Instigator / Pro
14
1740
rating
23
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#4698
THBT: On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea [for @Sir.Lancelot]
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
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Savant
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,600
Contender / Con
8
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
RESOLUTION:
On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea [for @Sir.Lancelot]
BURDEN OF PROOF:
BoP is shared. PRO argues that SG is not an accurate representation of capitalism in SK. CON argues that it is.
DEFINITIONS:
Accurate means “deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.”
Capitalism is “a system in which the voluntary exchange of goods and services is legal.”
South Korea is “an East Asian nation on the southern half of the Korean Peninsula.”
Squid Game is “a South Korean survival drama television series created by Hwang Dong-hyuk for Netflix.”
RULES:
1. All specifications presented in the description are binding to both participants.
2. Only Sir.Lancelot may accept.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Framework:
Abbreviations
SG = Squid Game
SK = South Korea
Burdens
Since the resolution is on balance, we’re looking at the capitalist system in SK as a whole, not just some small segment of it. Note that a drawing of a leg is not an accurate depiction of a dog, even though dogs have legs. Similarly, something that accurately represents some small aspect of capitalism in SK can completely fail to accurately represent the system as a whole.
To be an accurate representation, an allegory must meet each of the following criteria:
- It must show a similar degree of harm to the system it is portraying.
- It should not invent harms that do not exist in the system being portrayed.
- It should not overlook benefits of the system it is portraying.
1. Exaggerations Are Not Accurate Representations:
I’ll provide additional support here for the criteria listed in my framework.
Details vs. Message
Accurate representations do not need to be identical to the thing being portrayed in every way. Some details can be changed if they aren’t essential to the main point. But if evidence must be exaggerated to substantiate the primary message, then the allegory is no longer an accurate representation.
We must therefore distinguish between two kinds of discrepancies:
- Variation in secondary details.
- Exaggeration or minimization of harms or benefits in support of the primary message.
A representation can include (A) and still be accurate. If a cartoonist depicts a Republican politician as an elephant for symbolic effect or uses the Statue of Liberty to represent freedom, this would not inherently be a misrepresentation. However, if the point of an allegory is to show that the harms of some system outweigh the benefits, then exaggerating the amount of harm caused by said system makes the allegory itself an inaccurate representation. I will give some more specific examples of (B) below. These exaggerations make a representation inaccurate even if they are obvious or done for artistic purposes.
Caricatures
Exaggerated representations are not accurate representations. Something that is significantly exaggerated is by definition portrayed as significantly better or worse than it actually is. Dramatic exaggerations and caricatures do not “deviate only slightly” from the real thing—by design, caricatures aren’t accurate depictions; that’s why we laugh at them.
Examples
Recall the infamous event at the Oscars, where Will Smith slapped Chris Rock. Now suppose a cartoonist portrayed Will Smith as going around and slapping dozens of people at different events. Clearly, this is an inaccurate representation of what happened; while Will Smith did assault one person, the cartoonist is portraying a much greater degree of harm than what actually occurred for humorous effect. The “message” is that Will Smith is violent, and evidence for this claim is being exaggerated, even if obviously so.
Suppose a politician passes a number of unpopular fiscal policies. A cartoonist draws a comic depicting these events, but portrays the politician as kicking a puppy on their way home from work. While again used for humorous effect, this is not an accurate depiction of the politician and their actions; passing an unpopular fiscal policy and kicking a puppy are completely different. The “message” is that the politician is a bad person, and evidence for this claim is being exaggerated, even if obviously so.
Suppose a new tax policy is passed to pay for food stamps for the poor. This system works as intended, and many poor people benefit. Now suppose a cartoonist draws a comic in which the government takes people’s money and lights it on fire. This could be humorous, but it’s not an accurate depiction of the tax policy; money isn’t taken from citizens for no reason, it’s actually helping the poor. The “message” is that the tax money is being wasted, and evidence for this claim is being exaggerated, even if obviously so.
2. Exaggerated Degree of Harm:
Exaggerations as Representations
In certain cases, exaggerated scenarios can be a valid form of argument. If someone believes that any form of contract should be allowed, then SG works as a reductio ad absurdum against their position. However, it's possible to believe that some government restrictions are necessary, while also believing that many of them are excessive. Support for capitalism in SK is mainly driven by the belief that the benefits of this system outweigh the harms. By exaggerating the harms of capitalism, SG fails to adequately address this view and misrepresents the system that capitalists in SK are actually supporting. Reductio ad absurdum arguments work against extreme ideologies, not as accurate depictions of a particular system as it currently exists.
Risk of Death
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. Invented Harms:
Ambiguous and Unenforceable Contract
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. 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 do not count as market 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.
Labor Standards Act
SK’s labor standards act protects employees from abusive contracts. Even if this act is violated, there is recourse available to employees. An underground market like SG is a complete fiction within the context of capitalism (defined as legally allowed voluntary transactions in SK). The notion of vague contracts that result in the slaughtering of workers without an available legal recourse is an invented harm. Even if underground markets like SG did exist, they would not be comparable to the legal voluntary exchanges of goods and services that we are discussing.
4. Overlooked Benefits:
Creation of Value
In SG, the only benefit of the competitions is entertainment for a select few and prize money for 1 of 456 players. But under capitalism, SK is one of the most innovative countries in the world. SK is a powerhouse in manufacturing, automotive, and service industries.
