Achievement Standard English 90725 (3.6) version 2
Construct and deliver an oral presentation
Level: 3
Credits: 4
Assessment: Internal
This achievement standard requires construction and delivery of an oral presentation
using a range of appropriate presentation techniques.
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Achievement with Excellence

Construct and deliver a
presentation that
communicates with an
audience.

Construct and deliver a
presentation that communicates
effectively with an audience.

Construct and deliver an effective
presentation that convinces and/or
challenges an audience.


Develop and support detailed
idea(s).

Develop and support idea(s).
Develop and support detailed idea(s),
showing insight and/or originality.

Use a range of appropriate
presentation techniques for a
specific audience and
purpose.

Combine a range of appropriate
presentation techniques for a
specific audience and purpose.

Integrate a range of appropriate
presentation techniques for a specific
audience and purpose.
In order to meet the presentation criterion for this Level 3 Achievement standard please:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Create a presentation that is about 7 – 10 minutes long.
Stand when presenting your speech.
Use a range of oral language techniques e.g. rhetorical question; direct address to the
audience; defining key words; quoting an expert; listing…
Use body language and gesture.
Make a link to modern life/ personal contexts to show your own thinking about your topic.
Practice using cue cards so that you have no/ only minor hesitations during your
speech
Show sophisticated thinking and complex ideas
English for Contemporary Issues – Debate
We make decisions every day – some are simple and relatively unimportant, like what to wear. Other
decisions are more complex and have a lot at stake, like who to marry or whether a law should be
changed. Being able to consider all aspects prior to making a decision improves our lives, our
communities and leads to better decision making.
Some people think that debate training is only for those who wish to become lawyers or politicians,
but learning to debate is good training for everyone’s everyday life. The skills you obtain by learning to
debate – critical thinking, listening closely, research, information processing, creative thinking,
communication and persuasion – will serve you well regardless of your career choice, or role in life.
Debating also teaches you how to advocate. You can use these skills as a means to improve your
school, community and country. This is important as we are constantly engaged in issues, whether
we choose to get involved or not. Expressing our opinion on important issues helps define who we
are.
The issue we are going to debate rests on legal and illegal drugs: alcohol and illicit drugs. We’ll
debate the legalisation of drugs, particularly soft drugs like cannabis (or marijuana). This issue is
capable of being characterised as one which pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the
concept of a paternalistic State. Advocates of legalisation argue, amongst other things, that cannabis
is not only less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco, but as a matter of fact has
been proven to possess certain medicinal properties. In stark contrast, those opposed to legalisation
argue that the legalisation of cannabis will act as a precursor to increased addiction to hard drugs,
and will necessarily lead to an increase in the crime rate itself.
Moots
This house believes that cannabis should be legalised
This house supports the legalisation of drugs
This house advocates change in our present drugs policy
PROS
CONS
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful
effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like
alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by
the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is
far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the
consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes
cause more deaths per year than does the use of
cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers,
accidents caused by drink driving etc.). The legalisation
of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby
substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are
legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis
remains unlawful.
Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a
hallucinatory effect on the mind. This is inherently
dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just like other drugs,
there are many individuals addicted to cannabis who
will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction. The
legalisation of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming
more readily available, which in turn will mean that
many more people will gain access to it. This will
subsequently lead to an increase in the crime rate.
Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the
decriminalisation and eventual legalisation of cannabis
did led to an increase in crime in Dutch society.
In recent years, scientists and medical researchers
have discovered that cannabis possesses certain
medicinal qualities that are beneficial. For instance, it is
now acknowledged that the use of cannabis helps to
relieve the suffering of patients afflicted with multiple
sclerosis (MS). The latest research that was conducted
by the Complutense University in Madrid indicates that
cannabis has the potential to kill cancerous ‘glioma’
cells. Governments should acknowledge such findings
and legalise cannabis in order to alleviate the pain of
