The Instigator
Koopin
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
61 Points

Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,859 times Debate No: 10529
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (12)

 

Koopin

Con

I do not believe that gambling casinos should be legalized in the USA.
I will let my opponent speak first since I am con.
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

I'd like to begin my round by pointing out that gambling is not inherently bad. Almost everything is a gamble: Driving to school or work is a gamble - You could lose your life on the way there. Eating food is a gamble - You could choke and die. Going sky diving is a gamble - No need to point out the obvious risks there. I could continue on with the examples, but I think the point is clear. Gambling is not inherently bad; it is a part of our everyday lives. Almost everything we do risks a negative result.

So, why would my opponent assert that gambling casinos are bad? As I've already pointed out, almost everything we do in life is a gamble. In some situations, people wish to gamble their own property (money) with others for fun or sport. Well if gambling is not inherently bad, and if casinos are just the places where people gamble their own property, then I fail to see why they should be prohibited. For that reason alone, I can end my round right here - especially since the instigator failed to post a first round argument.

I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to try and convince us that casinos should be illegal. He'd have to argue for the restriction of business and liberty, as well as against state financial incentives amongst other illogical and immoral arguments. I turn this debate over to Con, for now, and look forward to an interesting discussion. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Con

Thank you for Accepting,

First let me say that in no way did I say that gambling was bad. Gambling can lead to things that are bad, spending grocery money, violence, depression, ect…
It can be compared to alcohol, the drink itself is not bad, but it can make people do things that are bad.

The reason I think that gambling casinos should be illegal is because it does more harm for society than good.
Casinos specialize in making people addicted to their games. This makes many people spend money that they can not afford to spend.
Many people go into debt by playing the casinos, with debt comes depression, and sometimes it can even split a family.

Also many fights start at casinos, for example, my grandfather was shot walking out of a casino because someone thought he cheated. I am not using this as a sob story, just an example

Secondly, my opponent claims that almost everything we do is a gamble. That is true, but look at these fact:

Odds of choking to death: 1 in 97,000
Odds of dying in an air (or space) accident: 1 in 392,000
Odds of getting killed somehow while walking around outside: 1 in 49,000

Odds of losing at a slot machine 262,143 of 262,144.

If you noticed, there is a much higher risk of losing money than there is danger.

Lastly, Concerning business and liberty, one could also say that it is taking away their right to have a meth house.
That is all that needs to be said on that matter.

In your next argument, please explain all the benefits of the casinos

Sources:
(1). http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com...
(2). http://tech.yahoo.com...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.insidebayarea.com...
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for the response.

Con opens the round by agreeing that gambling in itself is not bad.

Next Con creates an analogy using alcohol. My opponent states that alcohol itself isn't bad, but it can make people do things that are bad. I'd have to disagree with that, as I don't think it's the alcohol itself that makes people do bad things, but rather people who willingly choose to drink more than they can handle. Just as the saying "Guns don't kill people - People kill people" is a valid one, so too can this statement ring true for alcohol. Alcohol doesn't make people do bad things -- People who choose to drink too much, and in turn whose bodies cannot handle as much liquor as they chose to ingest make people do bad things (not the alcohol itself). The alcohol did not force its way inside of the person.

Similarly, casinos (nor gambling) do not do anything to harm society. Con posits that casinos specialize in making people addicted to their games. However, Con has not offered one iota of proof to validate this statement as true. Casinos are not living beings, nor are they programmed mechanical beings. As such, the casinos themselves cannot make people do anything. The people who get addicted to casino gambling choose to go there on their own accord. As such, they themselves are responsible for whatever addictions they may incur. Simply because certain people may be deficient in the area of moderation is nowhere near a strong enough argument to prohibit casinos for those who do not suffer from such deficiencies. So, if people spend more money than they can afford as Con has implied, then that is the fault of their own weaknesses. People should be responsible for their own livelihoods.

Con's next point is that many fights start at casinos. Of course his own tragic example is not evidence or proof that this is true. I have been to many casinos in both Atlantic City and Las Vegas, as well as on several cruise ships, and never once did I experience or witness a fight. So, Con's example can simply be challenged or countered by my own. Similarly, just because he sources another example of a fight does not mean that fights are likely to break out at casinos, since obviously the media will only document when fights DO break out, and not when they don't. Furthermore, even if that were true (and fights were likely), it would not be the casinos themselves that start or cause fights but rather people who must have issues with violence or volatile tempers. I'd be willing to bet that far more fights break out in places like pubs and bars, in which case Con would have to advocate that anywhere which might or is likely to host a fight should be shut down. This, of course, would be a very difficult contention to uphold.

Next Con presents statistics regarding various odds. He posts that the odds of winning at a slot machine are 1 in 262,144. In fact, it is impossible to determine what the odds are of winning or losing at a slot machine, since various machines in various places are set up entirely differently and all have different odds [1]. Nevertheless, my opponent's argument here is that there is a greater risk of losing money at a slot machine than there is to find yourself in danger. This argument is irrelevant. My opponent has already agreed that gambling is not inherently bad. Because of this, using ones odds at winning or losing cannot determine the right or wrongness of something.

Regarding my point that to prohibit casinos would be infringing upon various individual liberties, Con points out that one could also say the government takes away people's rights to have a meth house. Now, because I believe in personal liberty - which includes the legalization of drugs - Con's argument is completely irrelevant to my position. Not all laws are moral, and as such, I disagree with the laws that try to infringe upon people's liberty to treat their bodies as they please. So, just as I disagree with prohibiting casinos, I disagree with criminalizing meth houses.