Opportunities for Social Mobility
In SG, only one person can win, and opportunities for success have little to do with individual choice. Everyone is stuck playing the games—once players have entered, they can’t choose their own path. But 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. Cherry Picking:
Plane Analogy
Flying is the safest form of travel, although sometimes, terrorist incidents do occur. Consider Die Hard 2, in which many planes in the DC area are taken hostage. Clearly, on balance, this is not an accurate representation of air travel in the DC area (and it's not meant to be). Cherry picking certain extreme types of events fails to accurately represent systems as a whole.
A Seeming Contradiction
Consider movies that give a positive view of capitalism, where people work their way to the top to become billionaires. These things do happen, but they are rare. If cherry picking parts of capitalism does accurately represent SK's capitalist system, then it would mean that a movie with a completely opposite message to SG would also be an accurate representation of SK's capitalist system. The opposite of an accurate statement cannot also be accurate, so cherry picking is clearly not a tenable method of representing capitalism accurately.
Con
#2
Thank you, Savant.
I want to include a brief overview.
Constructives Overview
- The content of a delivery is irrelevant to the point a story makes.
Satires frequently use exaggeration to the systems they’re mocking. Satire is written from the victim’s POV. The exaggeration is used as an advertising move in order to bring in more audiences to thus increase awareness. Without humor, consumers are likely to shrug off the story without so much as a second thought because the plotline is too boring to follow or take seriously.
- Exaggerations are used to add to the realism of South Korean Capitalism, not change anything.
If you remove the exaggerations and hyperbolic humor, you are still left with a TV version of South Korean capitalism that is proportionally exact to the one in real life. The exaggerations neither take away nor change these facts as they are presented in the show, they are used only to add a level of humor to keep the audience engaged.
- The points raised by the show are synonymous with how citizens see life in South Korea.
The Game presents the competitions as consensual, but the participants were there out of necessity. It was painful for all of the contestants. In South Korea, the elderly and youth alike have nicknamed their country ‘Hell Choseon,’
"(South) Korea is a hellish, hopeless society" 1
- As a social commentary, Squid Game hits the nail on the head just how precisely brutal life is in South Korea.
Squid Game is not the only cinematic production to try and make this same message of SK, it is a common theme in movies and their pop culture. What is the common denominator?
Inequality.
- An illustration doesn’t need to be literal for the crucial details to be understood.
In Inglorious Bastards, we have a story about jews being oppressed by Nazi, Germany and fighting back to retake control. Now even if the anti-Nazi parties responsible for maiming the nazis known as The Bastards didn’t exist; and if Hans Landa wasn’t the one who actually killed Hitler 2 and Aldo The Apache was a made-up nickname, it doesn’t change the fact that the nazis did hunt and kill jews, and that for majority of WW2, living anywhere in France, Germany, or Portugal was terrifying.
- The values and rules of Squid Game are the same as capitalism in South Korea.
Although the rules and morality were artificial, they are structured precisely around the values and ethics of capitalism in SK society.
Message of Squid Game
As stated before, even if you take the inflated humor of Squid Game, here are the criticisms the show makes about SK Capitalism.:
- Competitions are brutal.
- The promising rewards make the risk seem well worth it, but there’s a catch. The reward is only attainable to a small few. In Squid Game, one.
- Failing to keep up means getting left behind.
- The Elite control the system.
- The glamorous brand of a prospering economy is a misrepresentation of the low-quality lives for citizens in South Korea.
- A high volume of people are dying from circumstances beyond their control.
Squid Game uses many ways to illustrate these points. The main character, Gi-Hun, used to have a stable career until he lost his job. This incident is based on the workers who lost their jobs during the Ssangyong Motors Strike (2009). Much like how The Squid Game had its own set of anonymous masked enforcers to kill and eliminate players who broke the rules.
There were brutal police and company-hired thugs who would beat and assault the protesters for staying true to their cause. 3
The competitions in Squid Game use the motto “Winner takes all,” but the problem is there can only be one winner. So this encourages a system of brutality and desperation because the rest will be left behind (eliminated, killed off). South Korean Capitalism encourages an unhealthy sense of hard work with its own culture.:
“This competitive nature undoubtedly helped drive Korea’s economic success — but at what cost?
“This society forces you to compete so much. Growth was competition. We competed and competed and the best one survived,” Mr Kim says.” 4
Many of the competitors in Squid Game were middle-aged or much older. The elderly are finding themselves in poverty in the system that completely forgets about them. Despite there being well-paying careers, it’s almost impossible to get hired if you’re jobless, so this contributes to a huge supply of homeless people. With one of the competitors in the Squid Game taking their own life so another person could survive, parents will take their own life to be less of a burden to their children. Suicide has become common in South Korea that the nation has the highest suicide rates in the world.:
“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.” 3
Government Corruption
- The game is controlled by the hands of a wealthy elite who were corrupt.
- South Korea has been through a dictatorship and is still under the control of a wealthy elite known as The Chaebol.
“The South Korean government has generously supported the chaebol since the early 1960s, nurturing internationally recognized brands such as Samsung and Hyundai. However, in recent years chaebol have come under fire amid a slowing South Korean economy and following a series of high-profile corruption scandals, including one that prompted mass protests and the ouster of Park Geun-hye.” 4
In Squid Game, The Host and The Frontman maintained their business by generating income from the money the white foreigners were paying them to watch the game and bet on certain players to survive. In real life, The Chaebol are able to keep their power by getting investments from foreign nations. This funding is responsible for boosting the economy to how it is now.
