Практика Shadowing: 2025 Year 8 Grand Final - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Каждый режим открывает полноэкранную комнату практики.

348 предложений

Если предложения слишком короткие или длинные, нажмите Edit, чтобы их изменить.

Good morning and welcome.

My name is Sonia Lawin and I'm the Chairman of Debating SA.

We have been coming to the Chambers here in Parliament House since 2006 and I've never become accustomed to it.

Every time I come here I still find it very awe -inspiring

and so I think it's a very suitable venue for the debaters today for their grand final.

So congratulations to both teams.

We know that you had to work very hard

and there were a lot of debates all at once coming very quickly so you've done a magnificent job.

It shows a lot of self -discipline and congratulations for arriving here today so good luck to both teams.

Thank you.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the 2025

Year 8 Division Debating Essay Grand Final Debate.

My name is Leah Gann and I am the chairman of this debate.

The timekeeper is Martina Cavallo.

The topic of this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.

The affirmative team seated to my right is from Emmaus Christian College consisting of first speaker Diana Lee, second speaker Mia Fontana -Rosa,

and third speaker Cara Miller.

The negative team seated to my left is from St. Michael's College, consisting of first speaker Teddy Kipschuk,

second speaker Isaac Zonta, and third speaker Olivia Stavridis.

This grand final debate will be judged by a panel of five adjudicators who are Mr. Luke Barnett, Mr. Rupin Visser, Miss Perina Bra,

Miss Ms Eva Harris and Ms Charlie Caldwell.

The speaking time of this debate is 4 minutes.

A single warning bell will sound at 3 minutes and a double bell will sound at 4 minutes.

A continuous bell may be run 30 seconds after the speaking time, in which case the speaker must sit down immediately.

Please switch off your mobile phones and other electronic devices.

I declare this debate open and I call upon the first affirmative speaker, Diana Lee.

Good morning, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

The topic for this debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.

We, the affirmative team, strongly believe that this statement is true.

We define the topic as should to mean there is a practical obligation to act, not just that it's optional.

To implement means to pass legislation.

An opt -out system for organ donation is where every person

is considered a donor of vital organs after death by default

to save the lives of patients needing transplant unless they choose not or cannot be.

As the first speaker, I will be talking to you about how an opt -out system will save more lives

and how it educates and raises awareness.

Our second speaker will be talking to you about how many organ donors don't have time to get around registration

and the benefits to the economy.

Our third speaker will rebut and sum up our team case.

My first point is that an opt -out system saves more lives.

Right now, in Australia, there are over 1 ,800 people on the transplant waiting list.

And tragically, many die before a match is even found, as reported by Transport Australia.

In the US alone, around 17 people die every day due to organ donor shortages.

The current number of donors is simply not enough to support the suffering patients.

But then, how exactly can we support all these people?

Well, the opt -out system provides just that.

Spain introduced an opt -out system in 1979

and has since held the world number one organ donor for over three decades as WHO and BMJ states.

Additionally, according to the NHS, Wales, after introducing an opt -out system,

saw an increase in donation consent rates from 58 % to 68%.

This proves that making donation the default leads to more available organs and thus more lives saved.

My second point is that implementing the opt -out system educates and spreads awareness.

In an educational aspect, an experiment carried out by the Journal of Clinical

and Diagnostic Research found that after being educated on organ donation, an additional 15 % of recipients expressed willingness to donate.

This proves that education plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes.

The opt -out system helps spark that learning and awareness.

Furthermore, defaulting to organ donation leads to more open family discussions about individual choices.

According to the European Commission's report on organ donation,

countries with opt -out systems that combine legislation with public awareness campaigns see more family discussion and conversation.

For example, the opted -out country, Portugal, showed that over 75 % of families had talked about donation preferences,

as surveys conducted by the Portuguese Directorate General for Health States.

This demonstrates that opt -out systems don't just change the law.

They start conversations, they spread awareness, and they educate the public so that ultimately more lives can be saved.