patients who are afflicted with such diseases.
The US and the UK governments have been at the
forefront in supporting scientific researches into the
utility of cannabis as a medical product. However, even
though evidence may show that the legalisation of
cannabis will bring about relief for sufferers of, amongst
others, MS, we should exercise caution against
legalising it because the use of cannabis itself also
brings about harmful side-effects. More importantly, it is
submitted that the legalisation of cannabis will give rise
to a host of social problems. The detriments of
legalisation far outweighs its benefits. We can thus
safely say that the present approach represents the
most proportionate response to the issue at hand.
Individuals should be given the freedom to lead their
lives as they choose. Of course, such freedom is not
absolute and laws should intervene to limit this
freedom, especially when the rights of others are
infringed. In the case of the use of cannabis, it is a
victimless crime, insofar as nobody other than the user
him/herself experiences the effects of the use of the
substance. Hence, the State should not act in a
paternalistic fashion by legislating against something
which harms only the actual user.
The State is justified in introducing legislation to prevent
individuals from causing harm to themselves. For
instance, in many countries, there are laws requiring
the wearing of seatbelts in cars. Moreover, as this has
article has pointed out, the use of cannabis does lead
to medically and socially harmful effects which affect
the other members of society.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the use
of cannabis will necessarily lead users onto more
dangerous narcotic substances. It is undeniable that
there are a large number of people who use the drug
despite it being unlawful to do so. Rather than turn
away from this problem, the government should instead
face up to reality. The legalisation of cannabis will
enable the government to regulate its use thereby
protecting its many users from harmful abuse of the
substance.
The legalisation of cannabis will lead to users moving
on to using harder drugs like morphine and cocaine.
This would ultimately lead to an increase in social ills in
the community as well as the need to spend more State
funds on rehabilitation programmes.
Presently, cannabis is sold by dealers who have
connections with the underworld. The legalisation of
cannabis will help facilitate the sale of the drug in
establishments like Amsterdam’s "coffee houses". This
It is not inconceivable that the same criminal elements
who now sell cannabis will, when the drug is legalised,
diversify its business and set up "coffee houses"
themselves. In effect this will do nothing to separate the
will shift the sale of cannabis away from the criminal
underworld. The severance of this ‘criminal link’ will
ensure that the users of the drug no longer need to
come into contact with organised crime.
sale of cannabis from the criminal underworld.
Conversely, it will give them a legitimate base from
which to operate their activities.
Legalise Cannabis Alliance
IDMU (Independent Drug Monitoring Unit - UK)
Transform (The Campaign for Effective Drug Policy)
The Drug Refrom Coordination Network
Reducing the Harms of Cannabis Use (The policy debate in Australia
CNN article on the situation in California
NORML - National Organisation for Reform of Marijuana Laws
Report on the debate in Morocco
LA Times debate in US Federal responses to changing state policies on drug use
CATO Institute: The Politics and Science of Medical Marijuana
Cannabis Culture – a Journey through Disputed Territory
By: Pattrick Matthews
Cannabis – the Genus Cannabis
By: David Brown
The 2004 cannabis law reforms in Western Australia and the United Kingdom:: A case of
too much caution?
By: Greg Swensen
Cannabis And Young People: Reviewing the Evidence
By: Richard Jenkins
Opposing Viewpoints Series - Marijuana
By:
Editor: Jamuna Carroll
Marijuana (At Issue Series)
Alcohol - Should the sale and consumption of alcohol – the
world’s favourite drug – be further restricted, or even banned?
In almost all countries in the world, adults are allowed to buy and consume alcohol with very little restriction
(although there are often laws about the exact hours that bars and shops are allowed to sell alcohol, and laws
against drinking and driving). This is in marked contrast to the legal situation with regard to other mind-altering
(or ‘psycho-active’) drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and heroin. However, the experience of
‘Prohibition’ in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s, when there was a huge black market in alcohol run by a
powerful criminal underworld, makes most people very wary of trying that solution again. In this debate the
proposition can argue either for tighter restrictions or for complete prohibition. This debate is one that boils down
to a debate about what balance should be struck between the need to protect society on the one hand and the
need to preserve individual liberties on the other.
Moots:
That alcohol is as harmful as illicit drugs and should be banned.
This house believes that alcohol is the root of all evil
Pros Cons
Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as
many illegal drugs. Those who do become
addicted to alcohol often lose their marriages,
jobs, families, even their lives. A large
proportion of homeless people find
themselves in that position as a result of their
alcoholism. Any drug this addictive and
destructive should be illegal.
If one were sitting down to design the perfect
