The Instigator
justskilo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
belle
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Online poker websites

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  
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: 8/3/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,366 times Debate No: 12683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

justskilo

Pro

I think the main issue with online poker is clearly being overlooked. Governments around the world really should censor not only foreign/offshore poker sites, but also local ones. Or to be more accurate, monitor these poker sites. It's true, the government should not act as a babysitter and decide how people spend their own money and their own time. But they should certainly act as an authority, and make sure these poker websites are not robbing people of money.

This is not a debate on is poker fair, or are these online poker websites rigged. It is simple: what proper monitoring is there of these poker websites? Can they actually even monitor these online poker sites if they are offshore? Who knows what goes on…

A computer programme is written by someone, and has whatever parameters they want, i.e. the best example is giving two or more people ‘monster' hands (for those not familiar with the terms, a very good poker hand), and thus encouraging them both to play – inducing action. This contributes to the size of the pot and in turn the taking of the poker website; also to finish the game quicker and move on to the next one. Sounds to me like a simple and efficient way to make more and more poker sales.

There are many ethical debates on gambling, international money transfers and all that. And anyone that is an avid poker fan (like me) will easily try to rebut my comments, no doubt, especially those winning at the moment. But even so. Some people have to win. And then these people also become your strongest allies.

Personally, I have not loss in poker (yet), but have been monitoring various sites to see what their trends and habits are. However, there is only so much you can prove with this. We need real action. It has become ridiculous. I will ask the question one more time…who or what proper public authority is monitoring these poker website's behaviour and practice and making sure they are not today's biggest corruption? I am a fan of poker, and I want it to continue; online and live. I am just asking for fair and legal practice.
belle

Con

Its not completely clear what my opponent is arguing for but I will attempt to interpret his argument as best I can. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the resolution appears to be something along the lines of "Online Poker websites need to be monitored and regulated by law". It is not clear to me what those regulations should be exactly. I hope pro will address this in more detail next round.

His main example is that of a website enticing people to play, and moving games along more quickly, by increasing the proportion of so called "monster hands" that occur during play. I fail to see how such an action would break any laws, however. In the same way that real casinos feature players who allegedly won thousands of dollars (even though the majority of players never win nearly that much), online poker sites dangle the possibility of winning big money in front of players hoping to entice them to play more. Unless they are forcing people to play against their will, or explicitly lying to players about the probabilities of winning, they have committed no crime and need not be regulated. Its well known by most people that casinos, including online casinos, skew all the games to their favor; if they did not do so, they would not make a profit and would be closed down. To fault a poker site for ensuring its profits is to destroy the ability of anyone to successfully run an online poker site, thus directly going against your objectives as a poker fan.

The other issue I have with Pro's argument is that he doesn't consider the practicality of what he is arguing at all. Laws against fraud already exist; if an online poker site cheats its customers in the aforementioned ways, they can already be prosecuted- whoever runs the site and in their own country. Additional laws specific to online poker are not needed. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to establish jurisdiction online. If the website server is based in one country, the owner in another, and the players in a third, fourth, and fifth countries, what governing body has the authority to prosecute any of them for anything? Inconsistent regulations between countries would make it extremely difficult for anyone to be prosecuted; the only way for a government to regulate such a thing would be censorship- banning of the sites it finds distasteful. This would be an extremely politically unpopular move and is unlikely to be supported by anyone. Indeed, though online poker is illegal in the US, many Americans are still able to play online. [1]

Unless my opponent can provide a clearer case as to which regulations he advocates, and how they can be reasonably implemented, he has failed to support her assertions. I look forward to his thoughts on the matter.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
justskilo

Pro

justskilo forfeited this round.
belle

Con

Hopefully Pro will be back for round three!
Debate Round No. 2
justskilo

Pro

justskilo forfeited this round.
belle

Con

Apparently my opponent has abandoned DDO altogether. Lame.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Richardt 6 years ago
Richardt
justskilobelleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
justskilobelleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05