Omgeurope

Con (against)

Losing

Pro (for)

Winning

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

The voting period for this debate has ended.

Comments (3)

4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.

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.

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).

Reasons for voting decision: FF and pro used no sources.

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.

However, gambling is not the evil monster that many believe it is. Gambling can be helpful to the economy in many ways. Building casinos helps to create more jobs. Casinos also serve as attractions to bring in tourists therefore increasing the wealth of the city. For example, has established a major industry in cities such as Las Vegas, which legalized gambling in 1931, and Atlantic City which legalized gambling in 1978; and some Native American reservations as well. Another popular form is the lottery that is used in numerous states in the US leaving gross revenue of over 20 billion dollars (Gambling). This can also be beneficiary because the money from the taxes goes to help the public. Many people do not want to legalize gambling because they think that it would bring in crime, but crime will be present in spite of whether gambling is legalized or not. Cities who have made gambling illegal have as much of a problem with crime as cities who have an economy that is based on gambling. Another assumption is that it will encourage people to become compulsive gamblers causing them to lead unhappy lives by wasting the little money that they have. However people will gamble if they really want to whether it is legal or not. People can easily place bets on sports games or card games; they do not necessarily have to go to a casino in order to gamble.
Legalizing gambling is thought to bring in many bad things along with it. People are