The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 16565
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Some people believe that Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling for children. A mother is actually suing them because of this. I'm looking forward to hearing Con's argument.


Why would Chuck.E.Cheese's support gambling?
Debate Round No. 1


Chuck E. Cheese encourages children to continue spending tokens until they get enough tickets to win a prize.
They want to keep spending more and more tokens on 'that one game that gives a lot of tickets' so that they can get more tickets to get better toys.
Not to mention the toys are extremely cheap and break easily, which would make them want a new one to replace it. They waste their parents money on overly priced cheap toys until they get a better toy. The toys that aren't as cheap cost thousands of tickets, making the children play the games over and over again until they get more tickets.
There are also games that are based on luck and you may not get any tickets at all from them. There are games that resemble gambling games at casinos.
Children continue to play the games because they don't realize they're gambling away their parents money on games that will get the four tickets if they're lucky, and they do it to get a toy that lasts about a week.
Especially when the prize is candy, that rots their teeth and is full of unhealthy preservatives.


Very interesting, I never would of thought of it like that.

But I don't think Chuck E. Cheese's supports gambling. It's simply fun and games and your'e over-thinking it if you consider it "gambling". And, if the parents think it DOES support gambling, simply don't bring your kids to Chuck E. Cheese's.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent's response is much more like a comment than a position in a debate. My opponent failed to rebut my points and did not provide any substantial points for the con position. I will be using this opportunity to rebut my opponent's statement.

Point #1: "But I don't think Chuck E. Cheese's supports gambling."

I never once said that Chuck E. Cheese supports gambling, I said "Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling."

Per Merriam-Webster and
Definition of "Encourage": to promote, advance, or foster.
Definition of "Support": to promote the interests or cause of.

As you can see there is a difference between the two.

Point #2: "It's simply fun and games and your'e over-thinking it if you consider it 'gambling'."

A lot of people who enjoy gambling activities would refer to them as "fun" and/or "games." As an example, just look at Thunder Valley Casino's website, where there are many references to "games" and quotes such as "watch as the fun factor goes through the roof."

Point #3: "And, if the parents think it DOES support gambling, simply don't bring your kids to Chuck E. Cheese's."

My opponent failed to stay on topic. The topic was "Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling." Not "parents shouldn't bring their children to Chuck E. Cheese."

It doesn't matter that parents bring their children there, it's the fact that they have games that are similar to slot machines and other casino games that really matters to the topic of this debate.


I am terribly sorry, I must forfit this debate as I am getting way too busy. Again, I am very sorry!
Debate Round No. 3


I accept my opponent's forfeiture.


zak61099 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by zak61099 5 years ago
Why is that?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
And pro wins
Posted by adhocisadirtyword 5 years ago
Nice Pro Argument. You listed out some pretty valid points. Probably could have given more specifics or cited sources though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.