The competitions are the main focus of the scope.
Gi-Hun being a competitor thus makes him part of the competition.
You cannot understand the competition without understanding.:
- The competitors.
- The host.
- The audience.
- The games.
The backstory of the competitors is just as relevant as every other detail because the people participating are a very specific demographic, they aren’t random. They all have something in common. We also need to know who the creators of the game are to get an idea of who is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Gi-Hun is important because he’s a stand-in for the average Korean citizen struggling in debt.
Furthermore, we must also get an idea of who the audience is. Basically, who is investing in these games and what inferences can we make based on who is thriving entertainment from people risking their lives?
Lastly and most importantly, we need to know what the games are. And what are the rules? The choice in the game itself is irrelevant, but the rules, the odds, and the stakes of the competition are what make each game so important.
Without understanding his backstory, situation, or that of the other competitors, how can we identify the similarities/differences between the Squid Game competitions and SK Capitalism? Their circumstances are relevant to argue my side because their circumstances are what led them to partake in The Games.
For this debate to be in good faith, nothing within the series, Squid Game, must be considered off-limits so long as I can use it to support my side. All the evidence and obscure details must be presented in its full demonstration. Pro may dismiss my arguments as irrelevant if they go off-topic, but any attempts to obscure my side by changing the framework must be considered with skepticism for several reasons.:
- There is only one truth. A half-truth is as good as a lie.
- The discussion isn’t as simple as clipping a few scenes to draw a comparison.
- Crucial information remains that is too subtle to be transparent to viewers on first glance.
Case in point, you have to consider the whole spectrum of information and follow where it leads. The resolution specifies the main subject is Squid Game competitions and SK Capitalism, but you can’t lump everything into those two categories and just deny everything else.
This is selectively choosing evidence which we call.:
Cherry-Picking - Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
1
The Economy
Although South Korea is a mixed economy, many of its citizens are still struggling from the harms of capitalism. The economy made the switch in 1961 when it started seeking out funding from foreign investors. This is how the Chaebol maintained their wealth and power, but this is also how the shady company in Squid Game became a thing.
By having white men and foreigners from other nations as their audience, they were able to obtain the necessary funding to keep these gladiatorial events going. The same can also be said for the Chaebol and SK’s government's desperation for foreign investment.
Notice how in Squid Game, all the competitors (with the exception of a few) are either middle-aged or old. I said before the competitors are just as relevant because they are a certain demographic and this is not a coincidence. SK’s poor citizens are also middle-aged or elderly. Despite the lifespan having extended, plenty of seniors aren’t living sustainably, but surviving in poverty.
Parents can’t reach out for money from their children because their children are also struggling financially. Which is the same theme in the version of South Korea’s living crisis in Squid Game.
Much like the Glass Tile Game where the competitors were killing themselves, SK’s suicide rate is increasingly high because they realize there is no actual way to live.
The Marbles Game also had one of the competitors intentionally kill themselves, so that the other could survive. How does this compare to SK’s economy?
“About a quarter of them live alone, and high levels of isolation and depression have led to a dramatic rise in elderly suicide, from 34 per 100,000 people in 2000 to 72 in 2010. Anecdotal evidence suggests many decide to take their own lives to avoid becoming a burden to their families.” 2
The Authority & Enforcement
“The Korean economy operates on the basis of chaebols, corporate conglomerates owned by a handful of wealthy and powerful families. Once commended for lifting the nation out of poverty, chaebols now act as the epitome of monopoly capitalism in South Korea, fraught with corruption and free from consequences.” 3
Guess who controls the games? The Elite.
The Game has its own anonymous enforcers dressed in masks that will make sure people who break the rules face the consequences. This is synonymous with South Korea’s habit of violent retaliation towards protesters or citizens demanding equality and rights. As shown in The Games, even its own enforcers may be killed off. And in real life, politicians are subject to punishment when they do not fall in line.:
“South Korea has a long and continuous history of anti-labor practices, often extreme and sometimes violent. Just last month, the president of the country’s largest labor union confederation, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), was arrested and imprisoned on the pretext of violating COVID-19 safety regulations at a labor rally in Seoul. In all likelihood, he was targeted for exhibiting a degree of labor militancy that disconcerted the government. He is the thirteenth president of the KCTU in a row to be jailed.”
“Though Squid Game nods to the more recent 2009 Ssangyong Motors strike, violent class struggle has run through Korean history for decades. In 1976, for example, women workers at the Dong-Il Textile Factory began a fight for a fair and democratic union election that lasted nearly two years, during which they faced immense police brutality and assaults from strikebreakers. The struggle culminated in an attack from Korean Central Intelligence Agency–backed anti-unionists who dumped human excrement on the women workers attempting to vote in the union election. Dong-Il exemplifies several themes of Korean labor history at once — anti-labor government policy, corporate warfare against workers, violence against women, and the yellow company unionism of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU). The last fifty years of Korean labor history since then have been no less brutal.”
Guess I just wanted to see what my limits are.
And it's good practice.
Wait... why Am I doing a practice debate on the same topic with you before this is done? Am I not giving RM easy arguments?
Gotcha, never really debated in any serious way first time seeing these terms
"This House…, THW, THBT: Motions conventionally start ‘This house…’. You may also see
common abbreviations such as THW - This house would, THBT - This house believes that, and
THR - This house regrets. The ‘house’ in the debate typically refers to the government of the
country in which the debate is taking place. For example, in the ESU Schools’ Mace the motion
THW ban gambling can be understood as a debate about whether or not the UK government
should ban gambling. Sometimes, other actors are specified; e.g. ‘This house, as the UN,
would...’. Motions starting This house believes that (THBT) are commonly understood to be
debates about the truth or falsity "
^ https://www.esu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Debating-Glossary.pdf
'On Balance' tends to mean that the instigator wants an easier burden of proof than proving the resolution absolutely beyond doubt.
What THBT and on balance mean
It's okay, I've done that too.
I said Pro but meant Con in my round 1
Is this a subject you’re interested in?