The online argument that I have chosen is regarding gambling. The piece claims that there should be no lawful restrictions on the gambling game. The target audience is the economists, lawmakers, the citizens and those that engage in gambling. The people that are against the motion for example Les Bernal indicates that the promoters of commercial gambling always seek to elude the charges of exploitation by claiming that the act is voluntary. This business model for lotteries and casinos is only bound to work if the American government removes the freedom of the Americans. Radley Balko who is defending this motion indicates that this introductory argument does not have any data to show the gambling process drags the general social welfare of Americans which would lead the government to prohibit gambling acts. It does not show the facts about gambling regarding violence, expenses and also infringements on the civil liberties (Jon 2010).
The moderator later explains that it is not the role of the American government to bar its citizens from falling into mistakes and errors. There should be liberty among the citizens and that gambling is addictive. There are so many concerns about the effects that gambling has on the country, communities and on individuals. Gambling is at some referred to as stealing which leads to a reduction of the manufacturing in America. It is also explained that the gambling act should be legalized because the state runs almost 30% of the lotteries and gambling ventures. There is the explained fact that gambling has a predatory nature in case it is legalized.
The moderator has explained as it is said by one individual who is against the motion that the business model is entirely based on the people who are heavy in debt and those that are addicted to it. This is rhetorical because he explains that this is the reason why the study by Harrah indicated that nearly 90% of the profits made in gambling arise from financial losses of more than 10% of the visitors or new comers in the gambling act. This is also a fallacy because the Pareto principle indicates that there can be the difference such that 80% profits coming from 20% of the customers. Therefore this is not a valid reason to illegalize gambling. It is also argued that when it is illegalized that is when it will be carried out at higher rates (Jon 2010).
The argument contains several inductive fallacies which in general depicts a false conclusion in general although very strong true premises are presented in the argument. First the perception of the categories of people involved in the gambling is fallacy. Secondly, the notion that when gambling is illegal will facilitate more of it is a fallacy since no substantive evidence can substantial the statements. Every government has a responsibility to prevent its citizens from unlawful business activities; however, the argument exonerates the state from this responsibility which is another fallacy.