Death Count
The Squid Game is a high-stakes competitive environment that resulted in many deaths. Same is true for South Korea Capitalism. People who are laid off and cannot find work oftentimes end up taking their own lives.
But even with the suicide rate in mind, there are other causes. The conditions in South Korea were so bad, that the amount of stress was taking its toll on workers who lost their jobs by causing them all cancer.
“Korea has the highest suicide rate of any advanced industrial country, and rivals the U.S. for deaths and injuries on the job per capita.)
Five Ssangyong workers have committed suicide and five have died from cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack or brain hemorrhage. Doctors believe these were caused by severe stress in the aftermath of the strike and layoffs. Some of the suicides resulted from economic problems following the lay-offs. In Feb 2011, one worker on unpaid time-off died of a heart attack. Under the pressure of the layoffs, his wife had killed herself in April 2010. They had two children. The worker's bank balance was close to zero.” 5
Those who survived the Squid Game ended up traumatized and those who lived affected by the Ssangyong Motors Strike ended up with PTSD. Squid Game enforced brutality by the hands of its officers and this is what plenty of protesters experienced in South Korea as well.:
“Shortly thereafter, those workers occupied their plant and held it for 77 days, from May to August 2009, when they finally succumbed to a massive police and army assault.”
Rebuttals
1. HP Lovecraft invented the Cthulhu Mythos.:
A universe where ancient monsters and aliens preceding the existence of Earth dwell. The nature of the aliens isn’t understood and this is deliberate. While it’s clear that these same entities do not haunt our current universe, the point of his stories still clearly apply.:
His creatures represented our universe because they are all three characteristics.: Mysterious, uncaring, and powerful.
The accuracy of this comparison is not diluted just because a point is demonstrated a different way. If anything, Squid Game’s symbolization perfectly captures the terrifying essence of South Korea Capitalism from a storytelling perspective that no other show or movie lives up to.
This assumes that all causes of death are the same. When we combine the deaths in increments from workplace-related accidents, suicides, and deaths by stress-induced cancer. The war of 1951 claimed the lives of over 5 million people. History of Poverty
Number of deaths currently in South Korea are high and are steadily increasing.
“In 2021, the number of deaths in South Korea stood at around 318 thousand, up from about 305 thousand in the previous year. The number of deaths in South Korea has steadily increased in the last decades.” 5
2. Nobody can afford to quit their jobs. Finding a new job or transitioning careers is nearly impossible, so quitting has the risk of long-term unemployment because of the high competition rate. This is why so many citizens are forced to settle into careers they may not necessarily like, and not all jobs pay sufficiently enough.
This is the point Squid Game is making. These high-paying careers are inaccessible to a huge demographic of hard Korean workers, the reward is only attainable to a select few much like how only one person could obtain the reward of Squid Game.
3. Schindler’s List and The Boy In The Striped Pajamas are applicable plot-devices that accurately depict the historical nature of WW2 and The Holocaust. Squid Game is another example of an accurate plot story-telling device.
The creators of Die Hard 2 did not do their research, so the message fell flat as it was not substantiated by any practical knowledge. The creator of the Squid Game TV series, Hwang Dong-Hyuk lives in South Korea and has an education in journalism where he studied the economics of South Korea and became a pro-democracy activist. The show’s message is 100% factual and backed by empirical evidence & data. 6
Round 2
Pro
#3
Framework:
There’s been some pushback on this, so I’ll defend the framework as I have established it. Con agrees that not all fictional stories are accurate representations (such as Die Hard 2), so clearly there must be some standard for what makes something an accurate representation. The distinction Con draws is that SG was well-researched, while Die Hard 2 was not. But this is not a sufficient standard for accurate representations. We should be measuring the accuracy of SG by how well the final result describes capitalism, not by how knowledgeable the producers were. Both Die Hard 2 and SG have some elements of reality and some bits that are embellished.
1. Exaggerations Are Not Accurate Representations:
Details vs. Message
Recall the two kinds of discrepancies I listed before:
- Variation in secondary details.
- Exaggeration or minimization of harms or benefits in support of the primary message.
A story can include (1) and still be an accurate representation, but (2) makes a story an inaccurate representation. (I mistakenly referred to these before as A and B.) Recall that I am not saying secondary details cannot be altered for an accurate representation. Inglorious Basterds is still an accurate portrayal of nazi oppression—secondary details like Hitler’s death don’t change that point. But the story is not an accurate portrayal of Hitler’s death, since that bit is significantly changed.
“An illustration doesn’t need to be literal for the crucial details to be understood.”
This is true in some cases. But in SG, the crucial details themselves are being exaggerated. “Capitalism kills 96% of the people who participate” is a very different message from “Capitalism kills 0.00832% of the people who participate.” Recall that accuracy means “deviating only slightly.”
“Satires frequently use exaggeration to the systems they’re mocking.”
I agree with this. Satire commonly uses inaccurate representations of things for comedic effect. Exaggerated representations are known as caricatures. Caricatures are distorted representations, and something that is distorted is misrepresented by definition. Having artistic merit does not make something an accurate representation of something else. Increasing awareness and drawing in an audience does not mean that SG is an accurate representation of capitalism. Something can be significantly exaggerated (intentionally inaccurate) or an accurate representation of something—it cannot be both. A satirical libertarian comic of the president throwing money into a dumpster might tell me how libertarians feel about taxation, but it doesn’t tell me much about how the tax plan actually works.
