Shadowing Practice: 2025 Year 8 Grand Final - Learn English Speaking with Video
Choose a practice mode
Each mode opens a full-screen practice room.
348 sentences
If sentences are too short or too long, click Edit to adjust them.
1
Good morning and welcome.
2
My name is Sonia Lawin and I'm the Chairman of Debating SA.
3
We have been coming to the Chambers here in Parliament House since 2006 and I've never become accustomed to it.
4
Every time I come here I still find it very awe -inspiring
5
and so I think it's a very suitable venue for the debaters today for their grand final.
6
So congratulations to both teams.
7
We know that you had to work very hard
8
and there were a lot of debates all at once coming very quickly so you've done a magnificent job.
9
It shows a lot of self -discipline and congratulations for arriving here today so good luck to both teams.
10
Thank you.
11
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
12
Welcome to the 2025
13
Year 8 Division Debating Essay Grand Final Debate.
14
My name is Leah Gann and I am the chairman of this debate.
15
The timekeeper is Martina Cavallo.
16
The topic of this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
17
The affirmative team seated to my right is from Emmaus Christian College consisting of first speaker Diana Lee, second speaker Mia Fontana -Rosa,
18
and third speaker Cara Miller.
19
The negative team seated to my left is from St. Michael's College, consisting of first speaker Teddy Kipschuk,
20
second speaker Isaac Zonta, and third speaker Olivia Stavridis.
21
This grand final debate will be judged by a panel of five adjudicators who are Mr. Luke Barnett, Mr. Rupin Visser, Miss Perina Bra,
22
Miss Ms Eva Harris and Ms Charlie Caldwell.
23
The speaking time of this debate is 4 minutes.
24
A single warning bell will sound at 3 minutes and a double bell will sound at 4 minutes.
25
A continuous bell may be run 30 seconds after the speaking time, in which case the speaker must sit down immediately.
26
Please switch off your mobile phones and other electronic devices.
27
I declare this debate open and I call upon the first affirmative speaker, Diana Lee.
28
Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
29
The topic for this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
30
We, the affirmative team, strongly believe that this statement is true.
31
We define the topic as should to mean there is a practical obligation to act, not just that it's optional.
32
To implement means to pass legislation.
33
An opt -out system for organ donation is where every person
34
is considered a donor of vital organs after death by default
35
to save the lives of patients needing transplant unless they choose not or cannot be.
36
As the first speaker, I will be talking to you about how an opt -out system will save more lives
37
and how it educates and raises awareness.
38
Our second speaker will be talking to you about how many organ donors don't have time to get around registration
39
and the benefits to the economy.
40
Our third speaker will rebut and sum up our team case.
41
My first point is that an opt -out system saves more lives.
42
Right now, in Australia, there are over 1 ,800 people on the transplant waiting list.
43
And tragically, many die before a match is even found, as reported by Transport Australia.
44
In the US alone, around 17 people die every day due to organ donor shortages.
45
The current number of donors is simply not enough to support the suffering patients.
46
But then, how exactly can we support all these people?
47
Well, the opt -out system provides just that.
48
Spain introduced an opt -out system in 1979
49
and has since held the world number one organ donor for over three decades as WHO and BMJ states.
50
Additionally, according to the NHS, Wales, after introducing an opt -out system,
51
saw an increase in donation consent rates from 58 % to 68%.
52
This proves that making donation the default leads to more available organs and thus more lives saved.
53
My second point is that implementing the opt -out system educates and spreads awareness.
54
In an educational aspect, an experiment carried out by the Journal of Clinical
55
and Diagnostic Research found that after being educated on organ donation, an additional 15 % of recipients expressed willingness to donate.
56
This proves that education plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes.
57
The opt -out system helps spark that learning and awareness.
58
Furthermore, defaulting to organ donation leads to more open family discussions about individual choices.
59
According to the European Commission's report on organ donation,
60
countries with opt -out systems that combine legislation with public awareness campaigns see more family discussion and conversation.
61
For example, the opted -out country, Portugal, showed that over 75 % of families had talked about donation preferences,
62
as surveys conducted by the Portuguese Directorate General for Health States.
63
This demonstrates that opt -out systems don't just change the law.
