King, or no king in Sweden?

Nedanstående innehåll är skapat av Mimers Brunns besökare. Kommentera arbete

My presentation was about having a president instead of a king. I questioned the status of the king in Sweden and tried to show my listeners the good things about having a president and change their opinion in the matters of keeping the king of Sweden.

My presentation started with a question, which was “Do we really need a king, who we pay for and who doesn’t even have a lot of duties?”, to catch the listeners’ attention. Later on I started by telling the listeners about one of the king’s duties (background).

I had four strong arguments about replacing the king for a president. The first argument was that people shouldn’t consider a country with a king, as a head of the state, as a democracy. My second argument was that it’s more convenient to have a president than to have a king. My third argument was that a president gets less salary than the money we pay for the king and all the people who are performing a president’s job. My fourth argument was that the king is now demanding higher payment.

The thing that went splendidly in my presentation was my eye contact with the listeners. I knew the whole presentation by heart and was able to have eye contact with the listeners. Another good thing was the way I talked, my tone of voice. I was able to deliver the message of how absurd it is to pay a person a high salary compared to the duties he has.

But even if I consider my presentation to be very good, it still needed some final touches. For example I should’ve brought a picture of the inside of the king’s house, or a picture of the king driving a very expensive car. The main point of do...