The Instigator
WINNER
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Ban Gambling

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,652 times Debate No: 6401
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

WINNER

Pro

Gambling yields no benefits whatsoever to our economy, has numerous amounts of detrimental effects, and anti-gambling is already becoming effective nationwide, thus I hold an affirmative stance on this idea. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many grief's as stated in the Bible. Gambling is opposed by some religiously, politically with the numerous amounts of anti-gambling laws, as well as economically.

The opposing side may argue that gambling is a way to earn money and support our economy. In contrast to that, John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy states that gambling is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy, not the moneymaking boost touted by supporters. Cash merely changes hands from betters to casino owners. It creates no products or anything else of value. It actually diverts money away from local businesses. If the estimated $100 billion now spent annually on gambling went into these local businesses, economic models show it would generate more than $300 billion for the nation's slumping economy and create jobs and services according to the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling.

In addition, of the cost of advertising, management, and promotion of gambling, 40 cents of each dollar actually goes to the state according to the American Finance Association. This is not at all a substantial amount of money to our economy. The government should promote public virtue not seduce its citizens to gamble in state-sponsored vice.

This brings me into my second contention, how gambling could have detrimental effects upon our American citizens. According to the Addiction Awareness Institution, the average rate of divorce for problem gamblers is nearly double that of non-gamblers, sixty-five percent of gamblers commit crimes to support their gambling habit, and the suicide rate for gamblers is twenty times that of non-gamblers. Do you want to see your parents, friends, family etc steal, have their lives ruined or even take their own life just because of this unforgiving habit?

Many other states already know the answer to this question and thus, this brings me to my final contention, that there is a viable amount of legal presence supporting anti-gambling nationwide. Over half of the nation's states treat gambling as a felony according to the website for U.S gambling laws. Should we not take after them seeing that this is concrete proof that gambling is a crime and should be punished for? An abundant amount of laws promoting anti-gambling have also already passed such as the ban on gambling on ships in 1949, the Wire Act of 1961, in 1970, the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses, and in 1992 the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. Stripped of all its euphemisms, gambling is a practice which continues to destroy lives and reap havoc upon families in a country which once strongly denounced gambling for the vice that it is. The question is do you want fun and games, addicted gamblers, crime, and suicide, or do you want economic development and international financial stability? Thus, because gambling in no way supports our economy, proves excessively dangerous, and is strongly supported legally, I urge all representatives to vote for this resolution.
Danielle

Con

"So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?" -- Ayn Rand

Gambling encompasses various types of betting , including but not limited to: lottery tickets, raffles, card games like Black Jack, and other casino activities. In the opening round, PRO has failed to address how all types of gambling are immoral or unnecessary. Instead he promotes the idea of the government inhibiting the rights of Americans to spend their money how they please for the good of the State. I will be arguing how this logic is flawed and oppressive. I will also describe how various forms of gambling (which PRO has conveniently ignored) are not all that bad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: The Cash Flow

Yes, $100B is swapped from gamblers to casino owners. But what PRO fails to mention are the costs to run that casino, and the jobs created in the process. Further, he ignores entirely that gambling provides a great deal of satisfaction to participants. Since when should we not be able to spend our money on what we legally enjoy? PRO says, "It creates no products or anything else of value. It actually diverts money away from local businesses." This is wrong. Entertainment = Value, and consider the amount of casinos intertwined with hotels and other restaurants, shops, etc. The casino actually draws people to spend more money.

Re: The govt. should promote public virtue, not seduce its citizens to gamble in state-sponsored vice.

There's a lot of things the government should and shouldn't do, but let's not go there. The government, like every other organization, is a business. Because banning gambling is a huge infringement upon people's rights, the govt. devised a way to make money: to share in the profit by allowing gambling to remain legal (and the establishments to exist). The government does this with various businesses every single day via taxation.

Further, not every gambler becomes obsessed with this so-called vice, just as not everyone who enjoys McDonalds is obese. The government also profits through businesses like McDonalds existing -- is that wrong because SOME people over-do it? And what is over-doing it anyway, and who cares? The bottom line is that it is not the government's right or responsibility to worry about its people outside of the boundaries (and benefits) of citizenship. Fortunately, 'freedom' is a benefit of citizenship in this country. At least it should be.