64
They start conversations, they spread awareness, and they educate the public so that ultimately more lives can be saved.
65
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, a psychologist and mentor, Jita Jacob,
66
once said, I don't want to be buried with a single organ in my body.
67
Give them to a child that has spent more time inside the hospital than outside playing.
68
These words remind us that organ donation is the gift of life, a chance for someone else to live, laugh and grow.
69
Thank you.
70
Thank you.
71
I call upon the first negative speaker, Teddy Kipschuk.
72
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Adjudicators, Ladies and Gentlemen.
73
The topic for this morning's debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
74
We agree with the definition given by the affirmative team.
75
However, we strongly disagree with the statement.
76
The first speaker from the affirmative team has tried to tell you
77
that an opt -out system will save more lives by increasing the number of donations.
78
The burden shifts unfairly.
79
Instead of affirming a choice to donate, people must actively defend their right not to.
80
This change can confuse and pressure individuals, especially those who struggle with digital forms.
81
Furthermore, the Australian Government Organ and Tissue Authority states that only 2 % of people who die in hospitals can donate their organs.
82
This is a matter of people passing the criteria to donate the organs,
83
such as a person dying in a hospital while on a ventilator in intensive care.
84
Do you really think that an opt -out system will help more people pass this criteria on?
85
Today's first speaker, I'll be framing the current issues with organ donation, along with raising concerns about bodily autonomy and consent.
86
Our second speaker will be talking to you about how Australia should focus on the role of families
87
and the ineffectiveness of opt -out laws, along with technology and alternative strategies, not ineffective opt -out laws.
88
Our third speaker will rebut and sum up our team case.
89
Firstly, an opt -out system won't increase the number of organs donated.
90
Therefore, we should look at other techniques.
91
Let's start by framing the problem.
92
Organ donors in Australia are currently scarce.
93
A fact sheet provided by the Australian Government, Organ and Tissue Authority,
94
states that only 2 % of people who die in Australian hospitals can even be considered as organ donors.
95
This is not a question of consent,
96
but a fact that there are fewer than 2 % of people who are even eligible to donate their organs.
97
There is a certain criteria that people need to pass to be seen as suitable for this.
98
An opt -out system won't guarantee people meet the criteria
99
and therefore will not raise the number of organs currently available by any realistic amount.
100
This makes an opt -out system ineffective in raising the number of organ donors,
101
as a number of donors is not the issue and the reason why Australia should not implement it.
102
Now to my second point, talking about the consent and autonomy concerns involved with the opt -out system.
103
Just to make things clear, there are some ethical and consent concerns involved with implementing the opt -out system.
104
According to the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, valid consent for a decision about donating cells,
105
tissues and organs requires a decision maker to have a decision making capacity, including the ability to communicate their decision.
106
is making a voluntary decision without undue influence,
107
manipulation or deceit, and has received and understood sufficient information that is relevant to the informed decision,
108
including the risks and benefits of relevant interventions and available alternatives if relevant.
109
The opt -out system does not follow these ethical guidelines of consent and therefore should not be implemented.
110
So, in conclusion, Madam Chairman, adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen,
111
we strongly believe that Australia should not implement an opt -out system for organs due to many ethical and logical reasons,
112
such as concerns raised about consent and public mistrust, and the real problem not being people opting in.
113
informed consent is a fundamental principle in ethics
114
and law emphasising the importance of individuals being fully informed before agreeing to any procedure,
115
decision or action would you rather make a conscious decision about what happens to your body
116
when you die or would you like the government to automatically presume consent to be an organ donor thank you Thank you.
117
I call upon the second affirmative speaker, Mia Fontana -Rosa.
118
Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
119
The topic for this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
120
We, the affirmative team, strongly believe that this statement is true.
121
The first negative speaker has tried to tell you that opt -out won't guarantee higher donations, but that ignores clear international data.
122
According to the British medical journal
123
Open, countries with opt -out systems have 21 to 26 % higher deceased donor rates than opt -in countries.
124
Spain, which has had an opt -out system since 1979, reported that 132 .8 transplants per million in 2024,
125
compared to Australia's 21 .8 per million.
126
If other nations are saving thousands more lives with this change, why should Australia be left waiting?
