CTFC and FCC do more ad regulation, and the FCC regulated tobacco ads so therefor the FTC should not create a regulatory framework for sports gambling

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "CTFC and FCC do more ad regulation, and the FCC regulated tobacco ads so therefor the FTC should not create a regulatory framework for sports gambling". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

CTFC and FCC do more ad regulation, and the FCC regulated tobacco ads so therefore the FTC should not create a regulatory framework for sports gambling

You're building your whole argument on a false comparison. The FCC regulated tobacco ads because tobacco literally kills people — we're talking 480,000 deaths a year in the US alone. Sports gambling isn't tobacco. The real question isn't "did another agency regulate something?"—it's whether the FTC has the authority and mandate to protect consumers from deceptive gambling marketing. They absolutely do. The FTC's entire job is policing unfair and deceptive practices. Sports gambling targets kids with flashy apps and zero friction. That's exactly what the FTC was built for. Your logic would paralyze every regulator: "Well, the FDA did food safety, so the EPA shouldn't touch water pollution." Different problems, different tools. Why shouldn't the FTC act?

ust because the FTC puts a regulatory framework on sports betting that means more people will go to the black market, instead people will go to the legal market because they will understand that the FTC is making the legal market safer

You're confusing consumer confidence with consumer behavior—they're not the same thing. Regulation makes markets *feel* safer, sure, but that doesn't stop people from gambling illegally if the legal version has friction. Black markets thrive on convenience and anonymity, not safety messaging. Look at sports betting in states that *already* have heavy FTC/state-level regulations: illegal wagering still captures 30-40% of the market. People don't think "the FTC approved this, so I'll use it instead of my guy who texts me odds." They think "faster, easier, no paperwork." Tighter FTC rules on legal sportsbooks just means more red tape and higher compliance costs—which pushes bettors away, not toward regulated platforms. You've got the incentive backwards.

The loop of state tax revenue means that states depend on poverty and gambling addiction to fund gambling addiction programs which is instead lost revenue which means that an FTC frame work would decrease these harms and state tax revenue can come from somewhere else

You're describing a problem the FTC framework doesn't solve—it just shuffles money around. States *already* have gambling regulations. Adding federal FTC rules on top doesn't eliminate the addiction; it just reduces the revenue states use to fund treatment. You're asking states to magically find that money elsewhere while problem gambling rates stay the same. They won't. Politicians will cut treatment programs first, not find new revenue. And your assumption that FTC oversight actually prevents addiction is backwards—it prevents *deceptive marketing*, not gambling itself. People addicted to slots don't need "clearer disclosures," they need treatment. The FTC can't fix that. You're trading real state funding for theoretical consumer protection that doesn't touch the addiction problem at all.