The Instigator
martianshark
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points

Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,984 times Debate No: 23000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

martianshark

Pro

Gambling:
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Based on the definition above, I propose that certain arcade games are so close to gambling that children shouldn't be allowed to use them. For this reason, I propose that some (but not all) arcade games should be banned by law.

Just one example of a game that should be banned is a game called Stacker.(1) Stacker is a big glass box with huge prizes (such as X-Boxes and iPods) hanging inside of it. The player, lured by the big prizes, tries to win the game by pressing the button at the right moment, stacking blocks on top of each other on a screen. If he makes it to the top of the screen, he wins that X-Box. The player plays again and again because he was so close last time, and he thinks that it's a game of skill. Unfortunately, he isn't aware that Stacker is actually a game of luck. The owner of the game can have it set so that only 1 in 800 players will win.(1) This isn't on average; the game will actually stop players from winning (unless they're the lucky 800th player) by skipping the top block.(4) Stacker is literally rigged.(2)(3) Because of its skill-based appearance, kids waste their money on it thinking they'll win this time. This is wrong, and is actually the same reason adults waste money gambling.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(game)

(2) http://answers.yahoo.com...

(3) http://www.extremeskins.com...

(4) http://www.youtuberepeat.com...

I also think that most ticket redemption games should be banned. Although I don't have a problem with games that are actually based on skill (such as skiball), most ticket redemption games are almost exactly like gambling, with the difference that players are trading money for a chance to win tickets to buy a prize (instead of winning more money). Many ticket games are directly related to slot machines, and have features like spinning wheels and "jackpots." It's obvious that winning one of these games would be out of luck, with no little to no skill involved. Games like these have kids trying again and again to win that jackpot. Some arcade games even go as far as offering a chance to win more tokens. Normally this would be illegal, but since the players are using tokens instead of actual currency, the arcade can get away with it. Some of these games are already illegal in some places. http://www.kmbc.com...
ConservativePolitico

Con

Thank you for an interesting debate topic.

Arcade Games Are Not Gambling

Legal definition - A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Gambling does not include bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, such as the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life, health or accident insurance. [1]

The biggest part of this definition that arcade games do not meet is the fact that you have influence over the outcome of an arcade game. The stacker game, as much as you can say it is "rigged", is still under the control of the player to some degree. Since the outcome is under the influence of the player (no matter how small) then it is not gambling.

Also, gambling does not include business transactions. Stacker, claw games and ticket grabbing games are considered arcade games called merchandisers. [2] Since these machines are considered arcade games they do not meet the legal definition of gambling. Gambling excludes business transactions and putting your quarter into a game machine counts as a legitimate business transaction. When you put your quarter into a claw machine you are paying for the service of entertainment via a game. You have knowingly placed your money into a legitimate machine for the service of the game it provides. This consitutes a legitmate business transaction since you are giving your money for a service.

Therefore, based on the legal definition of gambling arcade games are not gambling and should not be banned.

Freedom

Children, who either have money of their own or under the supervision of their parents, should be able to spend their money in whichever way they wish as free Americans. Since arcade games are not gambling they should be permitted to stay and Americans should be able to choose to spend their money for entertainment if they so choose.


[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
martianshark

Pro

This is my first debate by the way. Just so you know.

Influence:
I was basing my arguments off my definition, but according to your own definition, some arcade games such as Stacker are still gambling. Although the player has the control to stack the blocks on top of each other and make it to the last row, it is impossible to stack the top row unless you're the 800th (or whatever the game was set to) player. The game skips over the last block even if you press it at the right time. Because of the speed that the blocks are moving, the player won't notice this. The player has no control over winning the prize, even if it appears so. What makes this even more wrong is that the average player doesn't know this.

Also, at casinos, you often do have some influence on the outcome. It's possible to play well at games like blackjack. It takes some luck combined with skill.

Business transactions:
The fact that arcade games count as a business transactions is basically what I'm fighting against. If it wasn't for the current rules, a slot machine could just as easily be considered a merchandiser for the entertainment of putting money in, watching what happens, and possibly winning more money. Many adults do find gambling to be fun, so it can be considered buying entertainment.

Freedom:
First of all, a child's money is technically in control of their parents, but this isn't very relevant. Second, if you base your argument off this, you could just as easily say that since kids should be free to use their money how they want, gambling under 21 should be legalized so that kids can use their money in that way.

I notice that most of your arguments are based off the law. Since the point is that I want the law changed, your arguments aren't that solid.
ConservativePolitico

Con

The Resolution

I want to start with my opponents last line:

I notice that most of your arguments are based off the law. Since the point is that I want the law changed, your arguments aren't that solid.

The Resolution: Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned

In the resolution you say that arcade games ARE gambling, I have proven that they are not. Therefore I was merely following the resolution. The resolution says nothing about changing the law but is based upon the assumption that arcade games are gambling. Since they are not gambling the second part of the resolution is therefore void because the SHOULD in the resolution is hingent upon the first part that arcade games ARE gambling when they are not.

Therefore, my arguments are actually very solid since they completely dismantel the resolution.