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, a psychologist and mentor, Jita Jacob,

once said, I don't want to be buried with a single organ in my body.

Give them to a child that has spent more time inside the hospital than outside playing.

These words remind us that organ donation is the gift of life, a chance for someone else to live, laugh and grow.

Thank you.

I call upon the first negative speaker, Teddy Kipschuk.

Good morning, Madam Chairman, Adjudicators, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The topic for this morning's debate is that Australia should implement an opt -out system for organ donation.

We agree with the definition given by the affirmative team.

However, we strongly disagree with the statement.

The first speaker from the affirmative team has tried to tell you

that an opt -out system will save more lives by increasing the number of donations.

The burden shifts unfairly.

Instead of affirming a choice to donate, people must actively defend their right not to.

This change can confuse and pressure individuals, especially those who struggle with digital forms.

Furthermore, the Australian Government Organ and Tissue Authority states that only 2 % of people who die in hospitals can donate their organs.

This is a matter of people passing the criteria to donate the organs,

such as a person dying in a hospital while on a ventilator in intensive care.

Do you really think that an opt -out system will help more people pass this criteria on?

Today's first speaker, I'll be framing the current issues with organ donation, along with raising concerns about bodily autonomy and consent.

Our second speaker will be talking to you about how Australia should focus on the role of families

and the ineffectiveness of opt -out laws, along with technology and alternative strategies, not ineffective opt -out laws.

Our third speaker will rebut and sum up our team case.

Firstly, an opt -out system won't increase the number of organs donated.

Therefore, we should look at other techniques.

Let's start by framing the problem.

Organ donors in Australia are currently scarce.

A fact sheet provided by the Australian Government, Organ and Tissue Authority,

states that only 2 % of people who die in Australian hospitals can even be considered as organ donors.

This is not a question of consent,

but a fact that there are fewer than 2 % of people who are even eligible to donate their organs.

There is a certain criteria that people need to pass to be seen as suitable for this.

An opt -out system won't guarantee people meet the criteria

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.

Скачать приложение

Всё для свободной речи

ИИ-оценка произношенияОценка каждой фразы

Практика IPAОсвойте каждый звук

СловарьСоберите свой словарный запас

Игра со словамиУчитесь играя

Сканировать QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

Этот урок разговорной практики построен на видео «2025 Year 8 Grand Final». Чаще всего повторяются слова: opt, organ, donation, speaker, consent. В этом видео 348 предложений и 4395 слов для шедоуинга. Речь длится 38:40. Говорящий держит ровный темп — около 114 слов в минуту, удобный для шедоуинга. Только 77% слов входят в 3000 самых частых слов английского языка, поэтому лексика сложная.

Ключевая лексика этого видео

15 слов из видео, которые стоит выучить, с произношением и значением:

Слово	Произношение	Значение
organ существительное	/ˈɔːɡən/	о́рган
donation существительное	/doʊˈneɪʃən/	поже́ртвование, дар
consent глагол	/kənˈsɛnt/	разреша́ть, разреши́ть
implement глагол	/ˈɪmpləmənt/	выполня́ть, осуществля́ть
donate глагол	/ˈdoʊˌneɪt/	дари́ть, подари́ть
affirmative прилагательное	/əˈfɝməɾɪv/	утверди́тельный
donor существительное	/ˈdəʊnə/	же́ртвователь, до́нор
gentleman существительное	/ˈd͡ʒɛn.təl.mən/	господи́н, су́дарь
awareness существительное	/əˈwɛɹ.nəs/	созна́ние, осозна́ние
transplant глагол	/tɹænzˈplænt/	переса́живать, пересади́ть
topic существительное	/ˈtɑpɪk/	те́ма, предме́т
kidney существительное	/ˈkɪdni/	по́чка
strongly наречие	/ˈstɹɔŋli/	си́льно
autonomy существительное	/ɔˈtɑ.nə.mi/	автоно́мия, незави́симость
guarantee существительное	/ˌɡæɹ.ənˈtiː/	гара́нтия, пору́ка

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Слово	Произношение	Значение
opt out глагол		устраняться, отказа́ться
carry out глагол	/ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/	выноси́ть, вы́нести
end up глагол		зака́нчиваться, зако́нчиться
point out глагол		ука́зывать, указа́ть
sit down глагол		сади́ться, сесть
switch off глагол		выключа́ть, вы́ключить

Фразы, которые стоит повторять

Короткие законченные фразы из видео, которые пригодятся в повседневном разговоре:

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.

