Hey guys,
Our school has decided to choose our topic for us; it being to do with the 'should motorcycle gangs be outlawed' topic.
I'm going for a more nuanced approach in saying that the Queensland government should evaluate their current 'draconian' laws placed by the Newman government pertaining to sentences regarding those who affiliate themselves in a motorcycle gang, or any 'group' of people, moreover.
I'm basically going with the whole patriotic side of things and stating that:
No, when a government persecutes people who commit an offence, not on the basis of the offence - and history of offences - but on the basis of who they know or associate with, that is an extreme abuse of power and one which we, as citizens of Australia, should not put up with.
I'm currently in need of anything that can give this oral a stronger argument.
If any of you have any relevant points and ideas to share please do so... 
Wow. Sucks that your school chooses for you, but you've done well to find an opportunity for nuance.
I'd stick with the philosophy behind the ideas first, questioning whether the government truly believes bikies to be such a corrosive influece that their 'affiliates' are somehow worthy of prosecution. If you want you could use an anecdote here, (always popular with the English teachers lol) whether it be a case study you've researched or just a hypothetical one you've developed, anecdotes are a good way to humanise an issue that would otherwise be detached or unimportant. Eg. "Imagine a boy not much older than ourselves, one not exactly well-adjusted or outgoing, but a good kid nonetheless. Maybe his older brother is a bikie and is keen for him to experience a sense of camaraderie, of perhaps the boy finds his way in through other contacts, allured by the prospect of mateship and friends. The 'gang' he joins involves nothing more than occasional pub visits and enthusing about their vehicles, and for once this boy feels a sense of belonging he has never experienced in his home or school life. Is the government really proposing to prosecute this boy for daring to belong to what they believe is a criminal, harmful, gang? etc."
I'll post a link to an article I read once about the 'soft side of leather warriors.' Basically there's a group of bikies who make it their duty to befriend and protect victims of child abuse or sexual assault: <http://ragamuffinsoul.com/2013/11/bikerprotection/> could make for an interesting counter point to the assertion that all bikies are innately bad people.
In terms of strengthening your argument, ensure you think about the issue from both sides. Use the technique of 'hypophora' or a pre-emptive rebuttal: eg. "It is often argued that such factions of society have brought so much harm, that harsh, stringent laws are a necessity for the sake of the people, but this is erroneous. To persecute all bikers for the crimes of a few is immoral and irrational...[see above]" This is an effective way of acknowledging other stances but still cementing yours as the sensible, humane and just approach.
Hope that helps, good luck with your oral, it sounds like you've found a great way to make things interesting
Home
Help
Search
Login