Influence

Stacker is still not considered gambling because you have control over the game itself. If you have control over the outcome in anyway at all then the game is not gambling. Also, your claim about Stacker is based on Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers, a forum post and a Youtube video. There are no official sources to back up what you're saying save for a few internet talking heads that have no credibility at all. I can go on and say Stacker is rigged because I didn't win but that doesn't make it true. Until we can see real evidence that the player has NO control over the game then it is not gambling.

Business Transactions

You concede the point by agreeing that arcade games are business transactions. This is a fact and therefore cannot be debated in premise but in opinion only. According to the resolution I must only prove that arcade games are not gambling. Since arcade games bust both of the guidelines that constitute a machine as gambling they are not gambling machines. Some slot machines could indeed be counted as legal merchandiser machines if they distributed tokens or tickets instead of real money. This falls within the law.

Freedom

My point here is that you shouldn't limit the distribution of games for children based on the fact that you don't like the idea. That is not your call to make but in the judgement of those playing.

The resolution you are trying to debate is: Arcade Games Should be Banned and the Gambling Laws Should be Changed

This is not the resolution!

To fulfil the resolution you must prove that arcade games are gambling and then convince us as why they should be banned after you have proven the first point.

You still haven't established the first point of the resolution.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
martianshark

Pro

The Resolution:
That sounds more like a loophole than a legitimate argument. I think you know well that what I meant was something more like this:

If children can't gamble at casinos, certain arcade games should also count as gambling under the law, and therefore should be banned.

The resolution was intended to be a summary. My actual argument was described in Round 1.

Influence:
You still don't have any control over the outcome. Once again, unless you're the 800th player, your chances of winning are absolutely zero.

You can't say Wikipedia is an unreliable source when you used it yourself. And the Youtube video clearly shows the block skipping over. But since you don't like my sources, I'll talk about another game: All Abourd. I'll link to a video of it. All I'm doing is proving its existance here, so don't claim it's an unreliable source or something: http://www.youtuberepeat.com...

Now, this game clearly resembles a slot machine if you remove its innocent train appearence. Although you have slight influence over the outcome (or perhaps not depending on if it's rigged), you also have some control with the casino version of this game.

Speaking of the above, you still haven't addressed the fact that you have influence over the outcome in real gambling.

Another game that should be removed is the Cyclone. If you've ever been in an arcade, you've probably seen it. It's that round table with a clear dome on it, with lights spinning inside. The goal is to hit the button at the right moment so that the light stops on the jackpot light, causing you to win a boatload of tickets. This article from World News claims it's rigged. Call it an unreliable source if you want, but rigged or not, I believe it should be considered gambling. http://wn.com...

Business Transactions:
My point is that it doesn't make sense for certain arcade games to count as business transactions, while gambling doesn't. They're the same thing according to the legal definition of gambling. Therefore, those arcade games should count as gambling.

Freedom:
Once again, if the government shouldn't tell kids what to do, they also shouldn't tell kids what to do concerning things like casinos and drugs. Gambling for kids isn't legal because someone didn't like the idea. The same could be done for some arcade games. I never said that all arcade games should be banned. I'm just saying that some arcade games go too far.

The fact that these games are tolerated allows arcades to take advantage of kids by addicting them (at least temporarily) to the games. The chance to win a ticket jackpot or a game consol makes them waste as much money as they have trying to win, which as I already said, is wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to do that to kids who don't know any better. It's basically a gambling addiction on a smaller scale, and I personally experienced it myself when I was a little kid. In a few cases, this could possibly lead to gambling addictions later in life.
ConservativePolitico

Con

My dear opponent, it is not up to me to try and deduce what it is you meant when you typed your resolution but instead decide to debate the resolution presented. Your argument may have been presented in round one but that argument was made to back up the resolution.

Influence:

Again, look at the definition of gambling I posted above.

"Although you have slight influence over the outcome"

You have slight influence over the outcome meaning it's not gambling. Casino games are different, in roulette, craps, poker etc your at the mercy of a spin of the wheel or a turn of a card and have ZERO influence on the final outcome. If you have some semblence of influence over the outcome, according to the definition, it's not gambling.

Now, you've been trying to say that arcade games resemble controllable slot machines and are using that as a basis to ban arcade games but lets look at it a different way. Perhaps slot machines have been unlawfully banned. The status of a slot machine or controllable casino game should not influence the status of an arcade game. Slot machines in many places are more legal than betting (on games). Perhaps slot machines are just a victim of an unfair interpreation of the law.

There are some differences between games and slot machines the biggest being slot machines give out money as prizes when merchandisers do not.

If Stacker is rigged that is not premise to ban arcade games of that nature but instead gives way to a lawsuit on false advertising against the company that made the game.

One dishonest game does not give grounds to ban all such games. They are not all rigged. If it was intentionally rigged and advertised as such then it would be gambling but it sells its self as a controllable game and therefore is not gambling (but rather a dishonest business practice).

According to the law, arcade games still can't be considered gambling.

