The Instigator
Loserboi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Monsieur
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Monsieur
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2010 Category: Arts
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,205 times Debate No: 11145
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Loserboi

Pro

Gambling-the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning
illegal-prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules
Minor- not of legal age (in this case under the age of 21 or 18 if you live in Nevada)
Arcades-An arcade game is a coin-operated entertainment machine, typically installed in businesses such as restaurants, public houses, video arcades, and Family Entertainment Centers. Most arcade games are redemption games, merchandisers (such as Claw crane), video games or pinball machines.

If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades because the basically share the same concepts of action.

In a casino you trade in your money to get chips equal to the same value of money as you put in. These chips only have value in the casino where they are used to place bets.

In Arcades people of any age can trade in their money for tokens which can be used to spend on any game they want to play like redemption games. Games like the "coin pusher" where you put in a token and as it falls you hope it tips over more coins the more coins tipped over the more tickets are won. The seems an awful lot like a slot machine where you put in a quarter and you pull the lever the higher the score the more money you win.

Gambling is putting up stakes in hopes of winning
Well basically most games showed in a arcade shows this same concept so wouldn't this be encouraging kids to gamble without them knowing it?

http://www.google.com...
The_Monsieur

Con

I accept this debate and will argue against the proposition set forth by my opponent.

I accept the definitions supplied by my opponent in round one.

I shall note before continuing that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of my opponent, as he is the one challenging the status quo. My primary purpose in this debate is to refute the arguments put forth by pro.

First of all, I would like to point out the absurdity of my opponents proposal that ALL arcade games should be made illegal for minors, as many arcade games are completely unlike gambling and provide a legitimate entertainment service. That being said, there are a few types of arcade that could—by definition—be considered gambling, but they are not officially classified so because the service they provide comprises their purpose more so than gambling does. The primary purpose of arcade gaming is to supply a means of exchanging a service—entertainment—for money.

The consequences of gambling with arcade games are minuscule, and therefore not great enough to warrant regulation. It would be a waste of time and money to regulate such activity when the positive effects greatly outweigh the negative effects.

My opponent claims that gambling and arcade games "basically share the same concepts of action." Some arcade games have a similar way of operating to that of a gambling activity, and some could even be considered gambling by definition, but there are a couple important differences:

1) The success rate of arcade games is directly related to ability, as all variables are known and there is at least one method of control.

To varying degrees, arcade games rely on the ability of the player to navigate the control system implemented. This is quite unlike gambling, where all variables are not known or incomprehensible. This promotes fair play.

2) The amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, and the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with is not presented.

Arcade games require uniform deposits of money to operate, thus preventing abuse of money. Entertainment is a service that requires money, so for each uniform deposit, one is presented with a limited entertainment service. One is not presented with the possibility of leaving with more money than they came with (in most cases), because the primary purpose is entertainment.

That is all for now... Continue, Monsieur.
Debate Round No. 1
Loserboi

Pro

LOL I just got your name... that's pretty cool

"The primary purpose of arcade gaming is to supply means of exchanging a service- entertainment for money."
Well the same can be said for a casino. There are millions of people out there that would tell you that playing poker, or black jack is form of entertainment in which they pay money to play. Same can be said about a number of games available to minors at a arcade. I can play "initial D" (the racing game) at the arcade with my friend and if I win I'm allowed to stay for another round which in other words I just won another turn and a turn is equal to the same amount of money I put in to play the game so basically I gained some more value for winning. Same thing in poker I can play a tournament and if I won an "all-in" hand I am allowed to stay at the table, but my opponent is forced to leave. It's the same concept what kids learn to do at the arcade is no different from what adults do at the casinos.

"The amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, and the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with is not presented."
O I beg to differ from this there are many "redemption arcades" where you can walk out with prizes of higher value than the money you put in. From personal experience I once bought 1 dollar worth of tokens. I put 1 token inside the game "wheel of fortune" a game where a flashing light moves around a circle and you have to hit the light on the red light bulb to spin the wheel. Well I got the light to hit the red and I won the "jackpot" 1000 tickets. I find it hilarious that arcade games offer a "jackpot" to their games, sounds awfully familiar to many other games that adults play at the casino. 1 token was worth a quarter in value and I used the other 3 token to play the wheel of fortune game again feeling lucky and I lost. I used the 1000 tickets to get this 35mm compact camera, I checked online at it was only worth about 5 dollars but I still came out with a product with a higher value than my dollar.

