[ENGLISH] Encountering Conflict - Persuasive

[Lasercookie]

I've uploaded the scanned version as a series of images. I've also attached it as a PDF file (edit: the PDF file was too large to attach to this post) I can type the essay out if required.

The prompt was: "Conflict can have an enormous impact on those both directly and indirectly involved"

The images are uploaded here:
Page 1 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#0
Page 2 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#1
Page 3 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#2
Page 4 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#3
Page 5 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#4
Page 6 - http://imgur.com/a/2JXWQ#5

I didn't scan in my Statement of Intention, but basically I was attempting an opinion piece type article entitled "Death of a Nation". The text being used here is The Crucible.

A large issue with it was clarity / relevance in terms of responding to the prompt, so I'm looking for ways where I can improve that aspect of things (along with anything else that needs to be improved).

[VivaTequila]

My internet here is incredibly slow, the pictures aren't even loading. You asked so nicely So I will have a look but I just can't do it now even though I want to. I'll get back to you!

[Lasercookie]

Thanks Viva, I appreciate it a lot.

[VivaTequila]

Okay,  so I'll just critique it as I go along. I'm going to be a bit of a Devil's Advocate here to just make sure you see how you could possibly improve it in every way possible. Some of the criticism might be harsh but it's the price of getting a good mark - rest assured that you're already well above average and shouldn't fret too much. It's probably just me being a pedant, not major flaws in your work

- Intro:

You have not defined what the "educational crisis" is in any way - you've stated we have one, and you've included that it's not due to a variety of reasons (i.e. it's NOT a lack of public funding, and it's NOT a lack of an Australian curriculum). You've then gone on to explain that it's a big problem in politics, and you've stated that it's a problem that Australia isn't fixing itself.

This is poor material for an introduction... :v

You haven't
a) explained what the problem is (an educational crisis is bad because....)
b) explained the cause (why would you explain what DIDN'T cause the problem when you haven't referenced what has?)
c) explained why it's a big problem in politics and what politics has to do with any of it
d) generally given me a clear picture of what the essay is going to be about, I'm more confused as an assessor at this point than anything

However the expression was good

1st Paragraph:

Unfortunately I'm battling to read your handwriting, and I can't figure out what it's trying to say. I would advise against opening paragraphs with "let me tell you a joke" because then it isn't obvious what the paragraph is going to be about - your somewhat sloppy introduction continues to confuse and bamboozle in the first paragraph, particularly the start of the first paragraph. Your explanation of the joke is too tacit, I can't see what it has to do with anything, possibly because I haven't read the crucible and I still don't know what you're talking about at this stage. You need to be clearer and spend more time explaining what you are writing, because the implied style of writing that you've adopted thus far is directed at those 'in the know' - not like me, who hasn't studied this context or book.

2nd Paragraph / 3 statements:

I have no idea what they reference, but I assume the emphasis here is pretty big. I just wish I knew what was being discussed :|

3rd Paragraph:
I just want to your everyone's attention to the first line, last word. It looks like one big scribble that just moves from left to right and fluctuates up and down a little bit. I can read "hu" and that's it - it just turns into a line. You should really invest effort into improving your handwriting man...

... I'm continuing and dude I simply can't read your handwriting now. To me, it reads:
Sixty years ago, Arthur Miller demonstrated that hu----- are easily manipulated by [n]atters (matters) of moral conscience. In times of conflict if one fatsely clams the higher novel grand, it will become difficult indeed for another to argue against their position...

Can you please type the essay up and send it to me?...

I want to help but I can't read it and I'm just battling too hard to understand what you're saying because of the handwriting.

[Lasercookie]

Thanks for having a look at it, and yeah I understand, I'm fine with supposedly harsh criticism especially since I want to work towards improving my writing considerably.

I'll type up the essay as is. I realise my handwriting is a bit of a problem, I've improved a fair bit since the start of the year, I'll have to work towards improving further (staying calm and writing slowly is probably the best way I can keep it legible). I think my teachers have gotten used to the writing, so it's good to have a fresh opinion on it.