127
The first negative speaker has also tried to tell you that opt -out takes away freedom of choice,
128
but opt -out still allows anyone to withdraw at any time and families still remain involved.
129
A gov .scot review found that opt -out retains individual choice and ensures family involvement.
130
England's Department of Health and Social Care confirmed no evidence that the new opt -out law reduced autonomy or consent.
131
And Noble launches Thaler and sustain showed defaults guide behaviour without removing freedom.
132
If freedom is preserved and more lives are saved, why would we reject it?
133
As our first speaker highlighted, an opt -out system not only saves more lives, but also raises vital awareness and understanding.
134
As the second speaker, I will be talking to you about how many willing organ donors don't have the time to register
135
and about the economic and health care benefits.
136
Our third speaker will rebut and sum up our team's case.
137
My first point is that not many people have the time to register.
138
The Beardona reports that 90 % of Australians support donation, yet only 35 % are registered.
139
That's almost half the population who are willing, but who never officially record it.
140
This isn't a lack of care, it's a lack of convenience.
141
A study in BMJ Open found that
142
Opt Out captures the wishes of the supportive majority while preserving the right to say no.
143
The Organ and Tissue Authority confirmed in 2024
144
that over 1 ,400 Australians are on the waiting list with more than 100 passing each year before a match is found.
145
Meanwhile, in Wales, as our first speaker has already stated, after introducing the soft opt -out in 2015,
146
NHS blood and transplant reported family consent rates rose 10 % within two years.
147
My second point is that moving to opt -out doesn't just save lives, it also saves billions in healthcare costs,
148
especially around chronic kidney disease.
149
According to Biomed Central, chronic kidney disease affects 1 .7 million
150
Australians and causes nearly 2 ,000 deaths each year, costing the system 8 .3 billion Australian dollars annually.
151
Dialysis is one of the biggest costs at 85 ,000 to 124 ,000 Australian dollars per patient per year,
152
while kidney transplant is far more cost effective and improves survival.
153
The AIHW reported in 2022 that 938 kidney transplants were performed
154
and more than 13 ,500 Australians now live with functioning kidney transplants, a 1 .4 -fold increase over the past decade.
155
And the benefits aren't just medical.
156
Monash University found that preventing just 10 % of new kidney disease cases between 2020
157
and 2029 could save 1 .1 billion Australian dollars in GDP and thousands of work years.
158
So in conclusion, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, an opt -out system would suit Australia to its best interest.
159
As academic author and psychologist, Emma Abram once quotes, After I die, if I'm buried, I'll rot.
160
If I'm burnt, I'll become ash.
161
But if my body is donated, I'll give life to many.
162
If we have the power to save lives with such a simple change, shouldn't we do just that?
163
Thank you.
164
I call upon the second negative speaker, Isaac Zonta.
165
APPLAUSE Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
166
The topic of our debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
167
We, the negative team, strongly believe that this statement is false.
168
The second speaker of the affirmative team has tried to tell you that it's just paperwork.
169
If you don't have the time to donate, then opt out.
170
Even though it sounds simple, this is wrong because in reality, people forget, don't understand or never hear about it.
171
Vulnerable groups such as the elderly, people with limited English or those with cultural sensitivities may end up donating without ever knowing they were enrolled.
172
That's not true consent, it's neglect.
173
They have also said that most
174
Australians support donations, so we should assume consent.
175
This isn't the case because supporting the idea of donation is not the same as giving personal informed consent.
176
People may support it in surveys but still want the choice for themselves or have religious reasons.
177
Consent must be active, not assumed.
178
Our first speaker has already framed the problem stating
179
that less than 2 % of people who die in Australian hospitals are suitable for organ donation.
180
Which proves that the issue is medical limitations, not whether we have an opt -in or opt -out system.
181
He has also talked about the consent and right to someone's body.
182
Today I will be talking to you about two points.
183
My first point is that Australia should focus on the role of families and the ineffectiveness of opt -out laws.
184
Even in countries with opt -out laws, families remain the ultimate decision makers.
185
According to DonorLife .gov .au, even if someone is registered as a donor, donation will not proceed if the family objects.
186
In Australia last year only about 53 % of families consented, meaning nearly half of potential donations were blocked at bedside.
187
Changing the law won't magically fix this.
