> Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling?

It's not so binary. You could allow for regulated gambling that mitigates the social problems, but ban unregulated gambling.

> To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement.

I agree that's part of the issue, but not the "real" issue. For example: if you desperately need a job and someone puts an all-or-nothing employment contract with an arbitration clause in front of you, you'll sign even if you fully understand that arbitration is a bad deal for you.

The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.