he think that suicide and SG are morally comparable?
Overall comparison to capitalism
SG has a 96% death rate. Capitalism in SK has a death rate of approximately 0.00832%, as I showed in my opening. The anecdotal example CON gave does little to change this. Given the five major differences I showed between the competitions in SG and capitalism in SK, the comparison between the two does not “deviate only slightly” as CON claims.
Con
#4
The deaths in Squid’s Game are metaphorical and the contestants serve as stand-ins for the businesses that compete. Some thrive and some fail.
This is an allegory that hits the mark of South Korean’s capitalism.
Rigged Game
Much like how the game creator posed as a weak-minded frail man and rigged the system in his favor so he retained total control, the top companies leverage their financial assets to secure positions of power, denying the chance of fair competition to those at the bottom.
“South Korea’s economy is dominated by its conglomerates, the chaebol. Their role in society has been an enduring point of contention due to their economic and political influence.
– South Koreans will elect a new president, but regardless of whether they choose a conservative or progressive candidate, the next president will likely be pro-chaebol.”
The old man/game creator is a symbol for the chaebol who sabotage the system by widening the gaps between the rich and poor through income manipulation.
Greed & Vanity
Notice how there was a diversity of demographic participating in the Squid’s Game. Some of them were poor with nothing to lose and were competing for the chance to live.
But what’s interesting is that the other contestants were middle-class and driven by an insatiable greed for expensive and flashy items that’s consistent with South Korea’s materialism culture. They were willing to risk everything including their lives for the possibility of a reward.
That’s because The Game has manipulated them through appealing to their inner greed and cultural norms.:
“The economic growth itself is precipitated by status-conscious, affirmation-hungry South Koreans who enjoy showing off their success through material goods. The bottom line is that South Korea is a capitalist society, consumerist in nature; without constant consumption to drive economic growth, the capitalist system would fail. Consumerist tendency condones, if not drives, materialistic behavior.”
Deaths in SG = Failed Businesses in SK
As said above, the contestant deaths in the TV series represents every business that fails in South Korea.
The amount of deaths in Squid Game is unknown, but very high. Conversely, a similar conclusion is true for businesses in SK.:
“Statistics Korea data show the number of self-employed businesses was down by 128,000 in July from a year earlier to 5.55 million, logging the biggest drop since 2009.”
“According to data from Statistics Korea and the Ministry of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and Startups, the number of people working as small business owners fell 13.5 percent, or 871,000, on-year to 5.5 million as of end-2020.”
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent has dropped most of the points from my earlier round and gone on to establish an entirely new framework. This is extremely significant per DebateArt standards. Whether or not you agree with my arguments challenging CON’s Kritik, as well as the other arguments that they have dropped, the fact that CON has not challenged them means they effectively stand uncontested. CON could of course bring up objections to these points in his final round, but DebateArt policy holds that arguments intentionally withheld until the final round should be dismissed. Normally I’d just sum up the points that were given in the debate so far, but because CON has essentially made an entirely new argument, I’ll be sporting and respond to it.
Points that CON has dropped (effectively conceded):
- My criticism of their Kritik and alternative definitions
- CON committed the fallacy of composition and did not challenge the dog/leg analogy, even when I pointed out in Round 2 that they had missed it.
- Per the above, an analogy for capitalism that ignores the benefits (their new framework certainly does) or gets a major component wrong is not an accurate representation of capitalism.
- The defamation standard holds that serious discrepancies are effectively misrepresentations.
- I’ve been spelling these points out for the entire debate. CON has either failed to challenge these points or is withholding their response until the final round; in either case, we should consider these points dropped.
- Even if we count black markets per my opponent’s alternate definition of capitalism (which would exist under socialism as well), the risk of death under capitalism in SK, generally speaking, is much less than in SG. As I rhetorically pointed out, “How prevalent are orchestrated deathmatches in SK?” CON did not respond to this point, because the answer does not make their argument look good. Obviously, the vast majority of capitalism in SK fits into my initial points (legal, low risk, transparency)
- The other two (opportunities and value) don’t depend on the majority of capitalism providing them, just that there are a lot of opportunities and value generated by capitalism as a whole. So adding black markets to the definition of capitalism doesn’t negate those points either.