188
Families are still the gatekeepers.
189
Organ donation is not only a medical process but it is deeply emotional.
190
A study published in Clinical Transplantation found that the younger the deceased and the sooner the donation occurred after death,
191
the stronger the grief felt by family.
192
Opt -out laws do nothing to address this emotional complexity and could even increase family distress.
193
Even legal documents are limited.
194
Goodgrief .com .au reports that when families are aware of the deceased's wishes, 9 out of 10 will consent.
195
But when they are unaware, only about 4 out of 10 will consent.
196
Susan Littleton, lawyers .com .au notes that advanced care directives
197
and wills have limitations and families may override wishes due to grief or uncertainty.
198
Trust in the system is essential.
199
A study in BMC medical ethics highlights that people are more willing to donate when they trust hospitals, medical professionals and policy makers.
200
Opt -out risks backfiring if families feel unsure whether their loved ones bodies will be respected.
201
Now to my second point, Australia should focus on technology and alternative strategies, not an ineffective opt -out law.
202
According to National Health and Medical Research Council some organs like kidneys can be donated by living people.
203
Lifeblood .com .au explains that stem cells can be used to treat diseases such as blood cancers.
204
Research from UCSF .edu and poppsych .com shows scientists are developing temporary
205
and mechanical organs like artificial hearts and kidneys to keep patients alive until a transplant.
206
An example of this is the mechanical heart designed by Daniel Timms
207
and has been called the Holy Grail since it cannot fail or be rejected by the body.
208
Though it may not keep a person alive,
209
it extends their life so that a suitable organ can be found from a person that has actively chosen to consent.
210
Finally, growing organs offers the most exciting future.
211
These breakthroughs promise a future where we won't need to rely on grieving families for consent at all.
212
So, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, families remain the ultimate decision makers.
213
Technology also offers far more effective solutions.
214
For these reasons, we the negative team firmly believe that a Shirley shouldn't implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
215
Thank you for listening and I hope you have a great day.
216
Amen.
217
speaker Cara Miller.
218
Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
219
The topic for this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
220
We, the affirmative team, strongly believe that this statement is undoubtedly true.
221
Today, as the third speaker, I will rebut and sum up my team's case.
222
The first negative speaker has claimed that the opt -out system pressures individuals to donate, but evidence shows otherwise.
223
According to the European Federation for Organ Donation, in countries like Spain and Austria, where opt -out models have been in place for years,
224
individuals can easily register their decision not to donate and their wishes are legally upheld.
225
These systems are typically supported by public awareness campaigns and accessible opt -out mechanisms,
226
ensuring that people remain fully in control of their decisions.
227
The second negative speaker has tried to tell you that opt -out systems don't respect ethics and consent,
228
but this speaker has given no evidence.
229
Furthermore, more, studies published in the Lancelot and BMC Medical Ethics highlight that opt -out models, when implemented with transparency and respect for choice,
230
can actually enhance autonomy by normalising decision -making around donation without forcing participation.
231
Ultimately, presumed consent does not equate to coercion.
232
It simply shifts the default while still empowering individuals to choose.
233
The second negative speaker has also tried to tell you that even though people support organ donation, they might actually not want to donate,
234
but he has given no evidence for this point.
235
He has also tried to tell you that people might not be aware that they're in the system,
236
but successful opt -out countries make public education a legal and practical requirement.
237
According to Wired .gov, in Wales,
238
a national multimedia campaign ran before and after the law changed to opt -out in 2015,
239
and public awareness rose to over 90%.
240
A similar situation was in the Netherlands.
241
Their 2020 switch to opt -out included letters sent to every citizen asking them to record their preference.
242
No one was automatically added to the system without being notified.
243
The second negative speaker has claimed that the opt -out system does not focus on families,
244
but evidence shows families actually feel relieved to be in the opt -out system.
245
Donate Life reports that 42 % of families in Australia decline donations simply because they don't know what their loved one wanted.
246
Under opt -out, that confusion is reduced.
247
The NHS Evaluation of Wales in 2017 found that families felt more confident making decisions after the change.
248
The European Commission also concluded in the 2019 report that
249
Opt Out encourages more family discussions, reducing uncertainty at the time of death.
250
So Opt Out doesn't burden families, it supports them.
