Gambling can be easily defined as either assuming a risk or playing a game for money or property. Those who purchase stocks, or invest money are playing financial game to generate a return on money and are generally reasonable people who understand the risks inherent. So the assumption of the argument that gambling is irrational is a clear case of confirmation bias based solely in the individual’s view of gambling. This of course does not mean the entire Yes argument has confirmation bias; it does however show that the argument for the Yes column based on ones state of mind may in fact have confirmation bias.
Continuing on to the No column we see that the argument again approaches the psychological aspects involved. However, instead of simply making a statement of fact or opinion the argument outlines why the psychological aspects exist.
There are other areas approached and all are cited or linked to other sources for support. While this section shows a decided lack of confirmation bias it should be noted that the No side does not in fact address or counter the Yes side but simply offers an argument that explains the initial question.
The citations for the No side show that the desire of those arguing the No side was based in research and an attempt to decide the truth. The citations used went back to publications by noteworthy news organizations such as PBS. This article in turn cited various studies and research that had been submitted on the subject. On the Yes side of the argument there were no citations supporting the argument, making the argument itself a personal one that while it may have had a basis in truth lacked the support necessary to prove that.
As a result of these observations it would be my conclusion that the No side is much more trustworthy given the nature of the argument and the lack of spurious claims without supporting evidence. The validity of each argument is something that could not be properly verified