This house would ban all forms of gambling

Set up

1. Incentives gambling
a. Miserable for coping mech
b. Getting money easily

Ban of gambling  Preventing harm SQ

Trade off  People agency of gambling , gambliing industry

1. Why justify
a. People agency and freedom of choice shouldn’t ruin people live
- Gambling too much opportunity cost (family man), focus on family better like children
- Time and situation risky + alcohol also happen
- Bad environment (certain change mindset of bad image of neighborhood)
b. This people is not vunerable  bad people
- Make people addicted
- People false sense security (first win and then lose)
- Undercover gambling industry
2. Ban  Gambler better
a. For gambler
- Have resources more to use not on gambling
- Miserable on one time but can be longterm to be better people
a. Family support
b. Gov deterance
c. Rationality, have other coping mech
b. Gambler industry
- Change to be game show
- Not runaway and undercover

Weighing

a. Cater people, prevent future harm

b. Mitigate of agency of people

OPP

1. Gambling ban not easy

a. Market of gambling
b. Traditional and tradition of gambling

Stance: Not Ban but regulation more

1. Why agency shouldn’t be limited

 a. Ruining can mitigate:
- Rational happen anyway in both sides (gambling part of people’s life). Other resources
like millionare in Las Vegas is the one who engange to gambling
- Coping mechanism someone feel comfortable more with gambling
2. If ban how bad?
a. Gambling  worse manner and illegally  HARD CHECK AND BALANCE WOULD BE WORSE
UNDERCOVER
3. Why better counter
a. Safe space  more information  more rational in gambling
b. Regulation push gambling industry to be obey to gov.
c. Not banning , more engangement (critical thinking, connection, environment not that bad in
gambling)

Frame

a. Mitigate harm (agency and developing)

b. Worse impact
c. Rationality