Hi all,

Not sure if this is the best place to post this or not, if not mod please move it. I'm giving a persuasive speech for my speech class tomorrow on why online gambling should be legalized/clarified (since the UIGEA is pretty ambiguous as we know). I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on what to include or not to include.

I'm planning on talking about the possible tax "benefits" (to non-gamblers) as well as the possibility of money coming to the U.S. from out of the country if online casinos based in the U.S. were allowed to open, as opposed to money going out of the country to online casinos based elsewhere in the world. I will also talk about how it seems to be an invasion of privacy and an restriction of our rights as a consumer. I also plan to talk about how many states have lotteries or casinos within their state's borders, and how it is not right to restrict online business.

Does anyone have any other ideas on topics to include? I will definitely be talking about Frank's bill in congress as well.

How about US should obey WTO decisions.

how about (no kidding):
1. internet gambling is NOT illegal, only unlawful gambling is covered by UIGEA

2. cite legal gambling examples (AOl, MSN, YAHOO! games a start, see the cash ones there

Then state why poker should be included as well as "other" gambling along with the legal U S gambling online.

obg

Mention the hypocrisy of the horse racing and state run lotto exemptions, which are specifically exempted from the UIGEA, even though they are gambooling over the internet.

I think pro-gambling arguments should be more consequentialist ("outcome based") rather than deontological ("rights based") given that our opponents tend to take the former position ("Online gambling is damaging").

It is a double standard to claim that costs alone can be enough to justify prohibition in the case of gambling when you implicitly recognise cost-benefit analysis for e.g. the use of cars. The fact that there are problem gamblers is no more reason to ban gambling than the number of people killed on the roads is a reason to ban cars. There are hundreds of millions of cars in the world, presumably a great benefit to many, making cars justifiable even though a small number are made worse off. Similarly, there are large numbers of people who gamble without problems. Is it denying benefits to millions just to prevent costs to a small number? If so, why not consistently follow this to its logical conclusion and ban just about anything?

The second point is harm minimisation. If online gambling was the only type of gambling or indeed only vice in the world, you could be fairly confident that prohibiting it would help problem gamblers. People substitute, however, and that makes it a lot trickier. Even if all forms of gambling was prohibited, illegal games would still exist with their presumably greater possibilities for harm.

Excellent points and clarification of the argument, Nichlemn.

Also, OP should post his speech for further comment so that its arguments can be used for other purposes.

Mention that poker is winning legal battles to be classified by states as a "skill game" rather than a "game of chance" (which is regulated quite differently) such as the lottery or a slot machine.

Also, related to the "skill game" argument, you could talk about how very smart people that could make money doing something else choose poker. As an example, on a recent episode of Poker After Dark, most of the players at the table (8?) were successful pros with a Ph.D.

Couple other talking points:

Trying to censor and limit the internet is generally a bad idea. Because the internet is world wide, regulations attempting to limit it should generally be made on an international basis, and not on a country by country basis. Something like child porn has international disdain, so it's reasonably easy to obtain international cooperation on trying to prevent it. However, a very large number of people in the world see nothing wrong with someone playing a $2 online poker tournament. So, how do you enforce a view of just one (or an isolated number of) countries that want to prevent something on the internet? Really, you can't. Since the passage of the UIGEA, pokerscout.com shows that the number of people playing online poker has steadily increased. Where there's a will, there is a way.

If people are going to play anyhow, why not tax and regulate it?

Also, I'd also mention that it is countries like China that censor the internet. As a general matter, the U.S. should not be trying to censor the internet on something so trivial as internet poker. If someone wants to play internet poker, the U.S. should let them.