Assuming this isn't sarcasm... I would be very careful about banning or even dismissing anything that has been popular for thousands of years.

Well, sarcasm is against the guidelines I think, so let's say it was reductio ad absurdum. I'm responding to the idea that gambling+skill is just as bad, or bad enough to also ban. It would make the legislation and policing a lot simpler, close up some loopholes, and would have the side effect of outlawing the stock market, but I'm still against it.

Like gambling?

Yes. Consider the tradeoffs carefully. Try the experiments. Do the research. Then make a decision.

Haven't you already made a decision by saying "if the research finds X is true, we have a moral duty to ban gambling"? It's the is-ought problem.

Come on, do you see "sports" (completed separated from gambling on them) to be a plague on society? Do you have anyone in your family or social circle that had their lives destroyed by sports? It's not even comparable, your comment seems to be in bad faith

Except if it involves robots or Starcraft, because I like those. But I also like poker, which Sleepybrett seems opposed to.

What's the tangible negative outcome of widespread sports interest?