"The success rate of arcade games is directly related to ability, as all variables are known and there is at least one method of control. To varying degrees, arcade games rely on the ability of the player to navigate the control system implemented. This is quite unlike gambling, where all variables are not known or incomprehensible. This promotes fair play."
Ladies and Gentleman I would like to introduce you to a game that can found in the arcades called the "Stacker" maybe you all heard of it. The game where it puts a like XBOX 360, a PSP, Nintendo DS, and a PS3 right in front of you in hopes that you can win it. Well those who have played it yeah it relies on your ability to navigate the control systems implemented, but is it fair? Many customers have voiced their complaints about this game using words like "rigged" and "cheated" to describe the integrity of this game. You could spend 50 dollars on this game and lose 50 times and walk out with nothing. Seems a lot like a slot machine at the casino to me. "The owner's manual states that at the game's highest difficulty level, the estimated ratio of wins to losses will be near 1 in 800" 1 in 800 does not sound like fair odds.
"The amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, and the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with is not presented."- again using the "Stacker" as an example if you win this game you can walk out with a 300 dollar in value on the product prizes but if you lose you walk out with less money than you came in with.
Lawsuit has been brought up against this game already:
http://www.allbusiness.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arcade games require uniform deposits of money to operate, thus preventing abuse of money. Entertainment is a service that requires money, so for each uniform deposit, one is presented with a limited entertainment service. One is not presented with the possibility of leaving with more money than they came with (in most cases), because the primary purpose is entertainment.
In most cases? so you admit there are cases where you can gain more money than you came in with? Any game you put in money to, to try and win a bigger gain is called gambling by the definition I presented.

Please continue Monsieur
The_Monsieur

Con

Thanks for the speedy reply.

Firstly, I would like to address the final comments of my opponents last round in order to clear up an important issue.

"In most cases? so you admit there are cases where you can gain more money than you came in with? Any game you put in money to, to try and win a bigger gain is called gambling by the definition I presented."

No, I admit that there MAY BE cases where you can gain more money than you came in with. And yes, I agree that there are some arcade games that could be labeled gambling by definition.

There are many different types of arcade games, and some do fit the definition of gambling, but to outlaw all arcade games because a minority can be considered gambling is not logical. Arcade games that fit the definition of gambling are still quite different than the gambling games found in casinos. Because arcade games come in so many different shapes and forms, it is hard to provide qualities which all arcade games share. The qualities that I provided in round are meant to be a summary of a majority of arcade games. There could be games that do not fit those qualities, but if there are, they are an extreme minority and it would be a waste of time and money to regulate such games when the effort that would be required to regulate them would greatly outweigh the negative consequences of not regulating them. And even if regulating them was decided as a better option, the government would not need to make all arcade games illegal to do so.
_____
To continue, I present the points I brought up in the first round, and the objections my opponent has made to them:

1) The success rate of arcade games is directly related to ability...

To this, my opponent said:

"Ladies and Gentleman I would like to introduce you to a game that can found in the arcades called the "Stacker" maybe you all heard of it...Well those who have played it yeah it relies on your ability to navigate the control systems implemented, but is it fair? Many customers have voiced their complaints about this game using words like "rigged" and "cheated" to describe the integrity of this game...."The owner's manual states that at the game's highest difficulty level, the estimated ratio of wins to losses will be near 1 in 800" 1 in 800 does not sound like fair odds."

My point still stands, as the game relies directly on ability. Let me refer to the same source for a couple short excerpts: "...the actual ratio may be lower or higher based somewhat on the skill of the players", and "every game can be a winning game".

Difficulty is irrelevant. The game is fair because the player is given direct control, and the player is given information of all the variables needed to control success every time, unlike casino gambling.
_____
2) The amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, and the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with is not presented.

"O I beg to differ from this there are many "redemption arcades" where you can walk out with prizes of higher value than the money you put in."

"Prizes of higher value" do not equate to money. I will explain the implications of this later. And to clarify a part of this point, when I say the amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, I also mean that you cannot wager more than the required price. If I pay for example $1.00, I will receive a certain amount of service (most likely one attempt at playing the specific game), and if I pay that fee twice I will get twice the amount of service opportunity. In other words, I get what I pay for, no less. This is unlike casino gambling, where a single game of gambling can vary greatly in price, hence, affirming the primary purpose of casino gambling as gambling, not entertainment (which is a by-product).

"... if I win I'm allowed to stay for another round which in other words I just won another turn and a turn is equal to the same amount of money I put in to play the game so basically I gained some more value for winning."

Yes, you gained value, but not money or material value, and the value you gained was due to your ability.