You haven't
a) explained what the problem is (an educational crisis is bad because....)
b) explained the cause (why would you explain what DIDN'T cause the problem when you haven't referenced what has?)
c) explained why it's a big problem in politics and what politics has to do with any of it
d) generally given me a clear picture of what the essay is going to be about, I'm more confused as an assessor at this point than anything

Yeah, I was trying to just use the educational crisis this as a sensationalist hook of sorts. I was trying to introduce my overall argument where the problem isn't a single political issue but the politicians themselves - who haven't learnt their lesson from history and hence are harming the nation. I'll have a good think about how I approach my introductions and how to communicate more clearly.

Thanks for having a look, I'll get to work on typing it up so it's easier to read.

[Lasercookie]

Here's the typed essay (also attached the word document). I tried to copy it out exactly as how I handwrote it - so left in spelling, grammar mistakes etc. I did have trouble myself reading my own handwriting here and there :/ :/ :/

I can see what you mean that I've assumed readers are "in the know", especially with how I've handled my secondary evidence. I did kind of just jump into using a lot of quotes from what was at the time of writing this piece recent quotes from politicians / in the media. That was something I mentioned in my Statement of Intention, which now that the SAC is over I don't have the flexibility of relying on anymore to make what I'm trying to say clear.

Those three stop the boats statements was me attempting to exaggerate what the politicians sound like when they harp on. The "joke" bit was just my way of attempting to introduce The Crucible as being an allegory in the essay. Upon rereading, I can see that it comes across as being pretty clunky.


Prompt: "Conflict can have an enormous impact on those both directly and indirectly involved"

DEATH OF A NATION

Australia, we find ourselves amidst an educational crisis. No, this crisis is not due to inadequate public funding nor is it due to a lack of an Australian curriculum. It is an issue that pervades our entire political atmosphere and then seeps into the greater society. This is an educational crisis in which the nation refuses to reflect and improve on itself.

Allow me to present you with a joke: The current circumstances of our country is paralleled and criticised in a work of fiction dating from sixty years ago. Not very funny, right? Even J.R.R. Tolkein, who “cordially disliked allegory in all it’s manefestations” could not deny the value of “applicability” which can be gained from history, regardless if it is “truth or feigned”. Arthur Miller was a staunch believer in learning from the past and wrote in 1952 his play, “The Crucible”, the held the goal of reminding people of history and forcing them to see that the same mistakes are being repeated. Of course, in the case of history we are aware of the final results, however negative they might be. This is significant indeed, after all the criticisms of Miller are still highly relevant to our society today.

“We must stop the boats,” says Gillard.

“We must stop the boats,” says Abbott.

“We must stop this idiotic behaviour,” says I.

Sixty years ago, Arthur Miller demonstrated that humans are easily manipulated by matters of moral conscience. In times of conflict if one falsely claims the higher moral ground, it will become difficult indeed for another to argue against their position. After all, the one that has peceived themselves on top will merely look down upon them and veto any opposing arguments on the basis of his “better” moral position. This position could be claiming to know the will of God, or it may be a fruitless desire to “stop the boats” and prevent the deaths of the poor asylum seekers who seek out the journey out of desperation. This of course is the stance adopted by the Labor Party and the Liberals. The consequences of such a notion is dire, for it leaves the one making the claim with essentially an “invincibility cloak” – a powerful weapon in conflict where they are rendered uncriticisable.

The impact of this is further compounded when the position of power is used to enforce flawed decisions such as off-shore processing under the guise of being a just and humane action. It is difficult to see the humanity in a process that is designed to not “advantage those who arrived by boat” over those who followed more “legitimate” processes.

A detterant has been proposed through enforcing excessively long detention periods, where asylum seekers may “languish” for up to decades. Julia Gillard claimed that the reasons for this was to determine “how long an asylum seeker would have waited … had they not paid a people smuggler.” The Prime Minister’s suspicions are correct, the asylum seekers would not have waited long at all.

After all, they would be dead.

This is a period in Australian history where reason has been abandoned. In every conflict when the motives of those involved are questionable, whether it will all end well is also questionable. The strive for any political gain possible has become an excessive strain on our nation. Like Danforth in “The Crucible”, our politicians wish to reveal no “floundering on [their] part” and only proport a positive opinion from the Australian public. It is with this as their motive that they relentlessly pursue their tough stance on “illegal” immigrants, as it does resonate well with the Australian public.

