Am I the only one scratching my head that VCAA would allow the topic of "gay marriage" to be used as the context for the orals? Have they not considered that many people have strong religious beliefs, and such a topic is quite offending to religious followers?
I mean there are so many other GREAT issues and yet this is what my school's english department came up with! Not to mention that the materials provided are all supporting (for) the issue.
Now, I have already wrote my transcript which is AGAINST gay marriage, and its length is around five minutes plus it doesn't mention religion once (I understand that not everyone is religious). My point is that people who are religious are at an immediate disadvantage. It is one of the main reasons why I do not support the idea, but of course this is a useless argument in a government school.
But here is where the problems arise. I have friends in other classes who say that their teacher is basically forcing everyone to argue for the issue (seriously). The teacher insists that if anyone goes against, it "better be the best argument I have ever heard". This particular teacher has also told students about a family member who is gay, so there is personal bias. It is fair to assume that anyone who argues against gay marriage is likely to be marked harshly by this teacher. Is there anything wrong with this?
Luckily this isn't the case for me, but still it makes me wonder why they chose this topic in the first place.
I think that the problem of controversial, and possibly offending, topics is one that applies to many, if not all of the topics available. Take the wearing of burqas/hijabs, both arguments for and against are capable of causing huge problems for people. This is true for things such as abortion, sterilastion, school bullying etc. The fact that these issues have to have been from recent media means that they are bound to be controversial - and controversial issues are often based around deep personal values.
Whilst I get what you're saying, and how this topic could go against your religious beliefs, I can assure you that your stance is likely to offend many of your peers, as much as their stance may affect you. However, if you're going to pick non controversial issues, you're limiting your arguments, and you're limiting your ability to really hit home, since the success of these speeches are largly due to your belief in the matter. However, I would argue very strongly that that teacher should not be letting their personal bias get in the way - although, thats more a problem with the staff than the issue itself xD
On a side note - your school provides you with support material? As in, information that you can base your arguments off?
I have an oral on monday and i was just wondering if anyone has a specific structure or ordering of arguments of any sort? 
When I wrote my oral, I found it really helpful to have a number of disctinct arguments (I had four). In my oral presentation, in the slide after the introductory slide, I had a numbered list, each argument with only 4-6 words, and just outlined them. I then proceeded to talk about argument one, two, three, four, and then had another slide at the end to refresh and bring them all together. I found it helped me to make really concise points and not stray off topic.
In terms of ordering, you should find that your arguments have a logical order - one that's quite basic, and others that spread off it, or ideas that have links. If you're having real trouble, have a play around and put your arguments in different orders, read them out loud and see which seems logical
Home
Help
Search
Login