“Exaggerations are used to add to the realism of South Korean Capitalism”
Exaggerating something does not make it more realistic (or accurate). Exaggeration might add to emotional impact or the gravity of the message, but it does so at the expense of realism.
“If you remove the exaggerations and hyperbolic humor, you are still left with a TV version of South Korean capitalism that is proportionally exact to the one in real life.”
The exaggerations and hyperbolic humor are what make the show inaccurate. Of course, if we removed those things, then the show would be accurate. But the show does include exaggerations, so it’s not accurate.
“The exaggerations neither take away nor change these facts as they are presented in the show, they are used only to add a level of humor to keep the audience engaged.”
I’m not sure that the brutal deaths on the show are meant to be humorous…but I digress. A photoshopped picture of the president is not an accurate representation of what he looks like. Even if the inaccuracy is intentional, the intent behind the photo does not change the fact that the photo itself is inaccurate. The difference between misinformation and satire is intent, and whether the inaccuracies are obvious. But being more or less obvious does not make an inaccuracy into something accurate.
“SG is willing to change the facts if it means getting audiences in the theater.”
Con never said this, but I’m exaggerating what he said for comedic effect. Am I misrepresenting him? If I am, then exaggerations are not accurate representations. If I’m not, then Con has essentially conceded.
“Schindler’s List and The Boy In The Striped Pajamas”
The latter has actually been criticized for being an inaccurate representation of the Holocaust. And Schindler’s List may alter a few secondary details, but it doesn’t need to exaggerate to portray the harms of the Holocaust. Schindler’s List actually supports my point that movies and TV shows don’t need to invent harms or dramatically exaggerate evidence to have a socially relevant message.
2. Exaggerated Degree of Harm:
“The points raised by the show are synonymous with how citizens see life in South Korea.”
Some citizens, sure. But 78% of South Koreans support a free market economy. Even if they didn’t, how people see capitalism is not necessarily an accurate representation of how the system actually operates. Con agrees that the harms of capitalism are greatly exaggerated in the show.
“As a social commentary, Squid Game hits the nail on the head just how precisely brutal life is in South Korea.”
It would be more accurate to say that SG represents a greatly exaggerated strawman of capitalism that a number of people buy into. Numbers matter here, not rhetoric. I can agree that some of the problems that show up in SG sometimes show up in SK’s capitalist system. When Con lists off similarities, I can concede a lot of them. But when we’re trying to determine how well SG represents capitalism in SK as a whole, a few superficial similarities aren’t very helpful. To what extent does inequality harm people? SG gives us an exaggerated and inaccurate answer.
“Death Count”
SK’s suicide rate is high relative to the world, but this only equates to 0.02% of the population. And while capitalism likely has something to do with some of these deaths, suicide occurs due to a number of causes and also happens in socialist countries. Con gives a few examples of people dying under extreme circumstances, but extreme examples do not provide an accurate representation of SK’s economic system as a whole.
Arguments 3-4:
Extend. Con doesn’t contest these specifically, but I think a lot of what we’ve discussed already applies here.
Con
#4
Remember, voters. This is “on-balance.” Pro needs to establish why the exaggerations sacrifice the authenticity of the symbolization.
Pro’s framework is a poor indicator of determining whether it is a valid comparison or not because it nit-picks all the irrelevant details and uses that to conclude the narrative that the gap between Squid Game and SK Capitalism is too wide to be comparable.
I propose a bulletproof way of determining whether it is an accurate comparison or not and that is by figuring out if the details of the show’s message are present in SK Capitalism. For Pro to succeed, he must demonstrate that these points are not supported by evidence.
List
- Competitions are brutal.
- The promising rewards make the risk seem well worth it, but there’s a catch. The reward is only attainable to a small few. In Squid Game, one.
- Failing to keep up means getting left behind.
- The Elite control the system.
- The glamorous brand of a prospering economy is a misrepresentation of the low-quality lives for citizens in South Korea.
- A high volume of people are dying from circumstances beyond their control.
Extending these factors, as well as my sources from earlier that verify that they are all a part of SK, I have successfully proven that it is a valid comparison.
Since Pro concedes that SK’s own citizens believe the show’s message is accurate, then this adds credibility to my case.
““The points raised by the show are synonymous with how citizens see life in South Korea.”Some citizens, sure.”
He tries to contest this on the basis that 80% of South Korea support capitalism. This comes as no surprise, as SK operates under an old-school mentality that “hard work leads to success,” so many victims of poverty are more likely to blame themselves for their circumstances, rather than the politics that led to their situation.
South Korea Capitalistic Values
Fairness was the main value of South Korea Capitalism, but the issue is that this caused inequality. Fairness refers to the same opportunity for success presented to everyone without discrimination. Equality refers to the equal abilities everyone possesses.
While everyone had the same opportunity, these opportunities didn’t take into mind that some people have advantages that others don’t, like their background, status, or inheritance that could make them more prone to success. This was also a factor in the Squid Game. Because the Front Man in Squid Game claimed the system operated on fairness, but some of the players were superior to other players because of their strength or intelligence.
“A society that mobilizes disparity and inequality to compel lives of brutal competition is neither just, happy, nor efficient. We need must focus our attention not on unfairness but on inequality itself and encourage renewed civic interest in the topic,” Park writes. 1
Squid Game's love for fairness was so profound that The Front Man executed one of the enforcers for violating the integrity of fairness.