However, let's leave my opinion out of this and stick to the facts. If one were to use the harm principle as reason enough to prohibit something, then one can assert that meth is indeed the most harmful drug for an individual [2]. Meanwhile, Con cannot prove (because it's impossible) that casinos are inherently harmful. A casino is a building or large room used for meetings, entertainment, dancing, gambling, etc [3]. How can a building itself be physically or even non-physically harmful? Since Con has already agreed and I have proven why gambling itself is not inherently harmful, then here we can see that casinos aren't harmful either, and as such the meth and meth house analogy fails.

So let's move on to the benefits of casinos. My opponent claims that they do more harm to society than good. This, of course, is false. As has already been introduced, prohibiting gambling casinos infringes upon basic personal liberties for people to make their own choices and accept the consequences and risks associated with those choices. For the government to override these liberties is immoral. While other laws exist to protect society as a whole (such as driving laws to protect drivers on the road), when one incurs a gambling problem, the only person *directly* affected is that person themselves... which of course is not the case regarding something like a car accident.

Con is operating under the assumption that gambling and even losing money is harmful; however, that is not the reality. Over2/3 of the adult population have gambled in the last year (167 million people), and out of those people, less than 9% (15 million) display some kind gambling addiction [4]. So, what Con is proposing is to punish over 90% of the adult gambling population who are NOT hurt by gambling, simply because gambling hurts a small percentage. That hardly seems fair.

Moreover, gambling casinos benefit society as a whole - and not just gamblers - in other ways. Casinos exist to create new jobs, attract tourism (i.e. profitable for every business in the entire community), and and decrease the tax burden on residents of the community. Furthermore, taxes raised from gambling make a vital contribution worth billions of dollars to the government. Best of all, unlike other taxes such as the income tax, this gambling tax is only paid by those who choose to pay it (via gambling).

Gambling has now become democratic. It is no longer reserved for the aristocrats or the elite to enjoy in exclusive clubs. Common people often enjoy gambling as a legitimate hobby, sport, or even career. Casinos are the biggest tourist attractions in various places and draw in the greatest amount of revenue. If people can't legally gamble in the U.S., they'll simply go where they CAN gamble. Or, they'll resort to underground gambling which carries with it all of the risks and none of the benefits associated with legalized gambling. As such, it makes perfect sense to continue permitting the operation of gambling casinos.

Thank you, and back to Con.

[1] http://www.fastodds.com...
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://www.overcominggambling.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Con

Hey, good point, I give.
Danielle

Pro

Okay, thanks anyway for the debate :)
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

Change is inevitable... except from a vending machine.
Debate Round No. 4
Danielle

Pro

If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea, does that mean that one enjoys it?
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I guarantee the voters on this debate have not seen firsthand the destruction gambling causes to problem gamblers. Gambling is exactly that. GAMBLING. And to allow it or legalize it and openly encourage others to gamble is bad.

Las Vegas wasn't built on winners it was built on losers, mostly those who probably committed suicide from losing control trying to claw back the money they lost, not to mention the hidden Las Vegas that nobody sees where millionaires have now become homeless and sleep in the back streets of Vegas, The house always wins on the day, so if you think it's right for a handful of establishments to profit while many commit suicide and lose everything they own including support from their family's and their homes. then the vote is accurate, if not the vote is wrong.
Posted by theOverman 7 years ago
theOverman
I have sent you a challenge.
The matter is in your hands.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
3) I'm witty
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
1) I <3 casinos 2) I won 256 dollars at one yesterday :) surely more good than harm came to me
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Oh, my bad. Obviously I didn't read the entire debate. Buaaahahaha! Merry Solstice Festival! Buaaahahahaha!
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Mangani - All excellent points that I have addressed in my round.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Sure :)
Posted by theOverman 7 years ago
theOverman
theLwerd,

Might you be interested in a debate at some point? You seem to be the one to beat.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
I'm only posting this because Con already gave up.

"Odds of choking to death: 1 in 97,000
Odds of dying in an air (or space) accident: 1 in 392,000
Odds of getting killed somehow while walking around outside: 1 in 49,000

Odds of losing at a slot machine 262,143 of 262,144."

Sounds like Con is playing with numbers here. 262,143 out of 262,144 is negative odds. Positive odds are 1 in 262,144, and that just on slots. I don't know where he got those odds, but I found this as well- 1 in 32,768. Different slot machines have different odds.

There are also other games with better or worse odds. You also have to take into consideration the pay out. A 1 in 32,768 chance of winning at a quarter slot can help me lose $8,192 (assuming I don't hit any of the smaller jackpots) before I hit the high jackpot which can be anywhere from $5,000-$300,000 dollars. Compare that with your chances of getting killed walking around outside, I'll take my chances in the Casino!
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
I should have worded this different.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
KoopinDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Vaibanez 7 years ago
Vaibanez
KoopinDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
KoopinDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
KoopinDanielleTied
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 dpflames786 7 years ago
dpflames786
KoopinDanielleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by theOverman 7 years ago
theOverman
KoopinDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
KoopinDanielleTied
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 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 wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
KoopinDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
KoopinDanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
KoopinDanielleTied
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