society from scratch, one might be tempted
not to allow the production and sale of
alcohol, However, the main reason why the
case of alcohol is different from that of other
drugs is a social one rather than an empirical
fact about the nature of the drug. Alcohol,
unlike other drugs, is socially entrenched. It is
an integral part of the social life and culture of
most countries and to try to ban it is
completely impractical. To criminalise billions
of people around the world over night and
create the biggest black market the world has
ever seen (for the benefit of the criminal
underworld) would be crazy.
Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge
proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from
country to country, but in many countries
alcohol is a contributory factor in 60-70% of
violent crimes, including child abuse,
domestic violence, sexual assault, and
murder. Alcohol is far and away the leading
cause of public disorder, street fights, etc. In
short, alcohol is one of the prime causes of
violence and crime in modern society, and its
banning would reduce the incidence of these
crimes at a strike.
Human beings are naturally inclined towards
violence and conflict. Sex and violence are
primal parts of our genetic make-up and we
do not need alcohol to bring them to the
surface. At worst, alcohol may slightly
exaggerate these tendencies - but that
makes it the occasion not the underlying
cause of violent crimes. The underlying
causes are biological and social. Making rape
and murder illegal does not eradicate rape
and murder, so it is unlikely that making
drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.
Despite the fact that advertising campaigns
such as those run in the UK over the past 30
years have been successful in reducing the
incidence of drink driving, this success has
not been mirrored in all countries. And even
where it has, deaths and serious injuries
caused by drunk drivers still run to the
thousands each year. This is an
unacceptable situation - alcohol should
simply be banned.
The progress made against drink driving in
recent decades has been very encouraging.
We should continue to campaign against it
and have every reason to hope that the
current trend towards its eradication by a
process of attitude-change and stigmatisation
will continue. The fact that there are still
some injuries and deaths is not a good
enough reason to take away the civil liberties
of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens by
depriving them of the pleasure of drinking
alcohol.
We need consistency in our drug laws. If
cannabis, which is not very addictive and
which results in virtually no violent crime or
public disorder, needs to be banned because
of its mind-altering effects, then how much
more so should alcohol be banned.
Yes, we should have consistent drug laws,
which is why it is absurd for cannabis to be
illegal. Cannabis and alcohol should both be
legal drugs since the vast majority of people
know how to use them safely and
responsibly.
It is true that currently thousands of people
are employed by the alcoholic drinks
industry. However the fact that an immoral
industry employs a lot of people is never a
good argument to keep that immoral industry
going (similar arguments apply to the cases
of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting,
battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual
process would have to be implemented,
which would include governments providing
funding for training for alternative careers.
Not only would banning alcohol infringe
people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable
degree, it would also put thousands of people
out of work. The drinks industry is an
enormous global industry. There are not
good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc
on the world economy.
It is also true that tax revenues would be lost
if alcohol were banned. However, again, this
is not a principled reason to reject the
proposition, simply a practical problem. It
should be pointed out that governments
would save a huge amount of money on
police and health spending (through the
reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness)
which would go at least some of the way to
offsetting the decreased tax revenues.
Currently governments raise large amounts
of revenue from taxes and duties payable on
alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take
away a major source of funding for public
services. In addition, the effect of banning
alcohol would call for additional policing on a
huge scale, if the prohibition were to be
enforced effectively. If would create a new
class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and
dealers on an unprecedented scale.
Useful Sites
Alcoholics Anonymous
Alcohol Concern UK
The National Clearing House for Alcohol and Drug Information
The Portman Group (Speaks for the UK Alcoholic Drinks Industry)
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Wikipedia article
BBC Online article with links about Australia's recent ban on alcohol in some
Aborigine areas
Health Service Journal: top doctors call for more restrictions on alcohol
Joseph Rowntree Foundation article on the temperance movement
Islamic perspective
Amythest Initiative
Useful Books
Alcohol and Young People: What They Know, Think and Do
By: The Health Education Authority
Issues in Alcohol (Contemporary Issues)
By: Lisa Wolff
The Alcohol Report
By: Martin Plant
Paying the Tab: The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control
By: Philip J. Cook
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=101