Should Gambling be Ilegal?

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:

Conduct to Pro for concession. Balance to CON for concession

Concession,vote appropriately

yes, I will be 6-7, I am one step closer to getting to 50% win ratio and 1550 elo.

Since they are no rules against it, sources are here for R1

1.https://www.scribendi.com/advice/when_to_spell_out_numbers_in_writing.en.html
2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361844/
3.https://gambling.addictionblog.org/how-many-people-gamble/
4.https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/39,40,41/416,417
5.https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-participation-in-2017-behaviour-awareness-and-attitudes.pdf
6.https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/
7.https://www.debt.org/advice/gambling/
8.https://www.statista.com/topics/1368/gambling/
9.https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state-and-provincial-lotteries/
10.https://www.lotteryplaces.com/
11.https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/what-is-gambling-disorder
12.https://www.nami.org/Blogs/From-the-CEO/August-2014/Criminalization-of-Mental-Illness-It%E2%80%99s-a-Crime
13.https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/treatment-facilities/
14.https://www.gambling.net/statistics.php

Note that this debate is rated and counts for something, I will try my best

He didn't know what DDO stood for and says this is his first debate site in his 'About Me'.

Or that Risky112 is new to online debating in general.

My guess is that Risky112 recently came over from DDO, since there, definitions and whatnot are provided in the 1st round, instead of in the descriptions. He probably didn't know what to do with first round.

Thank you

Many people waive to see what the other people want to argue, it doesn’t help your opponent. As there is no definition of what you should do; I think you’re fine doing what you’re doing.

thank you

I wouldn't penalize it. If they don't respond with their case or rebuttals, then simply type "extend." That means you extend your impacts throughout the entirety of the debate. For normative resolutions that don't explicitly burden one side, the BOP is usually shared. In your case, your burden would be to prove that the harms of outlawing gambling outweigh the benefits, and your opponent's burden would be the converse. Specific debate styles have different rules on how the burden should be split and there is a bit of grey area sometimes as to who receives the bulk of the BOP.

In short, sharing the BOP would be the expected response here. There is ground for arguing the BOP, but splitting the burden is generally accepted in most debate styles, most of the time.

Don't worry about it. If he means to debate this seriously, then he'll provide BoP in second round.

I PM him to see if we wanted to restart this debate under good terms without any confusion

ok though I kinda made a lazy argument, I will see how it shapes up, he hasn't been online all day

When my opponent waives first round, I usually waive final round. Yes, Pro should not have waived here, but they are very likely new at debating, so just give him a chance ;)

Did I do this right?, if the BOP is assumed to be shared since the Instigator didn't set it up, is it unfair to post a full argument in R1 when waived?

I'm trying to be a good debater, I just need clarity on whether my logic is right here>

I will be debating you on this subject, good luck