Instigator / Pro
Points: 16

Should Gambling be Ilegal?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 10 votes the winner is ...
Dr.Franklin
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Games
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 65
Description
I like taking risks, but I don't like losing money.
Round 1
Published:
I waive, I guess.
Published:
Resolved:Gambling should be iIlegal
 
First, why has my opponent waived? I assume the BOP is shared, so why has he waived?My opponent has also provided no definitions, I will do that now.
 
Gambling-play games of chance for money; bet.
 
iIlegal- contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
 
Let's begin with my argument.
 
Contents of Arguments
 
  • Boosts the Economy
 
Premie 1-Boosts the Economy

According to the conversation-”Controlling for a variety of factors, the results showed that counties with casinos have higher employment (by around 8%) than those without; wages were slightly higher in casino counties.
 
There is also published evidence that casinos have a positive impact on state-level economic growth”{1}
 
That is all for now because my opponent has waived. I would like to see what he/she has to offer. The BOP is assumed to be shared and making a full argument would be unfair.
 
1.https://theconversation.com/economic-benefits-of-casinos-likely-to-outweigh-costs-33443


Round 2
Published:
I agree with your definitions. I apologize for waiving, and I answered your private message.

Point 1:

Gambling causes financial problems, and conflicts in the family, in 8 MILLION people's lives. 


Point 2:

Gambling is used as a recreational activity. But it causes anxiety buildup, and it mentally taxes your brain. Hardly a good recreation.

Point 3:

There is a suicide risk. After many losses, one experiences stress, and there's a saying, STRESS KILLS.

Point 4:

Problem gambling is a very serious problem. It's when you can't stop gambling and it becomes a problem (pretty self explanatory).

Point 5:

The average gambler has debts exceeding 80,000 usd
Published:
Resolved:Gambling should be illegal
 
Table of Contents
  • Introduction
  • What is my opponent's argument?
  • Rebuttals
  • Following Arguments
  • Conclusion
  • Sources
Introduction:

I would like to thank Risky for the reply and the solution in PM. The debate will continue as followed:

R2-Pro's Argument, Con's Rebuttal and following arguments
R3-Pro's Rebuttal and Defense, Con's Defense

This way we will have shared the BOP and can finally have a productive debate, next time I recommend pro to have the structure and terms in the debate description and to read the debate guide, I would like to say thx for coming on to this website and introduce you to DART here{LINK}

What is my opponent's argument?

My opponent has claimed Gambling should be a crime but failed to establish a punishment and resources for the supposed crime, Con asks these questions to establish and elaborate on Pro's stance

  1. What is the punishment for said crime?
  2. Why is this worthy of a crime?
  3. Do the punishments range?,i.e is the punishment different between a one dollar bet on a sports game or hundreds spent at a casino.
  4. Should casinos be banned?
  5. How would you go policing this crime?
  6. Does this apply only to U.S,U.K or worldwide?
Pro should look to answer these questions for the benefit of the debate and voters. Thank you.

Rebuttals


I agree with your definitions. I apologize for waiving, and I answered your private message.
Response above


Point 1:

Gambling causes financial problems, and conflicts in the family, in 8 MILLION people's lives. 
First, it is important to know the unreliableness of my opponents source here for two of his claims. His source here cited no studies apart from NCPG, a biased source meant to tackle down gambling and mentioned an "austrian study", well what the fuck is an "austrian study". It is riddled with ads and other useless information. Another problem is why does this support thesis, Something that can be defined as "bad" should be banned. For example, most people recognize that Burgers can be bad for your health, but does that automatically mean it should be banned?, Pro should look to answer this concern as well as the "What is my opponent's argument?"section. 

Second, My opponent says the issue affects 8 million lives, there are some problems with this. Such as where this is mentioned in the source includes no citation and says 

Six to eight million people
Six to eight million where eight million is the highest estimate, it is highly misleading to say the highest amount in a source, instead my opponent should have said six to eight or seven in the middle, Last proper English will demand that numbers under ten are written out.{1} I ask the voters to consider this while judging the S&G section.

Third, this claim is not cited. Therefore, no rebuttal needed and they are tens of millions of gamblers in the U.S alone{3}

Point 2:

Gambling is used as a recreational activity. But it causes anxiety buildup, and it mentally taxes your brain. Hardly a good recreation.