Re: Problems for Gamblers

Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically addictive. It is not also especially common. You CANNOT infringe upon the rights of others because of SOME irresponsible individuals. Not only is it immoral, but it doesn't work well in practice either (note: Prohibition).

Re: Gambling in America

So some Americans once thought of gambling as a vice? Tell me, was it those same people who also saw African Americans as 3/5 of human beings? You get the idea. Opinions change. Our founding fathers chanted "No taxation without representation!" I think the support for legal gambling - which my opponent noted - speaks volumes about American sentiments regarding this past-time. To equate gambling with excessive crime and suicide is a fallacy; a mere attempt at drawing sympathy for the cause. And by the way, not everything has to support our economy or be safe in order for it to be legal (even though gambling DOES contribute to the economy, and is not physically dangerous). I'd like people to keep in mind that the government exists to protect US and not vice versa.

* My Own Contentions *

Gamblers know that The House always wins, and yet it is a risk they take under their own free will. People gamble for the excitement (thrill), fun, and for the social environment. For many, it's a symbol of luxury. Others just enjoy the games. Seeing someone "waste their money" by going to the movies is no different than seeing people gamble... except, of course, someone can gamble on a $1 lottery ticket instead of a $10 film. Keep in mind that PRO failed to discuss how the lottery in particular benefits the State a great deal, which is odd considering his concerns with our current economy. He doesn't mention charity raffles either, but I digress.

Casinos work in or with the hotel, tourism and entertainment industries, and provide direct value to such. A current resident of NJ (Go Rutgers!), I have seen first-hand how places like Atlantic City contribute greatly to the prosperity of the state. Further, it is Unconstitutional to limit the capitalistic supply and demand market based on SOME probability that people will "destroy themselves" ... Everything comes with a risk or a price. The government has already taken measures to regulate this practice. Attempting to legally ban it would have detrimental effects on the government and society.

I'll await my opponent's response before explaining further...
Debate Round No. 1
WINNER

Pro

Quote: But what PRO fails to mention are the costs to run that casino, and the jobs created in the process.

Website Source: http://jtr.sagepub.com...

Over every 78 million dollars spent on running a casino, our economy gets back 1 million. We are LOSING money doing this. Why continue when each and every day, we will be losing 77 MILLION dollars?

Quote: Further, he ignores entirely that gambling provides a great deal of satisfaction to participants.

So it has satisfaction. Is that a viable excuse to keep this detrimental practice around? Not at all. Beheading in England were very satisfying. It drew crowds of hundreds. Does this mean we should have kept it around? No.

Quote: The casino actually draws people to spend more money.

They way in which this is done, makes gambling addictive. People have a 75% chance of losing. Once all their money is gone, they turn to crime to support their habits. Enterainment no longer equals value with this statement. Entertainment (gambling to be specific)= Crime, addiction, suicide, divorce, etc.

Quote: Because banning gambling is a huge infringement upon people's rights, the govt. devised a way to make money: to share in the profit by allowing gambling to remain legal (and the establishments to exist). The government does this with various businesses every single day via taxation.

Banning gambling is in NO WAY an infringment upon peoples rights. If so, please state how which con FAILED TO DO. Yes, the government does tax businesses, but those businesses are not infringing upon people's rights. They don't cause all the detriments that come along with gambling.

Quote: The government also profits through businesses like McDonalds existing -- is that wrong because SOME people over-do it? And what is over-doing it anyway, and who cares?

No, it is not wrong because people over do-it. It is wrong because of the amount of people over-doing it and the effects it can have on you when you do. Even when you don't go too crazy, it still is bad for you.

Quote: Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically addictive. It is not also especially common.

If it is not common, why are nearly 1 MILLION people are ADDICTED to gambling. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Quote: You CANNOT infringe upon the rights of others because of SOME irresponsible individuals.

Why are drugs banned? Why are they illegal? Why is there a drinking age? Why is their a smoking age? BECAUSE OF SOME IRRESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

Quote: Keep in mind that PRO failed to discuss how the lottery in particular benefits the State a great deal, which is odd considering his concerns with our current economy

Like I stated before, of every 78 million dollars spent on running a casino, our economy gets back 1 million. Are you sure it's helping the State? Don't be so sure.

Quote: The government has already taken measures to regulate this practice. Attempting to legally ban it would have detrimental effects on the government and society.

