The Instigator
Eliter
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Mathtwin
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should gambling be allowed?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Mathtwin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,197 times Debate No: 38587
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Eliter

Con

I believe that gambling shouldn't be allowed. But, I would like to hear from the opponents mind first.
Mathtwin

Pro

Firstly, here is Webster's definition of gambling.
"to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things"

It is clear to all that playing a game without the "gambling" aspect is perfectly ok.
Additionally, giving charity is a form of "losing money".

There is no reason why combining playing a game and giving away or accepting money should be disallowed!
Debate Round No. 1
Eliter

Con

Gambling is some sort of activities wasting time and probably monies as well. People should make sure of time for useful things such as studying, etc. In addition, if people are addicted on gambling, it is kind of sick indeed. At the end, there will be no family, friends, etc.
Mathtwin

Pro

The misuse of an item is not reason enough to prohibit it.

Instead of arguing against gambling, you should propone time management and money management.

Secondly, your opinion of wasting time and money is invalid when the gambler is winning.
Debate Round No. 2
Eliter

Con

Wait. You are Pro. So, you should be arguing that there should be gambling right?

At first, gambling shouldn't be allowed because as I said it's a waste of time. The majority of losing is much more than the majority of winning. If, people get addicted to gambling then they will never stop. They will continue, yet they may lose money time to time, due to gambling. All I am saying is gambling shouldn't be allowed. But, I don't force people to stop it. I never said it should be illegal. I just said, if people get addicted to gambling. They shouldn't play too much and they should stop for a matter of time.

Sources: http://voices.yahoo.com...
Mathtwin

Pro

Mathtwin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Economists have something called utility theory. For example, insurance is always an expected loss, because overall the insurance company makes money. Yet a large loss at one time poses so many problems for the insured person, his utility lies in long some expectation of total return in order to avoid a sudden large loss.

Gambling relies upon the thrill of a big win outweighing the accumulated disappointment of small losses. Gamblers remember and delight in their big wins and ignore their losses as being the norm. It doesn't work for me, but I don't have a problem with people who feel that way -- provided they can afford the losses.

In a 30s movie, Mae West encounters W.C. Fields playing cards on a train:

West: Oh, is this a game of chance?
Fields: Not the way I play it.
Posted by Eliter 3 years ago
Eliter
Why would you bet Con loses this debate by $100?
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
I bet $100 Con loses this debate. Any takers?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
EliterMathtwinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says, "All I am saying is gambling shouldn't be allowed. But, I don't force people to stop it. I never said it should be illegal." There is no other reasonable meaning of "not allowed" than "illegal." Con has therefore agreed with Pro's freedom argument in favor of the resolution. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
EliterMathtwinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Arguments to Pro, because as Pro notes unrebutted: "The misuse of an item is not reason enough to prohibit it." There actually are some possible rebuttals to this, but they weren't made. Con further undermines his case when he says: "...I don't force people to stop it. I never said it should be illegal. I just said, if people get addicted to gambling. They shouldn't play too much and they should stop for a matter of time." The debate was on the prohibition of gambling, "Should gambling be allowed". In the final round, Con makes clear that he's not actually arguing that it shouldn't be allowed. He instigated the debate and has the presumptive BoP--and he failed to make his case. I was going to initially award S&G for some pretty clumsy phrasing, but based on the profile location, I'm presuming that English is not Con's first language, and cutting some slack. (I also wonder if, perhaps, Con's resolution suffered from the ESL issue if present).
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
EliterMathtwinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and pro used no sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
EliterMathtwinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Null vote (I feel that con lost arguments, but won conduct; yet it'd probably be rude to cast that vote). Arguments: I'm not sure what con was actually suggesting, some way for it to not be illegal, but also not be allowed; I can't imagine how such a system would work. The whole wasting time aspect only harms his argument, since even using this site is from many perspectives wasting time, but than so is living. Conduct: pro dropped out. Sources: I'm not sure how con's source was actually tied into his argument.