251
I will now sum up my team's case.
252
The first affirmative speaker has already proven that an opt -out system will save more lives.
253
Right now, around 1 ,400 Australians are waiting for a transplant, and tragically over 100 die before they get one.
254
She has also explained that the opt -out system spreads awareness and education about the need for organ donations.
255
The second affirmative speaker explained that many
256
Australians who support donations simply don't have the time or awareness to register.
257
She also showed that opt -out systems save millions and even billions of dollars.
258
So, in conclusion, Madam Chairman, potential organ donors, ladies and gentlemen,
259
we believe that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
260
Thank you.
261
Thank you.
262
Olivia Stavridis.
263
Good morning, Madam Chairperson, adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen.
264
The topic for today's debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.
265
We, the negative team, believe this statement is undeniably false.
266
For the sake of trust, for the sake of true consent and for the sake of dignity.
267
Australia must reject an opt -out system.
268
The first affirmative speaker has tried to tell you that an opt -out system saves lives.
269
But do you realise that presuming consent doesn't guarantee more lives being saved?
270
It actually risks alienating people who feel their rights are being overridden.
271
The UK introduced opt -out in 2020, yet studies show that increase in donations has been modest and largely linked to awareness campaigns,
272
not the law itself.
273
True consent means a deliberate informed decision, not silence or inaction.
274
Forcing participation undermines the moral value of donation.
275
It becomes compliance, not generosity.
276
The first affirmative speaker has also also stated that an opt -out system raises more awareness,
277
but have you considered a truly modern approach invests in public education, transparency and voluntary action.
278
In fact Australia's opt -in system has already seen record high
279
consent rates in 2021 to 2022 following awareness campaigns from an OTA annual report.
280
Progress means building trust not bypassing it.
281
The second affirmative speaker has attempted to rebut our first affirmative speaker by telling you
282
that an opt -out system does not decrease donation rates
283
and spoke about how successful Spain has been in the organ donation industry.
284
However, this is incorrect as Spain's success is due to hospital investment and transplant coordinators,
285
not the law itself, from the World Health Organisation in 2010.
286
Countries like Sweden and Greece have opt -out but lower donation rates than Australia.
287
The law alone does not solve this shortage.
288
Our first speaker, Teddy, has told you that there are far more people needing transplants than there are available organs.
289
Simply switching to an opt -out system will not solve this.
290
Evidence shows that the real barrier lies in family consent and hospital resources, not the number of people technically registered. For example,
291
OECD health studies show that several opt -out countries do not have higher donation rates than opt -in countries
292
because families often override the decision.
293
So the system is ineffective at fixing the actual shortage.
294
He also told you that consent and bodily autonomy donation must remain a gift.
295
By automatically classing people as donors unless they actively opt out, we risk weakening true consent and damaging public trust.
296
As the Australian Medical Association has also pointed out, organ donation works best when it's voluntary and explicit.
297
You've also heard from our second speaker, Isaac, that an opt -out system does not guarantee more organs, but it does guarantee less trust.
298
Spain's success comes from its investment in hospitals, not from the law itself.
299
More importantly, this policy undermines autonomy by assuming silence is agreement.
300
It risks alienating indigenous, religious and cultural communities while placing families under even greater strain at the most painful of times.
301
Organ donation should be an act of generosity, freely chosen, not an act of compliance, forced by default.
302
He has also told you that one of the most successful ways to increase organ donation
303
and transplants is through the advancement of medical technology.
304
Relying on an opt -out system ignores these breakthroughs and will soon be outdated.
305
So, Madam Chairman, Adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps there is just one question you should ask yourself.
306
Do you want the government to presume ownership of your body just because you stayed silent?
307
Real generosity comes from choice, not assumption.
308
That is why Australia must reject an opt -out system for organ donation.
309
Thank you.
310
Thank you.
311
Thank you.
312
Thank you.
313
Thank you.
314
Thank you.
315
Thank you.
316
Thank you.
317
Thank you.
318
I call upon a representative of the adjudication panel to come forward and award the debate.
319
First of all, I'd like to congratulate everyone for getting here to the grand finals.
320
You've gone through three rounds of grand finals and you've been top of the log throughout the season.
321
So, well done there.