Rebuttals
““SG is willing to change the facts if it means getting audiences in the theater.”Con never said this, but I’m exaggerating what he said for comedic effect. Am I misrepresenting him? If I am, then exaggerations are not accurate representations. If I’m not, then Con has essentially conceded.”
Voters will recall in Round 1 that I pointed out that exaggerations were used to add to, not change anything. The main themes underlying the show’s message remained, even if the content of the delivery was interpreted differently.
Pro is refuting an argument I never made.
““If you remove the exaggerations and hyperbolic humor, you are still left with a TV version of South Korean capitalism that is proportionally exact to the one in real life.”The exaggerations and hyperbolic humor are what make the show inaccurate. Of course, if we removed those things, then the show would be accurate. But the show does include exaggerations, so it’s not accurate.”
This is actually an indirect concession.
The exaggerations are an amplifier, not something that tampers with the facts. So the exaggerations and hyperbolic humor co-exist without compromising the accuracy behind the message.
Pro himself admits that the show’s version of SK Capitalism is an accurate depiction. Since this is the case, then by definition, Squid Game does not fall under the category of a caricature since the message doesn’t distort the politics by any means.
““As a social commentary, Squid Game hits the nail on the head just how precisely brutal life is in South Korea.”It would be more accurate to say that SG represents a greatly exaggerated strawman of capitalism that a number of people buy into. Numbers matter here, not rhetoric. I can agree that some of the problems that show up in SG sometimes show up in SK’s capitalist system. When Con lists off similarities, I can concede a lot of them. But when we’re trying to determine how well SG represents capitalism in SK as a whole, a few superficial similarities aren’t very helpful. To what extent does inequality harm people? SG gives us an exaggerated and inaccurate answer.”
How is it exaggerated? Squid Game explains it perfectly.:
- South Korea has the highest recorded suicide rate in the OECD.
- Even before COVID-19, the unemployment rate for young people was nearly three times the national average.
- At the core of this despair are economic woes, worsened by the pandemic. South Koreans in their 20s and 30s have long felt limited by the gap between the haves and the have-nots. They call the country “Hell Joseon,” likening it to an infernal kingdom one can only escape through death or emigration.
Case in point, South Korean society is a dystopia. The youth and the elderly are unhappy living there. Extending the argument about the nation being called Hell Joseon.
“Opportunities for Social MobilityIn SG, only one person can win, and opportunities for success have little to do with individual choice. Everyone is stuck playing the games—once players have entered, they can’t choose their own path. But 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.”
These jobs are unattainable to most of the citizens. The expenses to afford a college education are usually too much and the fees to build up. Even those who graduate and get their degree find it impossible to get employment.
““The exaggerations neither take away nor change these facts as they are presented in the show, they are used only to add a level of humor to keep the audience engaged.”I’m not sure that the brutal deaths on the show are meant to be humorous…but I digress. A photoshopped picture of the president is not an accurate representation of what he looks like. Even if the inaccuracy is intentional, the intent behind the photo does not change the fact that the photo itself is inaccurate. The difference between misinformation and satire is intent, and whether the inaccuracies are obvious. But being more or less obvious does not make an inaccuracy into something accurate.”I don’t understand the Photoshop analogy because there’s different kinds. If people include a full body-shot of a photoshopped image of someone but put them in a different background, it is still an accurate representation of what the person looks like.Squid Game falls more in the category of a documentary reenactment of what politics are like in the nation.“1. Exaggerations Are Not Accurate Representations:Details vs. MessageRecall the two kinds of discrepancies I listed before:
- Variation in secondary details.
- Exaggeration or minimization of harms or benefits in support of the primary message.”
The show isn’t dealing in absolutes or focused on irrelevant details like calculating exact estimates of harms.
The point of the show is that the overall impact of these harms is significant enough to affect the society of SK as a whole, and my sources back this up.
Pro cannot substantiate that the show overestimates the harms of SK Capitalism because the show doesn’t provide a specific number, as it is irrelevant. If a film was released about Hitler being responsible for the deaths of a billion of Jews and a historian later proved that the actual number was 6 million, would the message about the Holocaust be less accurate or relevant?
“The distinction Con draws is that SG was well-researched, while Die Hard 2 was not. But this is not a sufficient standard for accurate representations.”
Since Pro does not contest my claim about his example, I’ll just retort that solid research adds credibility.
It isn’t a coincidence that so many of SK’s own citizens believe the show’s realism is accurate in a way they relate to.:
“Any characters in Netflix sensation “Squid Game” are loosely based on its South Korean director Hwang dong-hyuk life and he believes its theme of economic inequality has resonated with viewers around the world.”
Round 3
Pro
#5
Framework:
Note that “on balance” means “considering all the relevant facts.” Con argues that we should not nitpick irrelevant details, and I agree. I am arguing that SG exaggerates the main points of its message, making it an inaccurate representation of capitalism. Even if the show makes some authentic points, its portrayal of capitalism is exaggerated and therefore inaccurate.
I’ll reiterate my framework here for readers’ convenience:
Recall the two kinds of discrepancies I listed before:
- Variation in secondary details.
- Exaggeration or minimization of harms or benefits in support of the primary message.
A story can include (1) and still be an accurate representation, but (2) makes a story an inaccurate representation.
“I’ll just retort that solid research adds credibility”
We’re debating accuracy, not credibility. Sources that are usually credible can still give inaccurate information or misrepresent things.