It is with this distraction that we allow the real issue to slip out of our hands. This indeed allows a “prodigious danger” to unfold, where the area we should be discussing and debating is left unaddressed. This is, of course, the racist mindset the smears our nation. It is this fear of the “different” that is the reason that the inhumane stance on asylum seekers wins so many votes in parliament. Believe me though, there is a greater harm being caused in not properly acknowledging all the big factors in play when it comes to conflict.

In the words of Nazeem Hussain, Australia is a “racist country that doesn’t know how to stop being racist.” The issue left alone, it has proven itself to fester into consequences such as the 2005 Cronulla riots and the Indian “curry bashings”. These shap Australia into a nation with little legitimacy on the international stage, for we are unable to deal with even our national issues adequately.

The notion that public debate is hindered and unnecessary consequences allowed to ensue is at it’s very core, disgusting.

It must be acknlowedged, however, that conflict is rarely black and white. Paris Aristotle, one of the members of the panel that produced the Houston report, realised that the “full complexity of the issue must be considered.” It is clear in Aristotle’s work that the desire to take a humane course of action and prevent death of those most desperate is genuine. Yet how can it they be convinced the pathway chosen is the correct one? It is not dissimilar to Miller’s character Mary Warren. Like our politicians in the heat of the battle, Mary Warren convinced herself of a lie. It is in the sweep of hysteria that she convinced herself so well that she could force herself to faint under the conditions of “pretence”.

Our politicians have merely convinced themselves that they are taking the right approach and satisfying the whim of the nation. And who can blame them? To not chase after the “loose spirits” would ascertain political death. It is not much use if they are, figuratively speaking, dead. In Aristotle’s own words, “There is a greater risk in doing nothing” in times like these.

This does not, however, justify the throwing out of what little democracy was left out the window. It is true that Julia Gillards statement that the Australian people “are sick to death of political bickering” but that does not mean that the requirement for “due process” can be ignored. In a desperate attempt to gain positive political momentum, the decision to re-open the off shore detention centres has been incredibly rushed. The Australian Government changed the schedule of the Senate to focus on this issue. They did not await for consultation from the United Nations on the matter of human rights. It was reveal that they did not even contact Nauru before dragging them into our petty political games. They have even compromised their so called humane solution with the administration of a temporary tent detention centre, as the proper one is not “ready”. Not to mention the Australian Military has also been enlisted to help. It does not do justice of the nation to lose all respect for the essential art of public debate. In the process, the ability to guide the conflict to a desirable outcome is lost.

It is of interest that in all this mess, our political leaders have proven themselves capable. They have shown, to an extent, that they are able to come to a decision quickly and begin working on implementing it immediately. It must be asked, why did they wait so long to do so?

It would have been nice if they grasped the opportunity to shape the nation for the better. The situation presented to them the opportunity to tackle the core issues that plague our nation, but they acted against it. They had the chance to focus on issues that are, you know, actually relevant to the average Australian citizen. It is unfortunate that issues such as inadequate public funding or the lack of an Australian curriculum are not given the attention they deserve. Let alone this, the prospect of issues such as the deep social issues which plague the nation are in fact pushed into the wrong direction in favour of the wrong decisions to the wrong issues.

Conflict presents to us many opportunities, but what use is it if they are not grasped.

History does not judge lightly. Let alone travesties such as the apartheid in South Africa, the genocide engineered by the Nazis and the crimes of medieval civilisations, recent Australian history is already judged harshly. The White Australia policy, and even Howards “Pacific Solution” of only a few years ago are now only mentioned in parts of society with a tone of disgust and disapproval.

In what way will our current circumstances fare then? It is clear that the Australian nation has been party to a big mistake, a mistake engineered by that which is taken for granted in this country. It is inevitable that, in the future, the era which we are currently living through will be looked down upon, with us deemed to be on the wrong side of history.

It must be questioned which way will this vital conflict be handled.

Will we see an effort to learn from the mistakes of the past and revive the nation?

Or will we remain ignorant on the nature of conflict and condemn the nation to continue tumbling to it’s death?

edit: paragraphing didn't copy and paste across correctly, should be fixed now.

