Sports gambling should be legalized 100%
Debate Rounds (4)
I will present an argument once someone accepts the debate.
For purposes of this debate, I will be taking the CON position towards further legalization of sports betting. I am not advocating for criminalization in jurisdictions that currently allow sports betting (such as Nevada, for example).
Good luck, I look forward to debating this topic.
Legalizing sports wagering recognizes the plain truth that people are going to bet on sports if they want to. Despite the legality of the act in the jurisdiction. I ask you and anyone viewing this as well, whether or not you are for the legalization of sports gambling would you prefer people participating in the act do so through safe means? When you legalize sports gambling, you take the power away from crime organizations, from offshore gambling rings that operate in the gray area of legality. You put the power in the hands of the people with regulation from the government. This also can be a good thing in helping people with gambling problems. Just like other perfectly legal substances, gambling can do a lot of damage to someone with an addictive behavior. The legalization of gambling would also bring to the forefront the issues with gambling their life away. Financially, and literally when dealing with a some shady bookie.
There is the argument that many sports teams, organizations, and casino owners mainly use. The argument is that the legalization of gambling takes away the integrity of the game. This is coming from casino owners who are already capitalizing on gambling, and sports organizations that for many years have been looking the other way when it comes to other things that effect the integrity of the game such as PEDs. This shows the integrity of the game is not their priority, but more like their wallets.
The society we live in already has an underlying approval of sports gambling. You may not consciously acknowledge it, but it is there. Go look at ESPN's website. Any game happening in the next few days next to it will be a moneyline and a point spread. Along with a link to a video with an analyst telling people how he thinks they should bet on the game. Yet how do they expect the majority of people watching to bet? Unless you live in one of the 4 states where it is legalized, you are at least going through a gray legal area to make your bet.
One of the major concerns in this country is the deficit. In New Jersey alone, Club CalNeva estimated the state would be able to generate 120 million in tax revenues from the legalization of gambling. Lifting the ban on sports wagering takes the advantage away from offshore betting and organized crime. It would create jobs in big cities and also create another avenue of economic flow. The way our economy works, the more avenues of money to move the better.
Looking forward to your rebuttal.
In order to provide a rebuttal to your argument, allow me to quickly paraphrase your points.
1. Sports betting already happens, might as well legalize it.
2. Provide safe / regulated avenues for gamblers
3. Sports betting doesn't affect integrity of game more than PEDs
4. Tax revenue
1. "Sports betting already happens, might as well legalize it."
Simply because something illegal continues doesn't mean the answer is legalization. The consequences of legalization have further reaching implications than your desire to drop a benji on the Super Bowl next week. We'll touch on these aspects a little later.
2. "Provide safe / regulated avenues for gamblers."
While yes, it seems like a no brainer to remove the organized crime element from sports betting, we must first examine the circumstances related to this argument.
3. "Sports betting doesn't affect integrity of game more than PEDs."
Really, an apples to oranges comparison to the issues facing organized sporting events.
4. "Tax Revenue."
As I'll explain shortly, the perceived benefit of tax revenue, and to a lesser extent, job creation, are not the economic boosts they seem to be on face value.
Ok, on to my points:
First, a problem gambler that's already having trouble with the local bookie will not benefit from legalization. That person's problem is real, and creating a legalized arena for them will only serve to further exacerbate and exploit the problem. You don't treat a problem drinker by placing a treatment facility next to a bar, now do you?
Next, is the regulation nightmare that is involved in legalizing sports betting. You can't just expect to open the floodgates and let every Tom, Dick, and Harry open betting parlors. Prospective operators will need oversight and licensing to conduct business. And where is the oversight going to come from?
That's right, sports betting in prospective jurisdictions will be regulated on both a federal and state level, which only serves to adds another couple arms of the government bureaucracy that we've all grown to love and adore. Because jurisdictions advanced as Nevada exist, with their long standing expertise on both gambling and sports betting, it'll create another logistical nightmare in trying to normalize policy across the country. Each state will want their own say in regulation in their own states, whether they have the acumen to properly oversee the industry.
So now that we've lightly covered two costly results from legalization of sports betting (social costs of problem gamblers and governmental costs of regulation), we'll dig a little deeper into the monetary aspect regarding legalization.
Its been cited that the cost of introducing gambling to is about $3 for every $1 they realize through taxation.
Costs associated include infrastructure costs, regulatory cost, criminal justice costs, and social welfare programs associated with problem gamblers.
Two other aspects to consider are:
1. Problem gamblers are said to make up 30%-50% of gambling revenue.
2. Gambling is seen as a regressive tax on the poor.
Neither of these costs don't directly appear on the bottom line, but they do strain the the jurisdictions social welfare programs.
Finally, in reference to the integrity of the game issue you brought forth, I'll explain why legalized sports betting is not an apples to apples comparison to PEDs.
On one hand, we have PEDs. Its not an exaggeration to note that the various sports leagues and organizations have taken steps to regulate / outlaw the use of PEDs. Also, in theory, each athlete that does bend the rules to gain an edge is doing so in the name of increasing their level of competition. In other words, athletes are looking to gain an edge to win.
This is a far cry from the increased potential of game fixing / point shaving that presents itself with legalized betting. Sure, Tom Brady likely won't be swayed to shave points in a mid-September romp of Miami, but Joe Schmo, point guard for UC - Santa Barbara might have trouble turning down $10,000 to keep an otherwise non-descript conference game in January a bit closer than it should be.
Allowing sports betting into more jurisdictions means many more struggling athletes will have their moral compass tested more often. These occurrences, however uncommon, create an uneven playing field for potential bettors.
In all, the arguments against legalization of sports betting are far more compelling than those trivial and misleading points brought forth in PRO's first argument.
Sideshowcliff forfeited this round.
Sideshowcliff forfeited this round.
I really wanted to continue playing devil's advocate here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con cited sources. Con displayed better conduct by participating in all four rounds. Con made more convincing arguments due to being able to rebuttal Pros arguments; plus Con offered arguments that Pro did not rebuttal.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.