“Any characters in Netflix sensation “Squid Game” are loosely based on its South Korean director Hwang dong-hyuk’s life”
Plenty of films “based on real events” are completely inaccurate representations of what actually happened. And even if SG was an accurate representation of the director’s life, that would not make it an accurate representation of capitalism in SK on balance.
Are Exaggerations Accurate Representations?
Con does not dispute that SG is a caricature of capitalism. Caricatures are distorted representations, and something that is distorted is misrepresented by definition. If SG has some similarities to capitalism, that alone does not make it an accurate representation. Extend the examples I gave in my opening regarding inaccurate caricatures: Will Smith, lighting money on fire, etc. These examples have not been refuted by Con.
A Seeming Contradiction
Recall that if cherry picking parts of capitalism does accurately represent SK's capitalist system, then it would mean that a movie with a completely opposite message to SG could also be an accurate representation of SK's capitalist system. The opposite of an accurate statement cannot also be accurate, so cherry picking is clearly not a tenable method of representing capitalism accurately. Con does not contest this directly.
“The exaggerations are an amplifier, not something that tampers with the facts.”
This is untrue. “The human body is over 50% water” is a fact. “The human body is over 98% water” is an inaccurate statement, because it exaggerates the former. A diagram indicating that the human body was 100% water would not be an accurate representation. An exaggeration involves portraying something as significantly better or worse than it actually is. If you try “exaggerating” on your taxes, you’ll be in for a rude awakening when the IRS finds out.
“The accuracy of this comparison is not diluted just because a point is demonstrated a different way.”
HP Lovecraft’s stories certainly aren’t an accurate portrayal of how the universe works, even if these stories have artistic merit. Specific comparisons can hold weight, but as a whole, HP Lovecraft’s horror novels are not accurate depictions of the universe. Similarly, SG’s universe is completely different from capitalism in SK in the amount of harm it causes.
“If a film was released about Hitler being responsible for the deaths of a billion of Jews”
That would be a huge discrepancy. In addition to an exaggerated death toll, it would imply that over 14% of the world population was Jewish when it’s actually less than one percent.
“would the message about the Holocaust be less accurate or relevant”
That would depend on what the main message was. If the point of the movie was how much harm Hitler caused, then the huge discrepancy makes the movie an inaccurate representation. If the statistic is mentioned offhand and the movie is focused on something completely different, then the movie wouldn’t be an inaccurate representation of that other thing.
Does SG Exaggerate its Main Points?
The amount of harm caused by capitalism for what’s portrayed as zero benefit is clearly the main point of SG. Evidence for this is greatly exaggerated.
“How is it exaggerated?”
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%. So even if there’s some inequality in capitalism, or some similarities between SG and capitalism, the message that “capitalism=harmful” is clearly being exaggerated.
“Case in point, South Korean society is a dystopia.”
That sounds like another exaggeration. How much of a dystopia? SK scores very highly on the freedom index. Even if capitalism in SK is inconvenient, portraying this system as one in which 96% of participants are brutally slaughtered is still an inaccurate representation. It’s a bit like saying that someone you don’t like is “as bad as Hitler”—the analogy falls flat.
“The show isn’t dealing in absolutes or focused on irrelevant details like calculating exact estimates of harms.”
The show is clearly exaggerating. One doesn’t need to be an expert in capitalism to know that it doesn’t kill 96% of the people involved. Even if this discrepancy was a complete accident, it would still be a discrepancy, and therefore inaccurate.
“the show doesn’t provide a specific number, as it is irrelevant”
Even without calculating specific numbers or percentages, the show gives the impression of capitalism being much more harmful than it actually is. A death rate of 96% vs less than one percent is a huge discrepancy.
Does SG Invent Harms That Are Not Present Under Capitalism in SK?
Ambiguous and Unenforceable Contract
Extend.
Does SG Significantly Overlook Benefits of Capitalism?
A main point of SG is that the dangers in the show are completely unnecessary and do not have any contribution toward the greater good. Of course, this is a misrepresentation of capitalism, in which deaths from workplace accidents are rare, and the system as a whole has considerable benefits.
Creation of Value
Extend.
“These jobs are unattainable to most of the citizens. The expenses to afford a college education are usually too much and the fees to build up.”
SK allows student loans with low interest rates. Studying at a four year university costs about ₩32,000,000 for four years, and a biomedical engineer could pay this back in their first year on the job (despite having slightly higher tuition costs). Even someone born poor in SK can become wealthy by pursuing a high-income career, so these rewards are available to anyone with ambition, not just a small few.
Conclusion:
Even if SG and SK’s capitalist system have some things in common, the purported unnecessary harm caused by them is the main point of the show, and evidence for this claim is greatly exaggerated. Hence, SG is an inaccurate representation of capitalism in SK.
Con
#6
Conclusion
Before I get into rebuttals, I wish to touch on the following.:
As I previously mentioned. To determine if Squid Game is an accurate depiction of SK Capitalism, we have to examine all the themes Squid Game focuses on specifically and determine if they have any merit.
Instead of applying a literal interpretation and making a comparison based on absolutes, trying to conclude whether the details are an exact match. Applying such a POV is observation through the lens of a narrow viewpoint because Pro is ignoring important details like the Bigger Picture and instead dismisses them on the basis of a few technicalities or irrelevancies.
Squid Game focuses on certain aspects of SK Capitalism and that is what my framework supports and what the scope of the debate revolves around. Pro does not pushback on this, so these arguments are all dropped.
My conclusion is that if the following characteristics highlighted by Squid Game are present in SK Capitalism, then Squid Game is an accurate representation of SK Capitalism.:
- Competitions are brutal.