[MonsieurHulot]

I realise that this is being extremely nit-picky, however twice you used it's when you should have used its. It just threw me off a little from what I otherwise thought was a strong, emotive essay.

[VivaTequila]

Prompt: "Conflict can have an enormous impact on those both directly and indirectly involved"

DEATH OF A NATION

Australia, we find ourselves amidst an educational crisis. No, this crisis is not due to inadequate public funding nor is it due to a lack of an Australian curriculum. It is an issue that pervades our entire political atmosphere and then seeps into the greater society. This is an educational crisis in which the nation refuses to reflect and improve on itself.

Same criticisms as before. To paraphrase this paragraph:
- We find ourselves in a crises
- It's not caused by lack-of-funds
- It's not caused by lack-of-aussie-curricula
- It's an issue that is big in politics and society
- It's an issue that the country doesn't want to deal with

Not very strong material for an introduction, unfortunately, because it's just a farrago of conflicting elements and I have no idea what you're going to talk about for the essay... I can't see how this is related to "encountering conflict" at this point in time, nor can I see the links to the prompt [which references impact on those directly and indirectly involved]. I think you could improve by touching on some of these points and by reworking some of the sentences to deal with more relevant information - discuss what CAUSED the problem, not what DIDN'T cause it. But above all, this paragraph just needs some contextualization - what do you think the problem is [explicitly and exactly, do not be subtle], and why should I care? Punchy clear sentences with oomph is what we need in the intro.

Allow me to present you with a joke: The current circumstances of our country is paralleled and criticised in a work of fiction dating from sixty years ago. Not very funny, right? Even J.R.R. Tolkein, who “cordially disliked allegory in all it’s manefestations” could not deny the value of “applicability” which can be gained from history, regardless if it is “truth or feigned”. Arthur Miller was a staunch believer in learning from the past and wrote in 1952 his play, “The Crucible”, the held the goal of reminding people of history and forcing them to see that the same mistakes are being repeated. Of course, in the case of history we are aware of the final results, however negative they might be. This is significant indeed, after all the criticisms of Miller are still highly relevant to our society today.

Opening with "Allow me to present you with a joke:" is a bit of a balls-to-the-walls move. I wouldn't recommend it because it just looks like you aren't in control of your writing. If you were to open with a joke, it would run more like something along the lines of It's a joke that... or something to that effect. The "Allow me to present you with a joke" is just clunky.

The next sentence isn't a joke, and nor is it funny - it's just confusing. You're talking about this "joke" very personally the sentences {let me present you with a joke} and {not very funny, right?} are very personal, and it has the tone of speaking to a life long friend who knows exactly what you are talking about. The joke itself doesn't mean anything, and is grammatically incorrect, and should read something like Our country's circumstances have been paralleled and criticized in [specify WHAT work of fiction by WHO and the rest of the relevant information, because the whole sentence means nothing without it].

Who is J.R.R. Tolkein and why should I care? I like the quote though, interested to see what you're going to make of it.

Manifestation is spelt incorrectly.

Well done with the introduction to AM and The Crucible, this paragraph has improved markedly since the first 3 sentences.

The sentence {Of course, in the case of history we are aware of the final results, however negative they might be} doesn't mean anything and is confusing again - what EXACTLY do you mean? I think you've FINALLY in the last sentence explained what your whole introduction and first paragraph are - {After all the criticisms of miller are still highly relevant to our society today}. If you were trying to say "All of the criticisms directed at Miller for his (now ancient) play are still relevant to our society today", then you should have opened with that! Because that makes sense, save for the grammar, but it does make sense. More sense than the rest of the paragraph. If you'd opened with that and done your explanation afterwards, it'd have been about 300% better. So far the essay is a bit cluttered and confused, but I'm hoping it'll sort itself out

“We must stop the boats,” says Gillard.

“We must stop the boats,” says Abbott.

“We must stop this idiotic behaviour,” says I.

Smacked me right across the face - what do Gillard, Abbott, you the author, and boats have to do with anything Miller related or learning from the past?

