Speech Topic for 2015

[AirLandBus]

Hey guys,
Going into year 12 next year (2015) and am in need of a good speech topic.
I was initially going to do a "plausible theory into Malaysian Airlines flight 370's disappearance" in a persuasive manner. However the teacher was concerned it wouldnt be persuasive and more just informative. So, im interested in aviation, and pretty much thats it. Anyone got any topics that are current in the media that would be good?

[Yacoubb]

Hey guys,
Going into year 12 next year (2015) and am in need of a good speech topic.
I was initially going to do a "plausible theory into Malaysian Airlines flight 370's disappearance" in a persuasive manner. However the teacher was concerned it wouldnt be persuasive and more just informative. So, im interested in aviation, and pretty much thats it. Anyone got any topics that are current in the media that would be good?

How about Tony Abbot's decisions for education (uni/TAFE costs being raised, etc)?

[AirLandBus]

How about Tony Abbot's decisions for education (uni/TAFE costs being raised, etc)?

Prefer (i know its hard) to be aviation based as im interested in it.

[lArcdeTriomphe]

i'm not sure how 'aviation-related' my following suggestions are, but you could consider airline/aviation safety regulations/policies (which you could link to MH17, e.g. under what circumstances is it acceptable for planes to fly over warzones?)
or you could look at the commercial aspect of airlines, e.g. should australia play a role in ensuring that qantas is mainly australian based? or should australian jobs be moved overseas for the expansion of the company?
hopefully this helps!

[dankfrank420]

How about Tony Abbot's decisions for education (uni/TAFE costs being raised, etc)?

Anti-Abbot stuff like this is smart - it allows you to pander to all the leftist English teachers.

[M_BONG]

I think a good topic (and has been in the media A LOT) related to aviation is to what extent should the Aust. government "bail out" Qantas (or to that extent, other Australian companies) when they are in trouble. Perhaps zoom out further and look at the manufacturing industry. Should the Aust. government intervene and protect Australian made goods (through subsidies, tariffs etc) or allow the market mechanism to prevail (ie. more Free Trade Agreements) and allow competition - and perhaps, more Australian jobs to be lost.
What are the implications of the current stance?

Going back to QANTAS: is it bad that low-cost airlines (such as AirAsia, Tiger etc) can severely undercut the prices of full-fare airlines. Should the Transport Minister regulate these? What about the 51-49 rule that QANTAS must be Australian-owned? What about mergers -> do QANTAS and its subsidary Jetstar limit competition? What about Singapore Airlines and Tiger Airways? And Richard Branson's Virgin?

I am obviously just throwing questions at you - you have to do your own research Btw, I really like planes as well haha.

Other topics that I find interesting:
1. Indigenous recognition/conciliation/intervention. Read up The Guardian on that, they have a heap on it.
2. Climate Change - Paris Conference next year, clear omission on the G20's agenda etc. I did this
3. Surveillance - spying scandal with Indonesia (double check if it's in media from September this year) but extend further to terrorism laws introduced by Brandis this year on ISIL. What about a discussion on sovereignty, just war theory and argue for a threshold for entering war.
4. Asylum seekers **this topic is done to death** - the recent Temporary Protection Visas?
5. Asian Century - US vs China. Malcolm Fraser is best known for advocating a neutral stance. We rely on China for minerals exports and US for almost everything else. Which side should we take (or not take?)

I don't agree that with danfrank that you should pander to leftish English teachers because if your teacher is knowledgable on a topic, they are more likely to find holes in what you are saying and pick up on them. Sometimes the smallest of details (or subjectivities) will steer them away from accepting your viewpoints. Although the advantage of going political is that your audience will be easily engaged, you may become too emotional: too presumptuous. I mean, we all love mudslinging Abbott but how many of us can actually do that intellectually without getting too emotive or superficial?

[brenden]

You could certainly do an overarching speech on the Government's 'policy' regarding aviation related things. Qantas bailout, fighter jets (where they're made; if they're necessary), drones (probably pretty loose, more of an American issue), the Govt's response to the M. Airlines crash. Dunno how you'd mesh it altogether but I'm sure there's a way.

[AirLandBus]

All awesome ideas guys. I thought of some of them and not so much some of them. Ill do a little a bit of research in the next couple of days and see what i suits the criteria, etc the best. The only reason I say aviation related is because if i have to do a speech, may aswell do it about some thing that im intrested in right? 

Me and my dad came up with a good topic - why maths should be compulsory (alongside English or both not comp) in VCE. Then i could take the whole side that some kids are naturally good at English and are retards at maths, and vice versa. Which is suiting cause i suck at english, so then for parts of the speech i could have "planned" scewups and then screw ups cause i suck at public talking (like really bad, talking very quickly, stuttering, not looking up once) and it would all be a cover up and "flow" with the speech, the content of the speech and the topic at hand. Sneeky 

Thanks for all the help guys. Love this site.

[dankfrank420]

Interesting and novel idea, but doesn't it have to be an issue that is being debated in the Australian media?

[AirLandBus]

Interesting and novel idea, but doesn't it have to be an issue that is being debated in the Australian media?

Yeah, thats why i cant do it. There saying in the last 6 months kinda thing.

[Lawliet]

Yes it has to be an issue being discussed in the media since after September.
I was going to do mine on Australia's response to climate change.