- Essentially, the five points I made in my opening remain uncontested and show serious discrepancies that prove SG is not an accurate representation of capitalism.
Rebuttals:
“The deaths in Squid’s Game are metaphorical and the contestants serve as stand-ins for the businesses that compete.” & “Deaths in SG = Failed Businesses in SK”
First of all, a 13.5% drop is nowhere near 96%, but that’s not even the biggest problem with this analogy. Just because people stopped working at a self-owned business does not mean that business was a “failure”. They eventually picked another line of work, but they still made a living off of that business for a good chunk of time. If someone no longer works in fast food, that does not mean their time in fast food was a “failure,” nor that it is accurately represented by someone who is shot in the head in SG.
Also, not an accurate representation in the slightest. When businesses go bankrupt, the business owners are not systematically executed. If we’re willing to stretch things that much, then anything could be a representation of anything else. Just saying “x represents y” does not make it an accurate representation.
“Rigged Game”
These top companies are not systematically murdering their competitors to keep them in line. Their power is also not absolute. If a new company comes along with a product and consumers buy it, these companies do not have the authority to stop those transactions. In SG, every aspect of the games is directly controlled by a few people. Anyone who steps out of line can be killed.
“Greed & Vanity”
I’ll grant that people in SK and in SG both want money to buy things, but people want money in pretty much every economic system, so this is a pretty insignificant point. As I’ve stated in both previous rounds, people in SG are willing to risk an extremely high chance of death and kill other people. They don’t know it’s going to be a 96% chance of death, but they pretty much get the gist after the first game. Capitalism, in contrast, involves cooperation to develop new products and provide essential services. The chance of death from capitalism is extremely minimal; in fact, the essential services produced save lives. They are not the same.
And even if we ignore all that, my opponent’s analogy further misrepresents capitalism
- Consumers decide which businesses succeed and which ones fail based on the usefulness of services provided, not based on arbitrary rules set by more powerful businesses—if everyone buys from a smaller business, there’s nothing the chaebol can do.
- Consumers benefit from competition, because the businesses that win are the ones providing products people want. If SG is an accurate representation of capitalism, we should see the winner offering services or some benefit to the other players.
- If a business fails in SK, the owner can start a new business.
- If capitalism in SK is a dog, SG isn’t even a picture of a leg. It’s a picture of a tentacle.
Conclusion:
CON has listed a few superficial similarities between the competitions in SG and capitalism in SK. He has also used examples in SG to inaccurately represent business competition in SK. Essentially, my main point remains uncontested. SG does not “deviate only slightly” from capitalism in SK. So even if we use CON’s definitions of accuracy and capitalism (and they’ve stopped arguing that we should), competitions in Squid Game do not accurately represent capitalism.
Con
#6
When a Kritik is laid out, it is up to voters to accept whether it stands or not. Any response I raised to Pro’s refutations would have derailed the conversation into an argument of semantics.
I carefully laid out my two Kritiks and made sure all my arguments stayed within the scope of the parameters I defined, and ignored the trap definitions in the description. If voters approve the Kritiks based on my reasons provided, then it’s a wrap.
Conclusion
It would therefore seem Pro is taking too much of a literal interpretation to what was intended as a lighthearted critique of a barbaric system.
As I previously stated that was completely overlooked by Pro is that Squid Game uses metaphors and symbols to demonstrate its point about South Korea’s Capitalism.
It is a satire which accurately depicts the subtle tyranny and vanity that is prevalent in their consumer society. The deaths in Squid Game represent the businesses in SK that shut down.
Rebuttals
- CON committed the fallacy of composition and did not challenge the dog/leg analogy, even when I pointed out in Round 2 that they had missed it.
- Per the above, an analogy for capitalism that ignores the benefits (their new framework certainly does) or gets a major component wrong is not an accurate representation of capitalism.