Sixty years ago, Arthur Miller demonstrated that humans are easily manipulated by matters of moral conscience. In times of conflict if one falsely claims the higher moral ground, it will become difficult indeed for another to argue against their position. After all, the one that has peceived themselves on top will merely look down upon them and veto any opposing arguments on the basis of his “better” moral position. This position could be claiming to know the will of God, or it may be a fruitless desire to “stop the boats” and prevent the deaths of the poor asylum seekers who seek out the journey out of desperation. This of course is the stance adopted by the Labor Party and the Liberals. The consequences of such a notion is dire, for it leaves the one making the claim with essentially an “invincibility cloak” – a powerful weapon in conflict where they are rendered uncriticisable.

And now it comes out! The concept of "moral ground" needs to be defined - I don't know exactly what you mean. What is moral ground, and why does it have the effect of giving someone a big head? Define it better, because it's very vague and could literally mean anything, "moral grounds" could be a euphemism for... ahem, I won't go there. But the paragraph is certainly amusing if you follow it through. Just don't be tacit - say exactly what you need to say here. And still, what do Boats have to do with anything? You've started attacking the liberals - why? I still don't know what you are contending and it's the end of paragraph 2.5 - what are you saying, give me some clarity? So far this is what I know:

- You like philosophers and quotes about history
- There are boats
- Liberals are involved
- People who have better moral positions (ahem) don't listen to others
- Arthur Miller wanted people to learn from the past, (and possibly he was criticized for it / I didn't understand your paragraph 2)
- There's a problem with Australian education at the heart of all of this
- ?

The impact of this is further compounded when the position of power is used to enforce flawed decisions such as off-shore processing under the guise of being a just and humane action. It is difficult to see the humanity in a process that is designed to not “advantage those who arrived by boat” over those who followed more “legitimate” processes.

the impact of what? it wasn't clear from the last paragraph to me at least, and subsequently this opener means little to me again... it's always a safer bet to not paraphrase and be explicit with everything. define it here, too, just to remind the reader/assessor, in case they've forgotten after marking 300 other papers before yours. especially if your argument isn't clear until now, it'll be hard to remember the constituent parts, which you're referring to as {the impact of this...}. And "compounded" in this sense is clunky, I'd have used exacerbated.

I see now a very clear argument - powerful party leaders are doing "off-shore processing" (again, a term you haven't defined or explained) to look like the good guys, but there is no humanity in that because of some abstract quote (where did you get it from) that says "advantage those who arrived by boat".

how this fits into the rest of the piece, I've no idea, but I'm beginning to build up a contention AGAINST party leaders because Abbott and Gillard are making the wrong moves for the wrong reasons. You've given me a contention in your 4th paragraph - it is honestly better late than never, and there are SO many students who can't get it out even before this

A detterant has been proposed through enforcing excessively long detention periods, where asylum seekers may “languish” for up to decades. Julia Gillard claimed that the reasons for this was to determine “how long an asylum seeker would have waited … had they not paid a people smuggler.” The Prime Minister’s suspicions are correct, the asylum seekers would not have waited long at all.

A deterrant for what? I understand what you mean, but be CLEAR. Say who the deterrent is for, at least, and maybe if you're feeling like explaining it to death, then explain how it will work, but you probably don't need to do that because just saying who it's for is enough - the reader probably isn't completely oblivious to this Australian issue. The last sentence leaving me hanging...... buuuuuuut....


After all, they would be dead.

BRAVO, IMPACT SENTENCE NUMERO UNO! I LOVE IT! FAAAAR YOU JUST NAILED THE ESSAY WITH THAT. I'M SOLD. After reading that I've literally fallen under your spell, because that was so witty, evocative, emotive, simple, classy, and uncut. And then some. Dude, good work - you should seriously consider remembering this for the exam and adapting it to suit whatever essay style you write because this is gold.

This is a period in Australian history where reason has been abandoned. In every conflict when the motives of those involved are questionable, whether it will all end well is also questionable. The strive for any political gain possible has become an excessive strain on our nation. Like Danforth in “The Crucible”, our politicians wish to reveal no “floundering on [their] part” and only proport a positive opinion from the Australian public. It is with this as their motive that they relentlessly pursue their tough stance on “illegal” immigrants, as it does resonate well with the Australian public.