"...again using the "Stacker" as an example if you win this game you can walk out with a 300 dollar in value on the product prizes but if you lose you walk out with less money than you came in with."

This is different; I said the possibility of leaving with more MONEY than you came with is not presented. Money and products of the same value are not the same. Money is a means to an end, that is, money is not valuable in and of itself. Money is used to acquire goods and services. When someone gambles with money for money, there is no end to the cycle. If you win money, you are satisfied until you desire more money, which—in most cases—is all the time. If you lose money, you are tempted to gamble to replace your lost money.

Although this may not seem like a great difference, the consequences are great. Without the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with, abuse of arcade games for gambling purposes is much less likely.
_____
My opponent also responded to my claim that the primary purpose of arcade games is to supply a means of exchanging a service—entertainment—for money:

"Well the same can be said for a casino. There are millions of people out there that would tell you that playing poker, or black jack is form of entertainment in which they pay money to play."

Yes, but why is it entertaining? It's because it is gambling. They are excited at the possibility of winning money. Do casinos have games that do not require gambling? I don't think so. So, the purpose of gambling could be stated as follows: to supply a means of exchanging a service—the chance of winning money—for money. Entertainment is a by-product.

I will admit that there are some arcade games (a minority) that could be defined as deriving some of their entertainment value from a form of gambling, but there is an important distinction: the fact that success relies on ability. The player is given the ability to control success every time. Gambling using ability is different than gambling with chance.
_____
To conclude, I would like to emphasize how unnecessary outlawing all arcade games is when there are many games that do not provide any sort of gambling and are legitimate entertainment services.

That is all, continue, Monsieur.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Loserboi

Pro

I will answer my opponents rebuttals

"Yes, but why is it entertaining? It's because it is gambling. They are excited at the possibility of winning money. Do casinos have games that do not require gambling? I don't think so. So, the purpose of gambling could be stated as follows: to supply a means of exchanging a service�€"the chance of winning money�€"for money. Entertainment is a by-product."

Okay kids are different from adults yes? So looking at it that way when a kid goes to an "redemption arcade" they cash in their money for tokens to try to win tickets for prizes. Looking it this way why do you think a kid plays these games? "Why is it entertaining?" It's because it "Gambling" look when the kid plays the game they see the possibility of winning these ticket games and winning those "jackpots" that all the redemption game has to try to get enough and obtain the prize they really want. A kid hitting a button 3 times to try to get "10,000pts" to match in a row is no difference from an adult watching a slot machine to drop down a "7 7 7" in their face. They have a chance to win what they really want just like an adult wants to win what they want which is money.

"There are many different types of arcade games, and some do fit the definition of gambling, but to outlaw all arcade games because a minority can be considered gambling is not logical." To my opponent its not a minority in a majority of arcades today. Many arcade have converted into redemption arcades because the old arcade games of the past can be bought and played on the modern game console or on the internet for free. Most arcades have made the switch and yesterday's minority has become today's majority. Who wants to go every week to the arcade to play "street fighter" when you can buy the game and play as many times as you want and when you want at your own convenience at home. But what everybody can't get is an opportunity to win a scooter, or a boombox, and redemption games have no been made into console games. So because so many arcades are making the switch

"This is different; I said the possibility of leaving with more MONEY than you came with is not presented. Money and products of the same value are not the same. Money is a means to an end, that is, money is not valuable in and of itself. Money is used to acquire goods and services. When someone gambles with money for money, there is no end to the cycle. If you win money, you are satisfied until you desire more money, which—in most cases—is all the time. If you lose money, you are tempted to gamble to replace your lost money."

It's the same thing... with playing a game non stop till you win the prize. After you win a prize you think it will be over and the kid will just go home happy. He wins the scooter and few seconds later he realizes he needs to keep playing to win the boombox and sooner or later the amount he payed to play the games to win those prizes exceeds their value. Again another example with the stacker game people will keep playing out of frustration because they already put so much money into it same with the claw machines, these games are just as addictive to children as gambling is to adults and it's the same motive of operation. You put money in have a chance to win something bigger.

I will say my opponent has already admitted that there are some games that display the gambling concepts found in local arcades. But these are no longer the minority go to a place like Chucky Cheese all they have are redemption games. But even if it was a minority that should be enough to outlaw it because like I said before, kids will find the opportunity of winning prizes so alluring they will just go to the arcade and ignore the other games and play the ones that offer you the tickets. Gambling should not be illegal to minors because they are exposed to a taste of gambling already which are arcade games and they will take all that experience and become full gamblers themselves if they enjoy the rush of winning enough.

