Final Scenario Report

Standardisations

C. Pokies in Deadwood: A winning bet

Conclusion: Pokies should not be banned in Deadwood

Premise 1: People in the community want pokies

Premise 2: Pokies are a form of entertainment
Sub-Premise A: Equally as valid as going to the movies or eating at a restaurant
Sub-Premise B: Consenting adults don’t respect elitist moralisers who sneer at their choice to
play pokies
Sub-Premise C: We all have choices and none of us are morally superior

Premise 3: Pokies increase tax revenue

Sub-Premise A: Taxed, as are the Gem’s profits
Sub-Premise B: Venues must make direct contributions to their local community

Premise 4: Pokies are a better bet than Bitcoin

Premise 5: Being treated like idiot children who can’t be trusted with scissors
Sub-Premise A: Think for yourselves
Sub-Premise B: Be adults about this
Sub-Premise C: Demand to be treated as adults

Premise 6: Pokies expenditure represents just over 1 per cent of household disposable income

C. Don’t Gamble Away Our Town

Conclusion: Pokies should be banned in Deadwood

Premise 1: Al Swearengen wants money

Premise 2: Poker machines are a significant contributor to problem gambling
Sub-Premise A: $25 billion dollars is lost annually on gambling in Australia
Sub-Premise B: Most of this is lost by those who can’t afford to lose it
Sub-Premise C: Pokies prey on vulnerable individuals
Sub-Premise D: Dopamine is released during gambling in brain areas similar to those activated
by abusing drugs

Premise 3: Poker machines are designed to be addictive

Sub-Premise A: Use sound, light, and visual effects to create an immersive experience
Sub-Premise B: Have “near misses”
Sub-Premise C: Manipulates people into thinking

Premise 4: Allowing poker machines in Deadwood will result in organized crime and money
laundering

Premise 5: Gambling can have harmful social consequences

Sub-Premise A: Relationship breakdowns
Sub-Premise B: Family conflict
Sub-Premise C: Domestic violence

