The Instigator
kusuko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Jueteng should be eradicated rather than legalized(Philippines)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 10/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,172 times Debate No: 13281
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

kusuko

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I would like to state that the bad psychological, ethical, sociological, etc. impacts of Jueteng in the Philippines outweighs its advantages. Elaborations will be discussed in future rounds.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. Since he has not laid down any arguments, I'll wait for Round 2 to make mine. Just some quick definitions.

Jueteng: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Eradicated: To remove or destroy utterly; extirpate [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Legalized: To make legal; authorize. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

I presume by the title of the resolution that my opponent must argue that Jueteng ought to be completley eradicated and no aspect of it should be legalised, and I the opposite.

I await my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
kusuko

Pro

once again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate(i need practice- badly), I so look forward to learn and improve. I'm hoping that i presented this right(me new here)...

Jueteng as we know it is a game of luck and chance (and maybe probability to some nerds…) thus it is a form of gambling. The Philippines already has lottery and the last thing it needs is more games- Legalizing Jueteng promotes a culture of gambling.

As a Christian country, it should be mentioned that the majority of the people living in it would question the moral choice made- but before we debate whether it is moral or not, it will be ignored unless deemed significant, but economically speaking, it wouldn't matter if it is moral or otherwise because in the end, it would depend on the administration on how they use that game as an advantage(right now, it is filled with corruption and legalizing Jueteng would only add more corruption- some people may resist temptation but why take the chance when prevention is better than cure?).

For quite a while now, a lot of politicians and other powerful figures had used illegal gambling(Jueteng in particular) as funds for vote buying, and also funding other games (ex: Small town lottery)*.
Now, if ever Jueteng was legalized, therefore regulated and taxed, Philippines, as a third world country, consists of mostly poor people who lacks the time and resources to painstakingly investigate if the money was actually used for good. The money collected by the taxed game will most likely be used in corruption- this is in assumption until proven otherwise.

More often than not, it is the politicians, who rely on gambling as a source for funds and are out in an attempt to clear their name, would be the ones to supervise/regulate it. As one who relies on a game of chance/luck, it reflects poorly on the credibility of our representatives that promotes gambling (imagine a person running a country, making choices by rolling a dice…).

And if the nation is concerned about its money(something I agree must be done), there are a lot of other alternatives: instead of using it in a win/lose game, why not save it in the bank for the mean time- it worked for Japan's advancement in the 1970's; more money in the bank, more money to borrow to start businesses and projects** But even though this has negative effects at present, it helped a lot in the progress of Japan. This is not a flawless solution but it is a step towards the better.

Jueteng could indeed bring more money to the government but instead of it helping the country, it will only help the corrupt to get more power and resources to feed their personal interests.

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

* http://newsinfo.inquirer.net...
Some words are in Filipino but it is easy to understand using google translate
** http://en.wikipedia.org...
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank my opponent for their response.

"it wouldn't matter if it is moral or otherwise because in the end, it would depend on the administration on how they use that game as an advantage(right now, it is filled with corruption and legalizing Jueteng would only add more corruption- some people may resist temptation but why take the chance when prevention is better than cure?)."

-->Legalising Jueteng wouldn't add corruption, it would make Jueteng a legitimate industry. Furthermore, any corruption within the system irrelevant, it can be sorted out within the Jueteng industry. If my opponent means organised crime, the criminals should be prosecuted, NOT the people who willingly play Jueteng for recreation with their own money.

", a lot of politicians and other powerful figures had used illegal gambling(Jueteng in particular) as funds for vote buying, and also funding other games "

--> And many businessmen enter into elections and use money gained from their business to fund their own campaigns. Should Jueteng be a legitimate form of business there is no issue here, indeed to disallow this would be discrimination.

"if ever Jueteng was legalized, therefore regulated and taxed, Philippines, as a third world country, consists of mostly poor people who lacks the time and resources to painstakingly investigate if the money was actually used for good. The money collected by the taxed game will most likely be used in corruption- this is in assumption until proven otherwise."

--> It is the consumers choice on how to use their money, and of course it is their choice to use it without any investigation as to how the money is used. Furthermost, the fact it may be used in crime is not an assumption unless you can prove it, which you haven't. You've shown a link between people who operate Jueteng companies and supporting certain candidates, whcih as I've shown isn't an issue.

"it is the politicians, who rely on gambling as a source for funds and are out in an attempt to clear their name, would be the ones to supervise/regulate it. As one who relies on a game of chance/luck, it reflects poorly on the credibility of our representatives that promotes gambling (imagine a person running a country, making choices by rolling a dice…)."

--> Just because a political move is cynical doesn't mean it isn't right. Thus, simply because some politicians are trying to clear their name doesn't mean legalising Jueteng is the wrong thing to do. Also, any detrimental image will be their problem at election time, and is up for the electorate to decide if a gambler is bad for the position.

"And if the nation is concerned about its money(something I agree must be done), there are a lot of other alternatives: instead of using it in a win/lose game, why not save it in the bank for the mean time- it worked for Japan's advancement in the 1970's; more money in the bank, more money to borrow to start businesses and projects** But even though this has negative effects at present, it helped a lot in the progress of Japan. This is not a flawless solution but it is a step towards the better."

--> Firstly, banks don't offer the same recreational benefit of Jueteng, and indeed, while it is certainly a more safe investment in many regards, it is not as profitable or as fast as the pay-off from Jueteng. Regardless, e government ought not authorise people can only do A with their own money, and restrict B. The only person harmed through Jueteng is the gambler. No one else is harmed. There, then, is no reason fro the government to prevent people from plausibly harming themselves.

"Jueteng could indeed bring more money to the government but instead of it helping the country, it will only help the corrupt to get more power and resources to feed their personal interests."

--> Employment involved, as well as attracting in tourists and inward investment, is a bad thing? Again, it doesn't really matter who benefits from it, and any criminals can be prosecuted on relevant charges. Just because a selection of Jueteng operators sell cocaine doesn't mean they all do.

On a brief end note, as my opponent mentioned Jueteng is a potential source of revenue fro the underdeveloped Philippines economy . Furthermore, it would end an absurd criminality of a consensual and non-coercive business.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
kusuko

Pro

kusuko forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

Splendid, a forfeit. Extend my arguments and such.
Debate Round No. 3
kusuko

Pro

kusuko forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I love the smell of forfeits in the morning.
Debate Round No. 4
kusuko

Pro

kusuko forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

Oh lovely. 3 forfeited rounds and my arguments stand unrefuted. I get conduct, at least.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
Bam...Filipino debate topic..at last
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
"Because she should be working and keeping her money seperate and they should both make enough individually to cover the bills. She shouldn't loan her money to his habits if he does it to that level."

Please refer to a marriage life, not some non-existing form of marriage where the spouses are not sharing the financial system.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Sure.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Sounds like a fun game, wanna play panda?
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Because she should be working and keeping her money seperate and they should both make enough individually to cover the bills. She shouldn't loan her money to his habits if he does it to that level.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Why is it the wife's fault if her husband screws up their economy?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Wrong A has C, and chooses to give some to B. B's fault if they are reliant on that.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
A & B share C.

A damages C.

C harms B directly.

B is directly harmed.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
No, the harm is indirect, it's an externality.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
The action that lead to the cause and later to the harm is indirect, but the harm is direct. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that it is "harm." You erroneously claimed that it only harms the gambler.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by fatdan33 6 years ago
fatdan33
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
kusukoI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06