Minority or Majority parents do not want their children exposed to gambling so if arcade games display the concept of gambling to their child (we both agreed some do) than it should be outlaw for their well being.

P.S I apologize that my argument is not as long as I wanted it to be. I'm Chinese it's been Chinese New Year Weekend have been really busy lately with the family.
The_Monsieur

Con

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that part of my argument was founded on poor reasoning and is not necessary to negate the resolution. I have not forfeited; I still oppose the resolution, but will be withdrawing all of my arguments thus far except the following:

[1] If gambling is illegal for minors, then (only) arcade games that utilize gambling should be illegal for minors too.

[2] Not all arcade games can be considered gambling.

Games such as coin-operated video games, and pinball machines cannot be considered gambling as they do not reward the player with material gain. Gambling is the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning. A stake is defined in gambling, as "the quantity of money or other goods that is risked on the outcome of some specific event." Any use of the word "gambling" that includes the possibility of gaining non-material value is out of context because the legal definition of gambling only regards money and material value.

[3] Therefore, it is unnecessary to illegalize all arcade games.

_____

My opponents sole argument is that arcade games should be illegal for minors because some arcade games can be considered gambling:

"I will say my opponent has already admitted that there are some games that display the gambling concepts found in local arcades. But these are no longer the minority go to a place like Chucky Cheese all they have are redemption games. But even if it was a minority that should be enough to outlaw it because like I said before, kids will find the opportunity of winning prizes so alluring they will just go to the arcade and ignore the other games and play the ones that offer you the tickets."

You still contend that all arcade games should be illegalized even though there are many that do not utilize gambling. This proposition is ridiculous. Illegalizing redemption games and other such games that utilize some form of gambling might be justifiable, but the current resolution is not.

_____

I don't know how you are supposed to weigh these kinds of events in a debate, but I urge the voters to ignore my previous arguments except for the argument mentioned earlier this round (which has been present since round one).

I may have used some invalid reasoning, but my opponent's invalid reasoning is unrealized and stands as his primary argument. His primary argument fails to uphold the resolution, while mine negates the resolution, regardless of my previous misunderstanding.

That is all. Thank you, Monsieur, for debating with me.
_______
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by blueto12 6 years ago
blueto12
What an interesting discussion. I never thought about comparing arcade and online gambling. I actually loved the arguments of both. I am personally of the opinion that the online gambling law in the US should be redone.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu...
I am not quite sure if this law is nowadays still appropriate. I actually cannot understand why online gambling is prohibited because other countries allow online gambling.
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
no one ever votes for my debates
Posted by The_Monsieur 7 years ago
The_Monsieur
"In this case, the Con, The_Monsieur, is arguing that the status quo should not be changed and that it should be legal that children play on arcade games."

Incorrect.

I am not obligated to take a position of "should". My position is simply the non-existence of "should be illegal". Hence, my lack of burden.
Posted by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
I like cookys.

7 points contender.
Posted by ImmortalAlien 7 years ago
ImmortalAlien
In a debate such as this, whether or not someone should have the burden of proof is debatable. Possibly the only type of debate when the burden of proof should be forced on to one side is in criminal court where the defendant has the benefit of assumption, innocent until proven guilty.

The amount of evidence required varies as well depending on what you want to prove. The more neutral your statement, the less evidence needed for it to be convincing. Extreme positions require evidence, but extreme statements that coincide with the status quo, or the popular view of a certain topic, require less evidence that an extreme position arguing against the status quo.

In this case, the Con, The_Monsieur, is arguing that the status quo should not be changed and that it should be legal that children play on arcade games. The amount of evidence the Con needs to be convincing is significantly less than what the Pro, Loserboi, would need in order to be convincing.

That being said, it does help both sides to provide evidence that support their cases. The more evidence you provide, the more the voters know you're actually trying to form a debate rather than an argument based on assumptions.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
The person that has the burden of proof is the one that wants to change people's minds.
Posted by The_Monsieur 7 years ago
The_Monsieur
Thank you, kinesis, for bringing that up.

The status quo regarding the legality of arcade gaming for minors lacks a positive assertion; it is neither that it should be legal, nor that it should be illegal.

Pro, is in a position of making a positive assertion, Con is not.

So, in this particular debate, the challenger of the status quo has the burden of proof. But that is not always the case, as I assume you are suggesting. I should have clarified this.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Why do people challenging the status quo have the burden of proof?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
LoserboiThe_MonsieurTied
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