No. No, no, no, no, NO.

My dad had a severe gambling problem when I was younger. I've seen what it does. It nearly wrecked my parents marriage, we went bankrupt, we had to sell a lot of shit just to continue living in the house.

Gambling is business at its very worst.

Same with my father, actually. Except my mother divorced him before he dragged us further into the hole of debt. Ironically he became very successful businessman after, that asshole.

I never gamble unless it's purely for entertainment, with my friends, and with little money involved.
I do take risks, but only when i know that the odds of me winning are well above those you are provided with in a casino.

I think if you go to a casino and loose all your fortune, and you deserve it. It is designed to be addictive (even drinks are served free in many places to cloud your judgment).

For this manner check out this awesome BlackJack game:
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=132395

I think there are many people who play with the aim not to loose nor winning. You can go at a casino, meet some friends play a bit and try to get back the money u bet. (I never was in a casino) Also you should note that in some games u have no real chances to win (lotto, roullette is all about luck, ..., etc)

I love gambling. I did it several times and sometimes even with much money involved (200+€).
Gambling is a matter of mindset. Most of the addicted people want to win the money they lost back and that's wrong.
Once you put the money on the table I don't see it as mine anymore. I'm betting only as much as I'm willing to lose.
Also it is a matter of opinion if you can spend that money better. It is another kind of fun. Evenings at clubs have no thrills. It's just a nice feeling when you have your money on the table and win.

I don't see the logic here, even Odlov is using examples from personal life as arguments against something in general. yes, that does prove that it can be corruptive, but not if it is corruptive to a formidable degree on a larger scale.

Let's compare this to alcohol. Here most people start with "gambling is bad, it's designed so that you can't win (based on the fact that games are balanced so that if the results were random, the player always ends up losing money in the long run)" or "yeah, my *close relative* was had a huge gambling problem, it's definitely bad". Whereas with alcohol the correspondents do show up, but most of it is either bragging: "I drink almost every week, has really no effect on me other than helping me let out some steam, which is actually positive", or supporting with arguments based on how integral a part it is of the modern culture, how fun it is (they say, haven't tried yet myself), or the direct positive effects (a glass of red wine a day especially, but even one portion of any alcoholic beverage in a week or something has some benefits). They, however, are ignored here.

But gambling IS an integral part of the culture. Toto is the example of an expensive and hardcore old people's hobby (hardcore and old people, lol). Casinos and Las Vegas are the same for places to go to have mindless fun. Here in Finland it's a clichщ for old grannies to be playing the slots, video poker and bajazzo machines (although less so with the latter, small wins). Not to mention Lotto and the like, which, as I said, don't necessarily have any lasting effect on the buyer's finance, but in the event of a jackpot, have a huge positive effect.

Gambling is also a form of fun. There are (illegal and legal, in here, for example, it's legal) poker rings with friends, there's dares, and as mentioned above, a night gambling is the classic way to use money if you have it, although of course since most people don't, it's more related to culture than fun. Gambling also often supplements one of the most popular pastimes, couch sports (if that's not a term in English, I mean watching sports without necessarily doing sports yourself).

as for benefits, I have to agree, the benefits here are either not as "surefire", not as immediate, or not as visible as with alcohol, but they're there. The biggest benefit is that it allows clubs and the like to gather funds, or if the industry is monopolized by a state-run business (RAY, correct me if I'm wrong about whether or not it's state-run), it allows the state to supplement it's tax incomes and use them for defense and the common good of the people. Then the indirect and not surefire ones. First of all, you can enjoy it, or some of you can anyways. people enjoy skydiving which can kill them, or buying expensive things which can make them bankrupt, or even running an extreme sports or other dangerous business and eventually end up both bankrupt and later dead. Secondly, you can win. Depending on what you gamble on, it may be probable, or can be affected. In games you can affect your chances of winning somewhat. As I pointed out, casinos try to make this harder, but it's still possible, and even so, the problem isn't with legalized gambling, it's with the lack of regulations on how to imply it (no unfair moves on the provider's part, that is). As for with casual gambling (which is legal in some places, although not in America I take it), you can affect your chances, be it often a dicky move to a fellow person. That's not always true, though, with dares, for example, where all you have to do to win the bet is to do something usually embarrassing or insanely hard (or dangerous, but that wouldn't be a wise dare to accept).

wall of text, but that's what it takes to practically run this side alone -.-'

Texas Hold'em is actually more about skill and the ability to count probabilities on the fly than just pure luck.

If you had read my previous post in this topic (or even whole post in which i mentioned my father) you would see that i am FOR gambling.

Those who know the odds of gambling but gamble to have fun are not dumb peoples.

People that gamble to win, loose more money than they can afford and desperatly tries to win them back before they go home are fools.

But all in all I guess gambling is a bad thing that does more harm that it does good, But I think strict limits would make it better.
I agree with NutHug

I should've been clearer, but I didn't want to make it too apparent that I'm unfairly using you as an example of an ideal debater and for that reason expecting you to always act exactly like that, as you usually do.

I read your earlier post, like all the posts on the thread like I always do in debate before participating. Somehow it just didn't sink into me when writing that you were also giving better arguments (I think personal experience is balid but not enough in itself, in cases like this that is) even in the same post. Sorry for that.

I have no problem with gambling, it's an entertaining way to spend an evening. And it seems like it's possible to make money over time playing poker, since it's based on skill rather than luck and if you're doing it often enough you'll be better than the people who stop in, lose fifty bucks and leave. But if someone develops a problem so serious they won't go to a recovery program, they're probably going to gamble somewhere illegal if they can't find a legal venue.

In our state the only legal casinos are Native-run, which in itself brings a whole host of other issues regarding how the profits should be utilized to better serve the community. The money coming from these casinos can be used to fund scholarships and urban renewal projects (which is nice), but if a tribe is wealthy enough it will also send checks to its members once they turn eighteen, which winds up leading to them taking it as a lump sum once they can and wasting it right away, with nothing to show for it. I think the money could be better utilized to serve the community, but it's up to the individual tribes to iron out the details, and you'd probably have to grease some palms. That's too far removed for this debate, though.