- The defamation standard holds that serious discrepancies are effectively misrepresentations.
No such fallacy was ever made.
The claim that I believe the dog/leg metaphor is a strawman by Pro.
South Korean’s capitalism is much more akin to a feral animal and Squid Game presents it as Cujo. A pretty valid comparison, if you consider everything I spoke of regarding the barbaric competition in their version of capitalism.
- Consumers decide which businesses succeed and which ones fail based on the usefulness of services provided, not based on arbitrary rules set by more powerful businesses—if everyone buys from a smaller business, there’s nothing the chaebol can do.
- Consumers benefit from competition, because the businesses that win are the ones providing products people want. If SG is an accurate representation of capitalism, we should see the winner offering services or some benefit to the other players.
Yes. In an idealistic Capitalistic society.
But as we know is that capitalism in South Korea is so far from ideal. If the system worked as intended, none of the criticisms raised by Squid Game would be valid.
The system is rigged to the Chaebol’s wants. If the consumers decide to purchase from a competitor, the Chaebols will buy out the business or find another way to shut it down, effectively limiting the consumers’ options.
Ironically, the evil creators of the Squid Game are the ones working behind the scenes to create circumstances that will ensure the consumers’ desperacy so they can masquerade as an angel of light and present them with the Golden Opportunity.
How did Darth Sidious turn Anakin to the Dark Side, do you think?
Extend that Squid Game was also based on a real historical event.
Extend contention about the Capitalistic Gladiator Games.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
"On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea".
Pro, takes a very literal approach, which I found surprising. The resolution says "On balance". Con rightfully contested the strictness of the definition, and I think appropriately referenced that SG can be considered an allegory. The problem with Con, is they never reference the On balance part of the resolution. I think the Kritiks would have been more effective if the On balance component was included. I also do take Pro's point that Con saw the definition and could have addressed it ahead of time.
Con rightfully pushed back on Pro's composition fallacy. Whilst the drawing of a leg, does not constitute a dog, when we take into consideration that there is an assumed allegory here, I take Con's point. However, I do not accept Con's attempt to reframe the definition of capitalism. The definition was clear, and purposefully written.
I do take Pro's point that Con set a definition for accurate, and then tried to soften the interpretation of that definition later on. It should be noted that Pro opened the door to some great counterpoints with the statement "It’s one that is not false or misleading, that doesn’t leave out major components or “misrepresent” the comparison." Con did not walk through that door.
So then this comes down to a few things: Do the Kritiks have persuasive weight? Did either side meet their BOP, and if so did one do it better than the other?
I think the Kritiks had some merit, but not convincing, in part because Con had plenty of opportunity to resolve the definition issue predebate. Con could have leveraged the "On balance" part to free themselves from the shackles of the strict definitions but did not do so.
In terms of content, I preferred Con's approach. I thought it was more representative of the spirit of the topic. Unfortunately, that is not enough to overcome the BOP. I accept the definitions, and whilst I think it was a semantical resolution trap set by Pro, Con had some wiggle room. Sources were great for both. Conduct was fine, as the Kritiks were very clear.
You as well!
I think Judicial Decision is a fun voting system that I wish they allowed for Rated debates.
Good debate! Shame it only got one vote.
Weaver is gonna hate me after he reads through this debate and sees my Kritik. 😂😂😂
Thanks for voting!
I can get your voting privileges back once I finish one of my other debates.
I cant Vote for some reason
BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen will vote if you ask them.
Plz vote if you can
I know you’d like reading this one.
Please vote if you have time!
You guys are welcome to vote if you decide.
Nah, we're cool. I enjoy a good debate that goes off the rails.
lol, thx
my bad
You're a real thorn in my side, but take it as a compliment.
Quality K in the opening round.
Thank you : D
Good luck to you, sir.
Of course, If which corporation actually make people fight to their death for money directly and not just figuratively, fastly and not slowly, they would be cancelled to death, lol.
Anyone who argues that Gi-Hun deserved to win out of the final 16 at the glass game is quite a normie simpleminded romanticist.