Strong opening sentence, I love it. Second sentence was 50/50 because you used the word questionable twice and it didn't blow me away. Third sentence needs some explanation/examples.... and guess what? You don't quite explain how politicians striving for gain becomes a strain on the nation - you instead say that politicians don't like to show their true colours all of the time to the Australian public. But nonetheless it's flowing, and I kinda get what you mean, even though you haven't logically structured it or explained your statements. I like it, nonetheless, and this is a quality paragraph.

Note though, that I'd have said It resonates well with the Australian public. Flows better.

It is with this distraction that we allow the real issue to slip out of our hands. This indeed allows a “prodigious danger” to unfold, where the area we should be discussing and debating is left unaddressed. This is, of course, the racist mindset the smears our nation. It is this fear of the “different” that is the reason that the inhumane stance on asylum seekers wins so many votes in parliament. Believe me though, there is a greater harm being caused in not properly acknowledging all the big factors in play when it comes to conflict.

"the racist mindset that smears our nation" is amazing, but "the racist mentality that smears our nation" is more appropriate. Great powerful expression though, bold statements like that can go a long way when used sparingly like you have . A problem here is that many of the terms you're discussing are ill defined. You haven't at all explained why Australians have fears of foreigners, so to then cite that as a concrete fact in this paragraph and say that it's the definite reason that votes in parliament are won is somewhat rudimentary. The last sentence didn't encapsulate the paragraph you've written about or give me any sense of direction. That paragraph was again a random series of baseless statements that were only loosely connected - there wasn't an ostensible contention throughout that, when really I should have no doubt in my mind exactly what it is that you hate and why you hate it and why I should care and why I should fix it.

From this paragraph, you've said:
- Some "distraction" from a previous paragraph which hasn't been redefined - again, a rookie mistake, don't leave things for the assessor to have to back-track through your essay, because they won't.
- Defined well what the "real issue" is, I like it!
- Haven't explained how this somehow scores votes in parliament.
- Still haven't gotten an overall contention, other than "government is bad and asylum seekers are abused" but still not really picking up where you are going with it.


In the words of Nazeem Hussain, Australia is a “racist country that doesn’t know how to stop being racist.” The issue left alone, it has proven itself to fester into consequences such as the 2005 Cronulla riots and the Indian “curry bashings”. These shap Australia into a nation with little legitimacy on the international stage, for we are unable to deal with even our national issues adequately.

Great paragraph - grandstanding the issue, tying in other events, broadening your potentially interested audience, I love it. Nothing to critique here except for "shape"

The notion that public debate is hindered and unnecessary consequences allowed to ensue is at it’s very core, disgusting.

Was a good shot at a strong, standalone sentence, but what does it mean? Why is public debate hindered? What do you mean it's hindered? If you've discussed that at some point previously in your essay, it wasn't explicit enough for me to be able to easily recall it and connect it to this. Why is "hindered public debate" disgusting? I don't think that "disgusting" is the right word for it - maybe "disgusting" would be better used to describe our treatment of asylum seekers - but just because public debate isn't being as practicable as it could, I wouldn't say it's "disgusting". Unless there was of course a reason to, like perhaps, the debate was preventing proper legislation from coming into play that would guarantee rights of asylum seekers. But that's just speculation - it's not like you wrote that in your essay or anything.

See, I think I get where you're coming from, but you just aren't explaining yourself or backing up your arguments. There's slight logical disparities every step of the way when you make statements and don't follow up on them, or perhaps you don't prove them, or cite where your information is from. And a vague contention is an omniscient problem.

It must be acknlowedged, however, that conflict is rarely black and white. Paris Aristotle, one of the members of the panel that produced the Houston report, realised that the “full complexity of the issue must be considered.” It is clear in Aristotle’s work that the desire to take a humane course of action and prevent death of those most desperate is genuine. Yet how can it they be convinced the pathway chosen is the correct one? It is not dissimilar to Miller’s character Mary Warren. Like our politicians in the heat of the battle, Mary Warren convinced herself of a lie. It is in the sweep of hysteria that she convinced herself so well that she could force herself to faint under the conditions of “pretence”.

