Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.

Thanks, Con, for the response. Con opens the round by agreeing that gambling in itself is not bad. Next Con creates an analogy using alcohol. My opponent states that alcohol itself isn't bad, but it can make people do things that are bad. I'd have to disagree with that, as I don't think it's the alcohol itself that makes people do bad things, but rather people who willingly choose to drink more than they can handle. Just as the saying "Guns don't kill people - People kill people" is a valid one, so too can this statement ring true for alcohol. Alcohol doesn't make people do bad things -- People who choose to drink too much, and in turn whose bodies cannot handle as much liquor as they chose to ingest make people do bad things (not the alcohol itself). The alcohol did not force its way inside of the person. Similarly, casinos (nor gambling) do not do anything to harm society. Con posits that casinos specialize in making people addicted to their games. However, Con has not offered one iota of proof to validate this statement as true. Casinos are not living beings, nor are they programmed mechanical beings. As such, the casinos themselves cannot make people do anything. The people who get addicted to casino gambling choose to go there on their own accord. As such, they themselves are responsible for whatever addictions they may incur. Simply because certain people may be deficient in the area of moderation is nowhere near a strong enough argument to prohibit casinos for those who do not suffer from such deficiencies. So, if people spend more money than they can afford as Con has implied, then that is the fault of their own weaknesses. People should be responsible for their own livelihoods. Con's next point is that many fights start at casinos. Of course his own tragic example is not evidence or proof that this is true. I have been to many casinos in both Atlantic City and Las Vegas, as well as on several cruise ships, and never once did I experience or witness a fight. So, Con's example can simply be challenged or countered by my own. Similarly, just because he sources another example of a fight does not mean that fights are likely to break out at casinos, since obviously the media will only document when fights DO break out, and not when they don't. Furthermore, even if that were true (and fights were likely), it would not be the casinos themselves that start or cause fights but rather people who must have issues with violence or volatile tempers. I'd be willing to bet that far more fights break out in places like pubs and bars, in which case Con would have to advocate that anywhere which might or is likely to host a fight should be shut down. This, of course, would be a very difficult contention to uphold. Next Con presents statistics regarding various odds. He posts that the odds of winning at a slot machine are 1 in 262,144. In fact, it is impossible to determine what the odds are of winning or losing at a slot machine, since various machines in various places are set up entirely differently and all have different odds [1]. Nevertheless, my opponent's argument here is that there is a greater risk of losing money at a slot machine than there is to find yourself in danger. This argument is irrelevant. My opponent has already agreed that gambling is not inherently bad. Because of this, using ones odds at winning or losing cannot determine the right or wrongness of something. Regarding my point that to prohibit casinos would be infringing upon various individual liberties, Con points out that one could also say the government takes away people's rights to have a meth house. Now, because I believe in personal liberty - which includes the legalization of drugs - Con's argument is completely irrelevant to my position. Not all laws are moral, and as such, I disagree with the laws that try to infringe upon people's liberty to treat their bodies as they please. So, just as I disagree with prohibiting casinos, I disagree with criminalizing meth houses. However, let's leave my opinion out of this and stick to the facts. If one were to use the harm principle as reason enough to prohibit something, then one can assert that meth is indeed the most harmful drug for an individual [2]. Meanwhile, Con cannot prove (because it's impossible) that casinos are inherently harmful. A casino is a building or large room used for meetings, entertainment, dancing, gambling, etc [3]. How can a building itself be physically or even non-physically harmful? Since Con has already agreed and I have proven why gambling itself is not inherently harmful, then here we can see that casinos aren't harmful either, and as such the meth and meth house analogy fails. So let's move on to the benefits of casinos. My opponent claims that they do more harm to society than good. This, of course, is false. As has already been introduced, prohibiting gambling casinos infringes upon basic personal liberties for people to make their own choices and accept the consequences and risks associated with those choices. For the government to override these liberties is immoral. While other laws exist to protect society as a whole (such as driving laws to protect drivers on the road), when one incurs a gambling problem, the only person *directly* affected is that person themselves... which of course is not the case regarding something like a car accident. Con is operating under the assumption that gambling and even losing money is harmful; however, that is not the reality. Over2/3 of the adult population have gambled in the last year (167 million people), and out of those people, less than 9% (15 million) display some kind gambling addiction [4]. So, what Con is proposing is to punish over 90% of the adult gambling population who are NOT hurt by gambling, simply because gambling hurts a small percentage. That hardly seems fair. Moreover, gambling casinos benefit society as a whole - and not just gamblers - in other ways. Casinos exist to create new jobs, attract tourism (i.e. profitable for every business in the entire community), and and decrease the tax burden on residents of the community. Furthermore, taxes raised from gambling make a vital contribution worth billions of dollars to the government. Best of all, unlike other taxes such as the income tax, this gambling tax is only paid by those who choose to pay it (via gambling). Gambling has now become democratic. It is no longer reserved for the aristocrats or the elite to enjoy in exclusive clubs. Common people often enjoy gambling as a legitimate hobby, sport, or even career. Casinos are the biggest tourist attractions in various places and draw in the greatest amount of revenue. If people can't legally gamble in the U.S., they'll simply go where they CAN gamble. Or, they'll resort to underground gambling which carries with it all of the risks and none of the benefits associated with legalized gambling. As such, it makes perfect sense to continue permitting the operation of gambling casinos. Thank you, and back to Con. [1] http://www.fastodds.com... [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.overcominggambling.com...