Грамматика в этом видео

Конструкции, которые говорящий использует чаще всего, с точными словами из видео:

Конструкция	В видео
Условные предложения if + предложение, will/would + глагол — условие и его результат	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 + причастие прошедшего времени — прошлое действие, важное сейчас	I've never become · you've done · has spent
Пассивный залог be + причастие прошедшего времени — важно, что происходит, а не кто это делает	will be judged · may be run · is considered
Придаточные определительные who / which + предложение — уточнение о человеке или предмете	those who struggle · people who die · people who are

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Говорящий использует 38 сокращённых и редуцированных форм, например don't, won't, I'll. Произносите их коротко, так, как слышите.

Звуки «th»: ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/, furthermore /ˈfɜː(ɹ).ðə(ɹ)ˌmɔː(ɹ)/, ethical /ˈɛθɪkəl/, breakthrough /ˈbɹeɪk.θɹuː/
Звуки «sh» и «zh»: donation /doʊˈneɪʃən/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/, shortage /ˈʃɔː(ɹ)tɪd͡ʒ/
Длинные слова — следите за ударением: affirmative /əˈfɝməɾɪv/, autonomy /ɔˈtɑ.nə.mi/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, ineffective /ˌɪn.ɪˈfɛk.tɪv/, voluntary /ˈvɑ.lənˌt(ɛ)ɹi/

Звуки, трудные для русскоязычных:

/w/ — губы округлены, это не /v/: awareness /əˈwɛɹ.nəs/, meanwhile /ˈmiːnwaɪl/, requirement /ɹɪˈkwaɪɹmənt/
/h/ — лёгкий выдох, а не русское «х»: highlight /ˈhaɪˌlaɪt/, behalf /bɪˈhæf/
Звонкие согласные в конце слова — не оглушайте их: affirmative /əˈfɝməɾɪv/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, ineffective /ˌɪn.ɪˈfɛk.tɪv/, solve /sɒlv/, shortage /ˈʃɔː(ɹ)tɪd͡ʒ/

Как заниматься с этим видео

Прослушайте всё видео один раз молча и выпишите незнакомые слова.
Повторяйте предложение за предложением на обычной скорости, пока ваш ритм не совпадёт с ритмом говорящего.
Запишите себя и сравните с оригиналом, обращая внимание на такие слова, как organ, donation, consent.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: 2025 Year 8 Grand Final - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Скачать приложение

Рекомендуемое видео

Grade 10 Unit 3 listening

2 II WELCOME TO SPEECH AND DEBATE

Class Presentation: Should the Voting Age Be Sixteen?

Model United Nations Flow of Debate Training Video

How to Win A Debate (Ep 05)

The Moth GrandSLAM Winner | “I Completely Lost Control of My Classroom”

[Intelligence-High School Debate] Ep.14 - To be Global Citizens Instead of Instilling Nationalism

"Everyone needs to be valued" – Princess Diana Speech on Homelessness (1995)

An eight-year-old outsmarts the adults | Captain Fantastic

Grade 10 Unit 2 Listening

Ministry of Education Condemns Ascot Primary Graduation Gown Controversy | TVJ News

tagesschau 20:00 Uhr, 21.07.2026

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

Ключевая лексика этого видео

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Фразы, которые стоит повторять

Грамматика в этом видео

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Как заниматься с этим видео

Что такое техника Shadowing?