322
Incredible debates from both teams and the standard of the debate was so high that it is in fact a split decision.
323
I will confirm that none of the adjudicators will be giving any feedback since it is the grand final.
324
And in a decision two to three, the win goes to the affirmative team.
325
I call upon a member of the runner -up team to give a vote of thanks.
326
I'd just like to say a big thank you.
327
Big congratulations to Emmaus.
328
You all did amazing incredible points, incredible rebuttals.
329
I personally loved the quotes at the end of each of your speeches.
330
Thank you guys to our teammates.
331
Thank you to our mentors, Mr Soriano, Ms Kierens and Mr Bury, who seated up there.
332
Thank you to all parents on both sides of the debate who came and supported all of us.
333
Thank you to our adjudicators.
334
There wouldn't be a debate without you.
335
Thank you to our chairperson and timekeeper.
336
I reckon that's about it.
337
And thank you to Parliament House for hosting this amazing event.
338
Congratulations again, guys.
339
I call upon a member of the winning team to second that vote of thanks.
340
On behalf of my team, we would like to express our gratitude to everyone who made this debate possible.
341
First, we extend respect to the other team.
342
You were outstanding competitors and pushed us to give our very best.
343
To all the adjudicators, thank you for your time, especially on a Saturday morning, and for the opportunity to speak in the Parliament of South Australia.
344
Finally, to the audience, your presence and engagement added so much to the experience.
345
Thank you.
346
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance.
347
I now declare this debate closed.
348
Thank you.
Download App
Everything you need to speak fluently
AI PronunciationScore every sentence
IPA PracticeMaster every sound
VocabularyBuild your word bank
Vocab GameLearn while playing
FOR YOU
Recommend Video
B1445
18 sentences
Grade 10 Unit 3 listening
Daily ConversationHigh School Students
B21
142 sentences
2 II WELCOME TO SPEECH AND DEBATE
Daily ConversationHigh School Students
B210
34 sentences
Class Presentation: Should the Voting Age Be Sixteen?
American AccentTeensDaily ConversationHigh School Students
B23
350 sentences
Model United Nations Flow of Debate Training Video
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
76 sentences
How to Win A Debate (Ep 05)
Daily ConversationHigh School Students
B24
160 sentences
The Moth GrandSLAM Winner | “I Completely Lost Control of My Classroom”
Business EnglishDaily ConversationHigh School Students
![[Intelligence-High School Debate] Ep.14 - To be Global Citizens Instead of Instilling Nationalism](https://img.youtube.com/vi/aUhDzk1pSKY/mqdefault.jpg)
C11
696 sentences
[Intelligence-High School Debate] Ep.14 - To be Global Citizens Instead of Instilling Nationalism
Daily ConversationHigh School Students
B26
134 sentences
"Everyone needs to be valued" – Princess Diana Speech on Homelessness (1995)
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
39 sentences
An eight-year-old outsmarts the adults | Captain Fantastic
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B1330
15 sentences
Grade 10 Unit 2 Listening
Daily ConversationHigh School Students
B11
22 sentences
Ministry of Education Condemns Ascot Primary Graduation Gown Controversy | TVJ News
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
197 sentences
tagesschau 20:00 Uhr, 21.07.2026
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
Vocabulary and speaking notes for this lesson
This speaking lesson is built on the video “2025 Year 8 Grand Final”. The speaker keeps coming back to these words: opt, organ, donation, speaker, consent. This video has 348 sentences and 4395 words to shadow. The speech runs for 38:40. The speaker talks at a steady 114 words per minute, a comfortable pace for shadowing. Only 77% of the words are among the 3,000 most common in English, so the vocabulary is demanding.
