Hello everyone. My next assignment for my Communications course is to partner up with someone to pick a topic where there is a pro and con side. Each person takes one side and writes up a 7 minute speech that intends to persuade the audience. A survey is conducted before and after the speeches are given. Whoever changes the audience's opinion the most to his or her POV obtains extra credit. My friend and I are struggling to agree on a topic to debate. I want to take the pro side for legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.S., i.e. banning DOMA for good. I asked her to do marriage equality in the U.S., but she didn't even give acknowledge my suggestion. Instead, she wants to discuss this: Should workplaces give monetary bonuses to vegetarian employees? She would take the pro side, whereas I take the con side. There are blatant flaws to this practice that I can easily discuss to persuade the audience, such that I will likely obtain the extra credit. Nevertheless, I still have some reservations. I don't have any interest in this topic, honestly. Lacking optimism or passion would lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy that's conducive to me not giving effort on this assignment. At the same time, I want both of us to be happy with the topic and our sides on it. Is there any way to convince her to do my topic? P.S. I believe she's Jain, a religion that doesn't have as much antagonism against the LGBT community as that of other religions. But her dodging of my suggestion makes me believe that she's personally against marriage equality, unless she's unsure about the matter.
It's great if we could combine school and work with the things we're truly interested in. Alas, reality often does not provide us such prerogative all the time. Maybe arrive at a topic that both of you are interested in but not necessarily wildly passionate about. I get you're passionate about same-sex marriage, and she probably is passionate about vegetarians, but if none of you are interested in this topic then the better option is to come to a topic that both of you are interested in. Afterall, that's the entire essence of compromise.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this assignment, but if you're partners, don't you have to take opposing sides on the proposition? Therefore, her dodging your suggestion was probably because she didn't want to have to argue against marriage equality.
This. It could very well be that your friend really does not want to argue against same-sex marriage and would feel uncomfortable doing so. In my constitutional law class, the professor tried to get us to debate the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, as a purely academic exercise. Now, we were used to arguing pros and cons, regardless of what we personally believed. But in this instance, NO ONE wanted to take the "against" side. The prof finally cold-called on someone and made him argue the "against" side, but he was visibly squirming as he did so.
l kind of avoid immediately using LGBT or "women's" issues for school projects. l'd much rather learn about something l don't know about or that isn't of personal interest to me. And l very easily tire of topics l'm well versed in. That said, her topic is VERY narrow and really out of left field. l think you both need a redo, meet in the middle with something broad.
In my opinion, that's extremely unethical. The student might have been gay or bisexual himself. Sexual minorities are not always visible.
@ OMGWTFBBQ: We originally thought of this as the topic: "People should be vegetarians." But my professor said that this statement was not specific enough for the assignment, so he suggested the idea of monetary incentives in the workplace if you decide to eat vegetarian. I guess if the company owner is a vegetarian, he or she would want employees to have similar eating habits, such that they get a monetary bonus? I have never heard of a company that has implemented this practice before. But there are so many flaws to this idea. How on earth can you monitor someone's eating habits outside of the workplace? Moreover, I can eat meatless junk food, yet fall under the category of being vegetarian. But is that really what being a vegetarian is all about? You can see how arguing con for such a practice is not difficult. @ Pret Allez and redstormrising: You're both right. She probably does not feel comfortable arguing con. I agree that good debaters can take either side of an argument without involving their personal beliefs. Though having some passion about a topic would be an impetus for me to work hard on this assignment :/ I just wish we picked my topic... from a practical standpoint, there's so much more secondary sources we can work with if we agreed to do marriage equality. To reiterate, I don't think any company has ever offered bonus pays to people who claim to be vegetarian. So there's not much research you can do for this topic. Thanks for the help everyone. I will try to compromise with my friend somehow.
Marriage equality is a bad debate topic for either of you because neither of you should have to take the negative side. You shouldn't have to argue against yourself; she shouldn't have to argue I actually think that marriage equality is a bad scholastic debate topic, period. We need to stop entertaining the idea that this is something which can be debated, because that assumes that reasonable and ethical people can disagree about this issue. That is not the case.
I don't have a problem with it as a debate topic in a constitutional law class. The focus there has nothing to do with whether you believe it to be ethical or moral. The question is solely whether gay marriage is or is not constitutional, by making reference to the constitution itself and existing case precedent. I actually can see non frivolous legal arguments either way, though obviously I come down on the side of it being legal. In law it is important to be able to argue both sides of an issue - if you cannot recognize what your opponent will argue, you cannot defend against it