Good opening sentence. Second sentence, brilliant. Third sentence, bravissimo. Fourth sentence, CRUX POINT - This is the climax. If the 5th sentence doesn't explain it well, then I'm not going to be happy and I'm gonna start flippin' tables in anger...

5th sentence... yeahh yeahh, continue...

6th sentence - gooood....

7th sentence.... I don't know who she is or what event you are talking about, so the paragraph did get a bit clumsy, but nonetheless the first 3 sentences paved the way for a paragraph-changing 4th sentence, which you didn't quite deliver on (some explanation might have been nice although you could get away without it). And then you've gone on pandering to those in the know - I haven't done your context or read your book, so I dunno what you're talking about.

Our politicians have merely convinced themselves that they are taking the right approach and satisfying the whim of the nation. And who can blame them? To not chase after the “loose spirits” would ascertain political death. It is not much use if they are, figuratively speaking, dead. In Aristotle’s own words, “There is a greater risk in doing nothing” in times like these.

Nice, but you've used "ascertain" correctly... This paragraph could almost be added to the end of the previous one.

This does not, however, justify the throwing out of what little democracy was left out the window. It is true that Julia Gillards statement that the Australian people “are sick to death of political bickering” but that does not mean that the requirement for “due process” can be ignored. In a desperate attempt to gain positive political momentum, the decision to re-open the off shore detention centres has been incredibly rushed. The Australian Government changed the schedule of the Senate to focus on this issue. They did not await for consultation from the United Nations on the matter of human rights. It was reveal that they did not even contact Nauru before dragging them into our petty political games. They have even compromised their so called humane solution with the administration of a temporary tent detention centre, as the proper one is not “ready”. Not to mention the Australian Military has also been enlisted to help. It does not do justice of the nation to lose all respect for the essential art of public debate. In the process, the ability to guide the conflict to a desirable outcome is lost.

KILLER FIRST SENTENCE! Exact right punctuation, intonation, wow.
The second sentence as well is really good! The whole dictatorial tone is really coming through and you're writing like a pro.

Dude read the whole paragraph and everything was perfect here. 10/10 for this paragraph only.

It is of interest that in all this mess, our political leaders have proven themselves capable. They have shown, to an extent, that they are able to come to a decision quickly and begin working on implementing it immediately. It must be asked, why did they wait so long to do so?

What do you mean? Didn't you just say that they were so bad with their organisation? I'm immediately skeptical again of what you are saying.

It would have been nice if they grasped the opportunity to shape the nation for the better. The situation presented to them the opportunity to tackle the core issues that plague our nation, but they acted against it. They had the chance to focus on issues that are, you know, actually relevant to the average Australian citizen. It is unfortunate that issues such as inadequate public funding or the lack of an Australian curriculum are not given the attention they deserve. Let alone this, the prospect of issues such as the deep social issues which plague the nation are in fact pushed into the wrong direction in favour of the wrong decisions to the wrong issues.

This is linking back to all of the stuff that didn't make sense the first time around, so again I'm not getting much from this, although this looks like it's much more cohesive and well argued.

Conflict presents to us many opportunities, but what use is it if they are not grasped.

Good manifesto.

History does not judge lightly. Let alone travesties such as the apartheid in South Africa, the genocide engineered by the Nazis and the crimes of medieval civilisations, recent Australian history is already judged harshly. The White Australia policy, and even Howards “Pacific Solution” of only a few years ago are now only mentioned in parts of society with a tone of disgust and disapproval.

Nice, nice, this is some good contextualization that would have also done well at the beginning of your essay.

In what way will our current circumstances fare then? It is clear that the Australian nation has been party to a big mistake, a mistake engineered by that which is taken for granted in this country. It is inevitable that, in the future, the era which we are currently living through will be looked down upon, with us deemed to be on the wrong side of history.

Agree and I like the way you put it. Spot on.

It must be questioned which way will this vital conflict be handled.

Evocative, commanding. Good.

Will we see an effort to learn from the mistakes of the past and revive the nation?

Or will we remain ignorant on the nature of conflict and condemn the nation to continue tumbling to it’s death?

The previous sentence was a better finisher!

6.5-7/10

[Lasercookie]

Thanks a lot for the very in-depth advice VivaTequila, I'll be sure to have a good think about it.

[VivaTequila]

yw