First,No citation

Second, Gambling is a good recreational activity for the majority of people. Problem ambling is when issues arise and a gambling addiction comes. Pathological gambling is a serious addiction to be treated-

Extreme cases of problem gambling may cross over into the realm of mental disorders. Pathological gambling was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM-III, but the criteria were significantly reworked based on large-scale studies and statistical methods for the DSM- IV. As defined by American Psychiatric Association, pathological gambling is an impulse control disorder that is a chronic and progressive mental illness.
Very little amount of gamblers become addicted for problems to arise.


the prevalence (i.e., extent of existing cases) of problem gambling is 2-3% and pathological gambling is 1% in the United States, By contrast, about 86% of Americans have gambled during their lives and 60% gamble in a given year.Interestingly, despite the widespread growth in gambling availability and the increase in lifetime gambling during that past 25 years, past year problem gambling has remained steady. Currently, there is little evidence on the incidence of problem gambling (i.e., new cases).{2}
studies have shown that for 4% to 6% of gamblers it can become a compulsion or addiction.{3}Meaning that 94% to 96% of serious gamblers become an addiction and open for these problems as I have explained. My opponent has been very misleading by saying all of gambling in general.

Point 3:

There is a suicide risk. After many losses, one experiences stress, and there's a saying, STRESS KILLS.
First, there is no citation in your source.

Second, Your source claims:

The most likely people who commit suicide are the ones prone to heavy alcohol, drugs or similar addiction.
We have already established that only four to six percent of serious gamblers become addicted.Another misleading argument.See below in the "Following Arguments" section for my solution to compulsive gambling without criminalizing the act.

Third, a "saying" or phrase doesn't mean anything without stats and evidence to back it up, which my opponent has failed to provide.

Point 4:

Problem gambling is a very serious problem. It's when you can't stop gambling and it becomes a problem (pretty self explanatory).
I agree and established for the third time, studies have shown that for 4% to 6% of gamblers it can become a compulsion or addiction.{3}Meaning that 94% to 96% of serious gamblers become an addiction and open for these problems as I have explained.Another Misleading Argument See below in the "Following Arguments" section for my solution to compulsive gambling without criminalizing the act.

Point 5:

The average gambler has debts exceeding 80,000 usd
First,no citation

Second,this is just wrong.They are 252 million Adults(18+) in the United States.{4}45% of these people gambled in the last four weeks, making them effectively gamblers{5}, if 45% of the adult population had gambling debts of averaged out at 80,000$, there would be widespread debt, but we don't see widespread debt on the scale to 80,000. Not even close. On average, the US household only owns 7,000 dollars of debt. Nowhere near the 80,000 my opponent is trying to claim.{6}

Third, what my opponent is arguing is a problem gambler, or an addicted gambler, but even this is misleading too! Instead my opponent should have said the more accurate numbers of 55,000 to 90,000. Instead of a high end number of 80,000.

It seems that my opponent doesn't understand the difference between an addicted gambler and a normal one.{7}

Following Arguments

My opponent will try to rebuttal these arguments

Economic Disaster>They are three reasons why banning gambling would be an economic disaster.One, is that the Gambling industry generates 76 billion USD in the U.S and 450 Billion USD worldwide, all of that money pumped into the economy would be lost. A disaster. Second is the loss of jobs. In the U.S alone, the gambling industry employs 730,000 thousand people.{8}Third, under our definition, the U.S lottery would be included. So say goodbye to 50-80 billion USD every year and dozens of companies who have to lay off thousands. As well as smaller businesses that sell lottery tickets would take a hit. There is a map of these lottery stores all over the country and to shut down the lottery here would be a massive economic hit.{9}{10}

It is a disorder,you can't criminalize a disorder> The American Psychiatric Association makes it clear that Gambling addiction is a disorder, You get diagnosed on 9 different reasons and treatment centers and help lines are widespread. They are plenty of help groups to as the association reports:

Support Groups and Self-Help
Support groups, such as Gamblers Anonymous, are very helpful for many people. Gamblers Anonymous is a 12-step program modeled on Alcoholics Anonymous that uses peer support to help others stop gambling. Some research has shown physical activity/exercise to be beneficial for those with gambling disorder. Gambling helplines and other assistance exist in many states. (State/local gambling hotlines.){11}
Criminalizing a mental issue is wrong, It is cruel and makes no progress. There is no way that an addicted gambler can make progress while being criminalized if it's a mental issue.{12} Which leads to my main point-Instead of cruelly criminalizing people with mental disorders, instead we should focus on treatment centers for these people and help them. The NCPG proposes many new treatment centers, helplines and restrictions on gambling instead of making it illegal. Far better than making millions of people criminals, which would be expensive and hard to maintain.{13}

Very hard to police>Basically, gambling can come in all forms. From betting on a sports game at a house or online gambling. This would very hard to police. Online gambling sites on the dark web would explode. Already the global market for online gambling reached around US$45.8 billion in 2017.{14} That would require more money and resources into policing the web for gambling. Anyone can gamble at any time, very hard to enforce

Conclusion

I would like to thank my opponent for cooperating on the confusion. I hope you can answer the questions above too. Pro should rebuttal my points and defend his from my rebuttals, I will look for defending my points. Thank you

Sources

Since, they are no rules against it, The sources will be posted in comments to save space. Post #15

Round 3
Published:
I don't have enough time now so I guess you can win.
Published:
My opponent has conceded. I extend argument and would like tot hank Risky for starting this debate. I hop we learned something
Added:
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Pro for concession. Balance to CON for concession
#18
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @Our_Boat_is_Right, @oromagi, @Pinkfreud08, @bmdrocks21
Concession,vote appropriately
Contender
#17
Added:
yes, I will be 6-7, I am one step closer to getting to 50% win ratio and 1550 elo.
Contender
#16
Added:
Since they are no rules against it, sources are here for R1
1.https://www.scribendi.com/advice/when_to_spell_out_numbers_in_writing.en.html
2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361844/
3.https://gambling.addictionblog.org/how-many-people-gamble/
4.https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/39,40,41/416,417
5.https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-participation-in-2017-behaviour-awareness-and-attitudes.pdf
6.https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/
7.https://www.debt.org/advice/gambling/
8.https://www.statista.com/topics/1368/gambling/
9.https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state-and-provincial-lotteries/
10.https://www.lotteryplaces.com/
11.https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/what-is-gambling-disorder
12.https://www.nami.org/Blogs/From-the-CEO/August-2014/Criminalization-of-Mental-Illness-It%E2%80%99s-a-Crime
13.https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/treatment-facilities/
14.https://www.gambling.net/statistics.php
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Risky112
Note that this debate is rated and counts for something, I will try my best
Contender
#14
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
He didn't know what DDO stood for and says this is his first debate site in his 'About Me'.
#13
Added:
--> @blamonkey, @Ramshutu, @Dr.Franklin
Or that Risky112 is new to online debating in general.
#12
Added:
--> @blamonkey, @Ramshutu, @Dr.Franklin
My guess is that Risky112 recently came over from DDO, since there, definitions and whatnot are provided in the 1st round, instead of in the descriptions. He probably didn't know what to do with first round.
#11
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thank you
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Many people waive to see what the other people want to argue, it doesn’t help your opponent. As there is no definition of what you should do; I think you’re fine doing what you’re doing.
#9
Added:
--> @blamonkey
thank you
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I wouldn't penalize it. If they don't respond with their case or rebuttals, then simply type "extend." That means you extend your impacts throughout the entirety of the debate. For normative resolutions that don't explicitly burden one side, the BOP is usually shared. In your case, your burden would be to prove that the harms of outlawing gambling outweigh the benefits, and your opponent's burden would be the converse. Specific debate styles have different rules on how the burden should be split and there is a bit of grey area sometimes as to who receives the bulk of the BOP.
In short, sharing the BOP would be the expected response here. There is ground for arguing the BOP, but splitting the burden is generally accepted in most debate styles, most of the time.
#7
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Don't worry about it. If he means to debate this seriously, then he'll provide BoP in second round.
#6
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
I PM him to see if we wanted to restart this debate under good terms without any confusion
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
ok though I kinda made a lazy argument, I will see how it shapes up, he hasn't been online all day
Contender
#4
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
In comments
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession. BOOO!!!
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
concession
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro conceded,