Key vocabulary in this video
15 words from the video worth learning, with pronunciation and meaning:
| Word | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| organ noun | /ˈɔːɡən/ | The larger part of an organism, composed of tissues that perform similar functions. |
| donation noun | /doʊˈneɪʃən/ | A voluntary gift or contribution for a specific cause. |
| consent verb | /kənˈsɛnt/ | To express willingness, to give permission. |
| implement verb | /ˈɪmpləmənt/ | To bring about; to put into practice; to carry out. |
| donate verb | /ˈdoʊˌneɪt/ | To make a donation; to give away something of value to support or contribute towards a cause or for the benefit of another. |
| affirmative adjective | /əˈfɝməɾɪv/ | pertaining to truth; asserting that something is; affirming |
| donor noun | /ˈdəʊnə/ | One who makes a donation. |
| gentleman noun | /ˈd͡ʒɛn.təl.mən/ | Any well-bred, well-mannered, or charming man. |
| awareness noun | /əˈwɛɹ.nəs/ | The state or level of consciousness where sense data can be confirmed by an observer. |
| transplant verb | /tɹænzˈplænt/ | To uproot (a growing plant), and plant it in another place. |
| topic noun | /ˈtɑpɪk/ | A subject; a theme; a category or general area of interest. |
| kidney noun | /ˈkɪdni/ | An organ in the body that filters the blood, producing urine. |
| strongly adverb | /ˈstɹɔŋli/ | In a strong or powerful manner. |
| autonomy noun | /ɔˈtɑ.nə.mi/ | The right or condition of self-government; freedom to act or function independently. |
| guarantee noun | /ˌɡæɹ.ənˈtiː/ | Anything that assures a certain outcome. |
Phrasal verbs you will hear
| Word | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| opt out verb | To choose not to participate in something. | |
| sum up verb | To produce a total by adding. | |
| carry out verb | /ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/ | To hold while moving it out. |
| come forward verb | To offer help or information, especially about a crime. | |
| end up verb | To bring to a conclusion. | |
| get around verb | To move to the other side of (something, such as an obstruction) by deviating from a direct course or following a curved path. | |
| go through verb | To travel from one end of something to the other. | |
| point out verb | To identify among a group of similar subjects, or in a scene where the subject might not be readily seen or noticed, with a gesture of the body. |
Sentences worth repeating
Short, complete lines from the video that you can reuse in everyday conversation:
- Let's start by framing the problem.
- If I'm burnt, I'll become ash.
- I will now sum up my team's case.
- I'd just like to say a big thank you.
- There wouldn't be a debate without you.
Grammar in this video
The structures the speaker uses most, with the exact words from the video:
| Structure | In the video |
|---|---|
| Conditional sentences if + clause, will/would + verb — a condition and its result | if I'm buried, I'll rot · If I'm burnt, I'll become · if my body is donated, I'll give |
| Present perfect have/has + past participle — a past action that still matters now | I've never become · you've done · has spent |
| Passive voice be + past participle — the focus is on what happens, not who does it | will be judged · may be run · is considered |
| Relative clauses who / which + clause — extra information about a person or thing | those who struggle · people who die · people who are |
Pronunciation to watch
The speaker uses 38 contractions and reduced forms, such as don't, won't, I'll. Say them the short way, as you hear them.
- The “th” sounds: ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/, furthermore /ˈfɜː(ɹ).ðə(ɹ)ˌmɔː(ɹ)/, ethical /ˈɛθɪkəl/, breakthrough /ˈbɹeɪk.θɹuː/
- The “sh” and “zh” sounds: donation /doʊˈneɪʃən/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/, shortage /ˈʃɔː(ɹ)tɪd͡ʒ/
- Long words — get the stress right: affirmative /əˈfɝməɾɪv/, autonomy /ɔˈtɑ.nə.mi/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, ineffective /ˌɪn.ɪˈfɛk.tɪv/, voluntary /ˈvɑ.lənˌt(ɛ)ɹi/
How to practise with this video
- Listen to the whole video once without speaking and note the words you do not know.
- Shadow it sentence by sentence at normal speed, repeating each one until your rhythm matches the speaker.
- Record yourself and compare with the original, paying attention to words like organ, donation, consent.
What is the Shadowing Technique?
Shadowing is a science-backed language learning technique originally developed for professional interpreter training and popularized by polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. The method is simple but powerful: you listen to native English audio and immediately repeat it out loud — like a shadow following the speaker with just a 1–2 second delay. Unlike passive listening or grammar drills, shadowing forces your brain and mouth muscles to simultaneously process and reproduce real speech patterns. Research shows it significantly improves pronunciation accuracy, intonation, rhythm, connected speech, listening comprehension, and speaking fluency — making it one of the most effective methods for IELTS Speaking preparation and real-world English communication.