- The promising rewards make the risk seem well worth it, but there’s a catch. The reward is only attainable to a small few. In Squid Game, one.
- Failing to keep up means getting left behind.
- The Elite control the system.
- The glamorous brand of a prospering economy is a misrepresentation of the low-quality lives for citizens in South Korea.
- A high volume of people are dying from circumstances beyond their control.
I have substantiated all of these and therefore proved the resolution true. Pro instead argued that the exaggerations made the comparison invalid. What Pro needed to argue was that none of the criticisms mentioned in the list are present in SK Capitalism. In-fact, Pro even concedes on this very important point.:
““If you remove the exaggerations and hyperbolic humor, you are still left with a TV version of South Korean capitalism that is proportionally exact to the one in real life.”The exaggerations and hyperbolic humor are what make the show inaccurate. Of course, if we removed those things, then the show would be accurate. But the show does include exaggerations, so it’s not accurate.”
Extend my point about the exaggerations being used to amplify comical effect and that they don’t distort or change the facts.
Rebuttals
“A Seeming ContradictionRecall that if cherry picking parts of capitalism does accurately represent SK's capitalist system, then it would mean that a movie with a completely opposite message to SG could also be an accurate representation of SK's capitalist system. The opposite of an accurate statement cannot also be accurate, so cherry picking is clearly not a tenable method of representing capitalism accurately. Con does not contest this directly.”
In what ways have I not demonstrated that Squid Game constitutes a valid comparison?
This is what I used to substantiate my point about SK not being a caricature. Extend these following arguments from earlier.:
- The high suicide rate.
- Brutal competition of SK Capitalism and how it contributes to poverty in the elderly. Only few can obtain the high-value rewards of sustainable careers while the competition ensures quitting a job means long-term unemployment and transitioning careers is all but impossible.
- Citizens of SK are the unhappiest and nicknamed their nation, “Hell Joseon.”
- Police & Thug brutality. (The police and hired thugs are precisely the same as The Enforcers from Squid Game.)
- The Chaebol & Government Corruption. (South Korean society and the economy is controlled by a rich elitist group that pulls all the strings and they are a shady corporation, with which my sources from earlier show they were involved in corruption scandals. Much like how The Squid Game was a shady operation controlled by a rich elitist group.)
- The government maintains their wealth and power from foreign investment exactly like the corporation did in Squid Game.
““The exaggerations are an amplifier, not something that tampers with the facts.”This is untrue. “The human body is over 50% water” is a fact. “The human body is over 98% water” is an inaccurate statement, because it exaggerates the former. A diagram indicating that the human body was 100% water would not be an accurate representation. An exaggeration involves portraying something as significantly better or worse than it actually is. If you try “exaggerating” on your taxes, you’ll be in for a rude awakening when the IRS finds out.”
You’re missing the point.
You’re using math to fight poetry. The show makes no claims for specific statistics and uses absurdity to deliver the message in an entertaining and dramatic way.
The message of the show is not in any way tainted by the quality of the delivery. Pro himself even conceded my point that citizens in South Korea agree Squid Game is an accurate representation of their capitalism.
“Does SG Invent Harms That Are Not Present Under Capitalism in SK?Ambiguous and Unenforceable ContractExtend.”
I retorted this.
This reflects how the government omits information by presenting the South Korean economy as prospering, but covering up how badly it really is for the life of the citizens. They even use their laws to restrict and censor people’s freedom.:
“Although South Korea has a relatively free press and lively civil society, the South Korean government continues to use draconian criminal defamation laws and sweeping intelligence and national security laws to restrict speech. Implementation of these laws creates a chilling effect that limits critical scrutiny of the government as well as corporations.” 1
I believe I have cemented my position and established my framework as the superior one. Pro, on the other hand, started with a very poor framework that did not meet the definition in the description.:
- Accurate means “deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.”
They also did not meet the “on-balance” part of the BOP, as they needed to pushback on the important traits I mentioned warranted a valid comparison, not just argue that the exaggerations made it inaccurate.
Since they conceded that the accurate version of SK Capitalism is present in Squid Game,:
“Of course, if we removed those things, then the show would be accurate. But the show does include exaggerations, so it’s not accurate.”
This technically means I win.
Extend all arguments and sources.
Vote Con.
Sources
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui7DPpL7cq8
- https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/01/13/for-the-dismissed-workers-of-the-2009-ssangyong-motors-strike-the-struggle-continues/
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-30/south-korea-hell-joseon-sampo-generation/11844506
- https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/02/south-koreas-inequality-paradox-long-life-good-health-and-poverty
- https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/south-koreas-chaebol-challenge
- https://borgenproject.org/history-of-poverty-in-south-korea/
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258330/south-korea-number-of-deaths/
- https://www.studyinternational.com/news/hwang-dong-hyuk-life/
- https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/1014540.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_South_Korea
- https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/05/south-korea-suicide-rates-mental-illness-squid-game/
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:
Fundamentally, the biggest question is this: when does a representation of capitalism in SK become accurate? There necessarily must be a point where a portrayal of that system becomes accurate - any point before that is necessarily inaccurate. That's a pretty straightforward scale and the most important thing for both debaters here to define.
So, how does each side do this?
Pro makes it rather clear that exaggerating elements of the primary message necessarily slips into inaccuracy, regardless of whatever else the story may do correctly in its portrayal. He points out several examples of exaggeration in the story, which Con largely concedes as exaggerations. So if Pro is correct in his framing of the debate, he wins.