There have been 9 laws trying to completely BAN gambling. We cannot regulate it, we must completely ABOLISH it. And does it not ALREADY have detrimental effects? The average rate of divorce for problem gamblers is nearly double that of non-gamblers, sixty-five percent of gamblers commit crimes to support their gambling habit, and the suicide rate for gamblers is twenty times that of non-gamblers. I'm sure there couldn't be anything worse than this.

In conclusion, gambling does nothing to our country but provide entertainment. Of that entertainment, there are risks and costs. Those risks and costs do not add up to the benefits of gambling. We were once a nation which strongly denounced gambling for the vice that it is. Gambling is a growing crisis and instead of suffering it's consequences, we need to do away with it all together.
Danielle

Con

1. Cost/Benefits of Gambling

What PRO fails to understand is that it is not the people's job to ensure that the government profits monetarily in ANY way. * The government is supposed to serve the people ; the people are not supposed to serve the government. * Moreover, his faulty link did not cite in any way the statistics that he has attempted to use. Instead, the link was about gambling in Iowa in particular (Iowa?!) and read, "Several factors, such as location, resort nature of the casino facility, monopolistic situations, and competitors from out-of-state need to be taken into consideration to understand the benefit–cost dynamics of casino gambling and the viability of future expansion." [1] That said, his cited source actually supports MY logic that casino gambling in some cases actually does happen to benefit the State and the economy a great deal.

Furthermore, the 77 million acquired by casino owners and other profiteers DOES get pumped right back into the economy, via property and income taxes; stock purchases; and luxury expenses. Again, PRO still failed to discuss the lottery as a prominent (and most popular) type of gambling. My home state of New York, for instance, requires ALL Lottery revenue to be used in support of education in New York State [2]. This is beneficial in that there is a mutual prize exchange: money to the winner, money for the people of NY.

2. Entertainment

Equating gambling - a personal hobby - with the ancient practice of beheading individuals is quite the stretch, even for PRO. Something like capital punishment has deep seeded issues rooted in morality, philosophy, psychology, religion, etc. and are controversial for how the act represents society and its beliefs. Gambling , which is done on all levels (from casinos to basements to picking up a scratch-off cards at the local convenience store) is a safe activity. How people go about sustaining that hobby (i.e. crime, as my opponent suggests) really has nothing to do with the actual act of gambling itself.

If my little brother steals money from me because he's obsessed with buying a new video game, does that make the entity of video games bad, or the act of STEALING bad? Clearly stealing is deemed inherently immoral in our society, whereas video games and gambling are not. Moreover, my opponent's argument that gambling = crime, addiction, suicide and divorce is a grossly exaggerated over-statement. PRO says that the ways in which gambling attracts players is addictive. I'd say that it's good advertising. Nobody forces people to do anything ; people have to take responsibility for their own actions and stop looking for a scapegoat, or expect the government to solve all of their problems... ESPECIALLY if it has to do with infringing upon the rights of others!

3. Rights

PRO boldly asserts that banning gambling would in no way infringe upon people's rights. This is absurd! Through implemented restrictions, legal gambling requires an adult individual be 'of age' in order to participate. The act affects only those who willingly choose to play games that involve the transaction of money. Their actions do not directly extend to violate the rights of others, and therefore by hindering an individual's desire to engage in such (often frivolous) activity is a clear violation of the government's role and responsibility in society.

4. Effects

PRO states that the difference between solving problems of obesity vs. gambling are dependent on the amount of people who suffer at their hands. Well according to his own statistics, under 1 million (OUT OF 300+ MILLION) Americans are addicted to gambling. Meanwhile, over 63% of Americans are over-weight and over 30% are obese! This would indicate that obesity is in fact more dangerous than gambling (consider the health problems, at least) and yet PRO has not advocated that the government step in and try to close down fast food or unhealthy restaurants. [3]

5. Laws/Regulation/Conclusion

Laws already exist in an attempt to regulate gambling and ensure that society at large is not being taken advantage of. That said, a personal element of responsibility in decision making exists. By making gambling illegal, not only would the government be severely over-stepping its bounds, but it would also result in a massive uproar of supporters and those who will establish illegal gambling facilities/rings... which would increase the crime rate, and again, cause detrimental effects to the economy, the Congress, the justice system and society at large.

Sources:
[1] Pro's Source from R1
[2] http://www.nylottery.org...?
[3] http://www.americansportsdata.com...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
WINNERDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
WINNERDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
WINNERDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07