Business

This refers to the practice of betting: on sports games, card games etc. Placing a bet, not within the economy and normal means, on an outcome you can't control. Casino games do count as business but are counted as gambling for other reasons. This does not affect my argument. Rather, arcade games count as normal business and cannot be considered gambling on that premise. This still stands.

You have not shown any evidence that these arcade games are addicting or affect kids negatively in anyway. You have merely uncovered a (widely known) scam in the mall games business but have given no grounds that show how these games should be banned. A lawsuit? Sure. Banned on the grounds of gambling? Certainly not.

In the end, we see that arcade games still do not count as gambling under the law and therefore cannot be banned on the grounds of gambling.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
This debate was so filled with vagueness and semantics i feel like i shouldn't vote. One thing i have to say, though, is that one time on a cruise, i spent 150+ dollars on a stacker machine. Guess what happened after i stopped? SOMEONE WON. I was so goddamn mad lol.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
1dustpelt: How many times do I have to say this? I said that some arcade games should be banned. Con's goal was not to prove that some arcade games aren't gambling. He had to prove that all arcade games aren't gambling.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
This was a hit-and-miss debate. Pro won the harm debate. His harms weren't very convincing, but he managed to counter Con's freedom defense by pointing to the absurd consequences of that argumentation.

Con misunderstands his own definition of gambling, focusing on a false distinction between business and gambling and missing the distinction between chance and skill. Pro goes along with this in R2 but then rallies in R3, noticing that the distinction doesn't make sense when it tries to separate various games of chance is business/gambling categories. So if the arcade game is a game of chance, it's gambling.

Con's influence argument was weak. Con argues in R2 that if the player has any influence over the outcome, how matter how slight, it isn't gambling. When Pro argues in R3 that commonly accepted games like poker allow the player some influence, Con attempts to say there's no skill in Poker. An invitation to Con from my PokerStars account is forthcoming. So both of Con's R3 arguments fail leaving Pro to win arguments.

It's too bad because Pro was unambiguously wrong. Pro's choice of arcade game to be banned was Stacker. Pro claimed to provide evidence that Sacker was a game of chance, not a game of skill; that it was rigged to return a win every 1 in 800 plays for every successful player. However, following the link to the forum which featured the game's operator manual, the opposite is true. It's a game of skill. The manual approximates the expected win percent, it doesn't fix payouts. Pro's source contradicts him. Source points to Con.
Posted by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
Sorry, the points I awarded doesn't reflect the efforts of the debate, I'm changing my vote to tie for reliable sources, since many of the sources on both sides were things like youtube videos, wikipedia pages, and dictionary entries.
Posted by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
After a close examination of the debate, I decided that while Con had a valid point about the vagueness of the resolution, I think it stands clear enough that the resolution intends to remove certain arcade games from public places that are accessible to children (since they're not going to introduce Stacker or AllAboard to casinos any time soon). I looked closely at each individual voting point: Pro made better use of sources (6 credible - forums don't count - vs. Con's 2) and Pro had slightly better spelling and grammar (thank you, MSWord spell check). It was more difficult to deliberate on conduct and arguments, although not having an opinion on the subject before, I now agree with Pro, and his arguments held pretty well. Con chose to keep pressing the legal definition of gambling on Pro even though most other definitions would include Cyclone, All Aboard, and Stacker as gambling. All in all, Con had the better conduct. Pro could have easily avoided the entire legal definition of gambling issue by sourcing a couple alternative definitions of gambling that encompass the games. That being said, I think Con focused too much on attacking the wording of the resolution which kinda clinched it. Good debate though on both sides.
Posted by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
I think this might be a close one
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
First con proved arcade games are not gambling, he proved this. Pro now needed to prove its gambling, he didn't. EVEN IF he did, he would have to prove gambling is bad. He proved neither, hence the winner is clear. Pro neither proved gambling was bad nor why arcade games are gambling, hence a con win.

Con never proved that arcade games are gambling. Even the legal definition proved they were. Also, once again, I said SOME arcade games are gambling.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
Travniki also noted that I said "certain." I never said all.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Obviously Travniki didn't read through the whole debate...

" If Stacker is rigged that is not premise to ban arcade games of that nature but instead gives way to a lawsuit on false advertising against the company that made the game. "
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
It was a good debate indeed.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
martiansharkConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved some arcade games are not gambling. Pro did not acknoledge the resolution or the definition, thus giving Con the win. Even if Pro did have the correct definition, he did not prove that some arcade games are bad, therefore Con wins.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
martiansharkConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.
Vote Placed by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
martiansharkConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
martiansharkConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: First con proved arcade games are not gambling, he proved this. Pro now needed to prove its gambling, he didn't. EVEN IF he did, he would have to prove gambling is bad. He proved neither, hence the winner is clear. Pro neither proved gambling was bad nor why arcade games are gambling, hence a con win.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
martiansharkConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave this to Pro for two reasons. Con argued the semantics to closely about what gambling really is, while pro convinced me in the first round that "Stackers" was indeed gambling. Con also seemed to miss that Pros res said "certain arcade games" and Con didn't focus on those certain games enough. At one point he was saying that pro needs to prove that ALL arcade games were gambling