Con also makes a pretty clear alternate framework that includes a checklist of items the show must include for SG to be an accurate portrayal, and this list is largely dropped by Pro. So if Con is correct in his framing of the debate, he wins.
While there are other reasons I considered, there's one central reason that makes the decision for me: I know what Pro's threshold is, whereas I'm uncertain where Con's resides. Both sides agree that SG has a primary message that relates to capitalism and the harms it causes in SK, so both sides agree regarding what issues could and could not be exaggerated under Pro's framework, even if there's disagreement regarding whether that framework is valid or what details can be exaggerated. The problem with Con's framework is that I don't know why this particular checklist of items is both necessary and sufficient to establish accuracy. Con keeps telling me that every example Pro mentions is unimportant, while these are important. I can agree that these themes are bigger picture, that they are more important as take-aways from the SG story, and that they are relevant to capitalism in SK. Assuming these are sufficient, how many can I take away before SG becomes inaccurate? Why doesn't the exaggeration Pro cites detract from their relevance? I agree that they make watching SG more engaging, but that doesn't support their accuracy. I think Con came up with a good set of reasons why certain elements of SG are accurate representations of capitalism in SK, but having individual accuracies in its messages and even being broadly relevant does not establish that the primary message of SG as a whole is accurate. Without a clear bar on which to weigh that accuracy more holistically beyond a few examples that largely just establish what falls solidly into either camp rather than what is close to the line between accurate and inaccurate, I have to go with the clearer metric, and that puts me in Pro's camp.
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:
Con does a good job, making a case with strong merit. There are several dimensions to which it aligns.
The biggest weakness in cons case was repeatedly calling a statement that if they removed the inaccurate parts it would then be accurate to be a concession.
The problem pro is able to exploit is that details and scales are not irrelevant when in comes to determining accuracy; even more so with it being on balance, rather than some subsection which has an overwhelmingly high death rate. It’s a fun caricature, which offers insight, but falls well short of being accurate.
I will add that exaggeration does not guarantee inaccuracy; but as seen with the human body and the 0.0something death rate being turned into 96%, it’s too far of a stretch.
I really enjoyed debating this topic the first time.
Really creative, so it encouraged me to try it out a second time.
You got a knack for this kinda thing.
Thanks for the discussion.
That's right, I almost forgot. Thanks for voting, and thanks to SL for an engaging debate.
Thanks for the votes, guys!
I was getting nervous because the days' count was ticking zero.
check discord real quick, homie
The closest thing to a North-Korean game show I can find is MrBeast, because he cage lots of people up for fun. Joycamps. The most stark contrast is that he gives out money for people that won and do not keep sentencing people who cannot hold on to longer sessions of hard labor.
Thanks for the ping, though there's still time. Got another debate that needs voting before I can get to this one.
Plz vote if you get the chance.
Only a few days left to vote!
Imagine a game show representing the non-capitalism of North Korea. Oh wait, it is just a prison.
Thx whiteflame!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources)
Although I appreciated Con's usage of direct quotes from the show, I found Pro's logical reasoning to be more compelling. Both Pro and Con acted civilly and communicated clearly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain either point allocation. For arguments, the voter has to compare specific points presented by both sides in the debate. It is not sufficient to state that one side used "logical reasoning" that the voter found "more compelling." For sources, the voter points to the "direct quotes from the show" given by Con, but doesn't address the sources presented by Pro nor how they compare.
**************************************************
If we do that, it might be good to have whiteflame or blamonkey as a judge as well, just so voters can see what a high-quality RFD looks like.
Would you be willing to do a test debate? (Slainte's idea. It's actually genius.)
Standard but with judges. The judges can be all the newbs who gained voting privileges recently, and it could be a way of helping them to vote on debates because the description would set expectations of what good voting standards are, and the experience may actually be helpful.
You should probably put more detailed reasoning for your vote in the comments, or it's likely to be removed by the mods. (Not to nitpick if it's your first vote here, but they do tend to be strict about that.)
Thanks homie!
i will get to it.
Would you guys like to judge?
Slainte, greyparrot, Athias, and TWS are reliable votes, however.
Slainte is a very neutral voter.
Greyparrot is a master of History, Economics, and Politics. (Also a neutral voter because they've voted against me before.)
Athias is also a master of this subject.
TWS has some kind of former education on foreign nations, I think? (Also a neutral voter because he judged against me in the past.)
If anyone does vote, please do so neutrally. I'm not sure what feuds are going on at the moment, but just evaluate arguments if you do choose to cast a vote.
Rational will grudge-vote against me because of some "pixel war."
All votes are appreciated!
Bump
I may vote on it once I've had time to look it over.
You may like voting on this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro (Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
neither convinced me but pro wrote better styling
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify awarding legibility. It is unclear what he means by "better styling" or how that is sufficient under the voting standards. Please refer to the voting policy for the site and ensure that the basis for awarding legibility meets the listed standards:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
**************************************************
This debate was just for fun.
Since your specialty/area of interest is politics/economics/policy debates, is this something you would enjoy reading and voting on?
I'm not sure I should vote on this. most of this debate on a cursory readthrough appeared to be centered on semantic arguments and less focused on meaty arguments. Whiteflame's much better at evaluating these types of debates.
All votes are appreciated!
lol!
Thank you!
This subject’s actually kinda fun.
😃
Ready when you are