[M_BONG]

Yes it has to be an issue being discussed in the media since after September.
I was going to do mine on Australia's response to climate change.

Happy to help with this- I did this topic, and know a little bit that could help! PM if you want more help!

Have you read about how Bishop overruled (by going to cabinet) Abbott's decision not to attend the Peru conference? Lol.

Oh, also read today: Australia is reported to be doing the least in addressing climate change (replacing Canada) this year amongst the industrialised countries. We are one place ahead of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/08/australia-named-worst-performing-industrial-country-on-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Lawliet]

Thanks Zezima! 
Umm, I have heard somewhat about it but I still need to read more on it.

[AirLandBus]

I think a good topic (and has been in the media A LOT) related to aviation is to what extent should the Aust. government "bail out" Qantas (or to that extent, other Australian companies) when they are in trouble. Perhaps zoom out further and look at the manufacturing industry. Should the Aust. government intervene and protect Australian made goods (through subsidies, tariffs etc) or allow the market mechanism to prevail (ie. more Free Trade Agreements) and allow competition - and perhaps, more Australian jobs to be lost.
What are the implications of the current stance?

Going back to QANTAS: is it bad that low-cost airlines (such as AirAsia, Tiger etc) can severely undercut the prices of full-fare airlines. Should the Transport Minister regulate these? What about the 51-49 rule that QANTAS must be Australian-owned? What about mergers -> do QANTAS and its subsidary Jetstar limit competition? What about Singapore Airlines and Tiger Airways? And Richard Branson's Virgin?

I am obviously just throwing questions at you - you have to do your own research Btw, I really like planes as well haha.

Other topics that I find interesting:
1. Indigenous recognition/conciliation/intervention. Read up The Guardian on that, they have a heap on it.
2. Climate Change - Paris Conference next year, clear omission on the G20's agenda etc. I did this
3. Surveillance - spying scandal with Indonesia (double check if it's in media from September this year) but extend further to terrorism laws introduced by Brandis this year on ISIL. What about a discussion on sovereignty, just war theory and argue for a threshold for entering war.
4. Asylum seekers **this topic is done to death** - the recent Temporary Protection Visas?
5. Asian Century - US vs China. Malcolm Fraser is best known for advocating a neutral stance. We rely on China for minerals exports and US for almost everything else. Which side should we take (or not take?)

I don't agree that with danfrank that you should pander to leftish English teachers because if your teacher is knowledgable on a topic, they are more likely to find holes in what you are saying and pick up on them. Sometimes the smallest of details (or subjectivities) will steer them away from accepting your viewpoints. Although the advantage of going political is that your audience will be easily engaged, you may become too emotional: too presumptuous. I mean, we all love mudslinging Abbott but how many of us can actually do that intellectually without getting too emotive or superficial?

Hey Zezima.
Sorry for the late reply, only just got back into thinking about English. I think your first idea is perfect and will allow me to incorporate some form of my passion with aviation into it while still being a current issue within the media. Thanks for the suggestion.
Furthermore, what kind of points would you suggest that would be broad enough but allow enough information to be sourced?
Ive got a couple of really rough ideas, but would be interested in what you think would be suitable for a set of topics to be used within the speech.

[M_BONG]

Hey Zezima.
Sorry for the late reply, only just got back into thinking about English. I think your first idea is perfect and will allow me to incorporate some form of my passion with aviation into it while still being a current issue within the media. Thanks for the suggestion.
Furthermore, what kind of points would you suggest that would be broad enough but allow enough information to be sourced?
Ive got a couple of really rough ideas, but would be interested in what you think would be suitable for a set of topics to be used within the speech.

Glad the advice helped. One thing I learned from this Oral task is: don't focus on the issue itself. It's fun throwing everything you know into the topic - but no one really cares, especially when 28 people are doing the same thing. To distinguish yourself from the rest: focus on the ideas/real world implication and have creative ideas.

So don't have an argument about QANTAS itself, but perhaps have an argument about economics (ie. competition amongst industries etc) because issues like these disappear but arguments, world views and stances will stay.

Rough ideas:
1. What are the implications of unregulated and deregulated companies? Is the principle any different to, say, a milkbar? How come if my local milkbar is not making a big profit, the Australian government doesn't "bail" it out? Is there a distinction with QANTAS? (here's where you chuck in your research about QANTAS being our flag carrier, our image to the world, tourism etc, lol)
2. Symbolically, what does "Australian made" mean? Why is it important for QANTAS to stay "the Spirit of Australia?".
3. What role does the government have in assisting these companies? What checks and balances should be involved?

I think of this as:

BROAD, REAL WORLD ARGUMENTS -> LINK QANTAS (OR whatever issue)  -> LINK BACK TO YOUR BROAD,REAL WORLD ARGUMENT.
So you're not making an argument about QANTAS, you're making an argument about what you believe in (read above for rough ideas)

Your audience and teacher won't have specialist knowledge on QANTAS's fleet or its modus operandi - cater to an average reasonable audience in your arguments (which is why broad, real world arguments are better than topic-specific arguments).


So your speech (if my books) should work equally fine if someone in 2016 decided to use it and the QANTAS issue is no longer relevant. Ie. try to make it timeless, applicable to all - not just those interested by aviation.

Now it's cramming random language techniques (things are better done in threes ) JKS, ofc {dontbethepretentiousguywhothinksrhetoricalquestionsarecompulsory)  and get into the research!

Good luck!