Analysis
Analysis of Argument
Within "Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet", the main argument is presented through an
inductive method. It relies heavily on anecdotal proof, including assertions that locals are
requesting pokies and accounts of those who have played them elsewhere. The attempt to
energize readers against government imposition by treating citizens like "idiot children" also
utilizes pathos as a persuasive technique. Furthermore, it presents analogies comparing other
forms of entertainment such as dining out or going to see films with allowing for pokie machines
within casinos at Deadwood locations which should be permitted if these activities can occur
without issue . Finally , causal claims suggest positive effects from allowing these gambling
machines present; local communities will see increased revenue generated due to taxes raised.
Generally speaking, the contention posited in “Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet” is
somewhat feeble. While it may hold veracity that members of the populace have expressed a
desire for slot machines and that they could possibly augment town revenue, there lacks
substantiated support for such assertions. Additionally, this argument neglects to consider
probable negative ramifications associated with permitting pokies – like gambling addiction risks
and related social repercussions - which warrant attention as well.
The contention advanced in the article "Don't Gamble Away Our Town" is chiefly based on
logical deduction. To begin with, it exposes the deficiencies present in Al Swearengen's
argument and subsequently furnishes evidence to uphold its own assertions. Utilizing findings
from research studies, it corroborates that poker machines serve as an important culprit of
gambling addiction while being intentionally made addictive by design. Besides this, using
causal arguments allows for an insinuation: endorsing pokies in Deadwood may ultimately result
in higher rates of organized crime and financial fraudulence taking place there.
On the whole, "Don't Gamble Away Our Town" presents a much more compelling argument
than that of "Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet." Its strength stems from its utilization of
evidential support as opposed to relying solely on anecdotal evidence and emotional appeals.
Another significant factor which enhances its credibility is acknowledging potential negative
consequences resulting from permitting pokies in Deadwood and providing substantiation for
said claims.
Evaluation of Argument
The points put forth in Al Swearengen's "Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet" are
commendable on several counts. For starters, he respects the independent will of the populace
residing within Deadwood by highlighting that playing and enjoying pokier is a voluntary
activity; therefore, it rests upon an individual to choose whether they want to play or not without
any coercion from anyone else. Furthermore, data cited by Sydney Morning Herald indicates that
pokies only account for a minor fraction of disposable household income. This implies that
expenses incurred due to this form of entertainment are hardly consequential financially
speaking. Also noteworthy is Swearengen’s argument positing poker machines as forms of
amusement which further reinforces their appeal among gamblers who desire such activities thus
reinforcing his pro-autonomy stance amongst players. Lastly but perhaps most importantly
however,Sweargen contends poker machines would be instrumental in increasing tax revenues
while also directly generating revenue towards supporting local communities. Overall, this
makes them even more attractive options.
Nevertheless, the argument has a few weaknesses that require attention. There is no evidence
provided by Swearengen to support his claim of financial turmoil being suffered by businesses
since the pandemic started. His proposition for overcoming these monetary challenges would be
through pokies' introduction. However, he ignores any possible adverse effects associated with
this course of action. This includes problem gambling and its consequential economic burden on
people that may ultimately outweigh their gains from it. Comparing poker machines to Bitcoin
was also not too convincing nor effective in making an argument for potential benefits regarding
them or how they compare at all effectively.
Bullock in his argument "Don't Gamble Away Our Town" showcases several commendable
aspects. Initially, by highlighting Swearengen's monetary aspirations instead of considering the
rights of Deadwood members, the writer effectively appeals to readers' morals. Secondly, there is
citation of research that reveals poker machines as a significant contributor to problem gambling
which causes financial and social consequences. As well as this evidence for addiction in gaming
being high due to its design allowing vulnerability in addicts is presented clearly through an
additional point made within their rhetoric Finally presenting points about how if these machines
were allowed it could open doors possibly inviting organized crime or money laundering given
time with other newly available forms attracting them now too.
The argument in question contains several flaws. It lacks substantiating proof to validate the
author's allegations about Swearengen not truly believing in his claims or poker machines that
exploit feeble individuals. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge the plausible advantages of
implementing these apparatuses including amplified tax revenue and forthright support for local
communities. Additionally, comparing them with heroin is debatable and does little to establish a
persuasive case against their detrimental potentialities.
Language
The discourse presented by Al Swearengen in "Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet" is
structured through the lens of personal liberties, autonomy, and economic advantages. He posits
that authorizing poker machines within Deadwood would be congruent with grown-up's
entitlement to independently formulate verdicts while supplementing monetary gains for the
town. In addition, he employs verbal strategies to depict those who oppose these gaming
apparatuses as snobbish individuals disapprovingly regarding choices made by the denizens of
Deadwood.
The language used by Swearengen presents a compelling argument that highlights the economic
benefits and individual liberties associated with permitting poker machines. His aim is to instill
both a sense of immediacy and trepidation regarding losing one's rights, while simultaneously
uniting proponents in opposition to what he portrays as foreign opponents. Emotion plays a
crucial role within his rhetoric, painting the grim picture of an oppressed community fighting
against their own government’s constraints. Regrettably, despite its grandeur allurement through
linguistics; it falls short due to insufficient evidence supporting his claims or acknowledgment
towards potential gambling detriments
In contrast, the ‘Don’t Gamble Away Our Town’ argument is framed in terms of potential harms
associated with poker machines. The author argues that poker machines are designed to be
addictive and that they prey on vulnerable individuals. They point to research which suggests
that the social and financial costs associated with problem gambling far outweigh any short-term
gains for businesses. They also point out the potential for organized crime and money laundering
if poker machines are allowed.
In contrast to Swearengen's style, the writer of 'Don’t Gamble Away Our Town' adopts a more
impersonal and factual approach. The author substantiates their point-of-view with evidence
while emphasizing the dangers of permitting poker machines. To create unity, they liken
Swearengen's motives to those shared by "micro-Trumps" whose interests solely revolve around
finances. Nonetheless, there is one drawback; despite highlighting potential hazards linked with
gambling devices, the above claims lack supportive data or in-depth analysis regarding its
benefits if any exist that could be considered plausible enough for allowing them without
regretting later on.
Recommendation Summary Briefing
Mayor Farnum should judge the cases presented in the newspaper carefully. While both
arguments have strengths and weaknesses, the argument presented in “Don’t Gamble Away Our
Town” is the stronger of the two.
 This argument provides evidence to back up its claims and acknowledges the potential
downsides of allowing pokies in Deadwood.
 It also provides evidence to suggest that poker machines are designed to be addictive and
can have a significant financial and social cost.
In order to further the discourse in a productive manner, it would be advantageous for Mayor
Farnum to concentrate on evaluating the advantages and drawbacks of permitting poker
machines within Deadwood. It is necessary that any verdict made takes into deliberation the
feasible financial, communal, and ethical implications associated with pokies being allowed in
this area. Additionally, he ought also analyze how any resolution may impact each resident's
liberty within the community of Deadwood while considering if allowing poker machines aligns
alongside their privileges and independence as citizens. In conclusion ,Mayor Farnum should
reflect upon both economic rewards/costs resulting from accommodating poker machines
situated inside town limits along with increased tax revenues stemming therefrom before arriving
at his final determination about such an important matter affecting all concerned parties involved
therein.
Mayor Farnum should judge the cases presented in the newspaper based on the strength of the
arguments and the evidence provided. The argument put forward in “Don’t Gamble Away Our
Town” is the stronger case, as it provides evidence to back up its claims and acknowledges both
the potential benefits and potential harms of allowing poker machines in Deadwood.
Furthermore, it does not rely solely on anecdotal evidence or appeals to emotion, as is the case
with “Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet”.

To advance the conversation in a valuable manner, Mayor Farnum ought to concentrate on how
allowing poker machines in Deadwood could affect its citizens - both positively and negatively.
It is important that he examines both sides of this issue by assessing presented evidence while
also weighing potential benefits versus drawbacks for permitting these devices within town
limits. Furthermore, it behooves Mayor Farnum to reflect upon any moral considerations
regarding his decision as well as how it might influence people's lives; from individuals and their
families up through implications extending throughout the wider community itself. Ultimately,
when making choices about whether or not they should be installed hereabouts – regardless of if
there are pros outweighing cons- decisions must always serve what’s most beneficial for
everyone who calls Deadwood home while being mindful of previously stated viewpoints at
hand so no one feels left out.
Based on the evidence presented in both “Pokies in Deadwood: A Winning Bet” and “Don’t
Gamble Away Our Town”, the best decision for the people of Deadwood would be to not allow
poker machines in the town.