常用的开场白有点明主题、交代背景、提出问题等 。不论哪种开场白，目的都是使听众立即了解演讲主题、引入正文、引起思考等 。
演讲稿的正文也是整篇演讲的主体 。主体必须有重点、有层次、有中心语句 。
演讲主体的层次安排可按时间或空间顺序排列，也可以平行并列、正反对比、逐层深入 。由于演讲材料是通过口头表达的，为了便于听众理解，各段落应上下连贯，段与段之间有适当的过渡和照应 。
结尾是演讲内容的收束 。它起着深化主题的作用 。
结尾的方法有归纳法、引文法、反问法等 。归纳法是概括一篇演讲的中心思想，总结强调主要观点；引文法则是引用名言警句，升华主题、留下思考；反问法是以问句引发听众思考和对演讲者观点的认同 。
此外，演讲稿的结尾也可以用感谢、展望、鼓舞等语句作结，使演讲能自然收束，给人留下深刻印象 。大多数演讲稿如同一篇议论文，有主要观点，有对主要观点的论证 。
一篇演讲稿最好只有一个主题，这是由演讲稿的特定情景性和时间性所决定的 。在一个有限的时间段内，完全借助于语言、手势等向听众讲明一个问题或道理，同时又要说服听众，就要求在写作演讲稿时一定要突出主题、观点鲜明 。
主题选定了，还要收集相应的材料对之进行论证 。材料的选择要通俗，要选择大多数人都知道的、听得懂的，而不能选择太生僻的、很少有人知道的 。
因为演讲一即时表演，听众没有时间去验证或查找这些材料的内容或是出处 。因此，在准备演讲稿之前首先要了解听众的情况：他们是些什么人，他们的思想状况、文化程度、职业状况如何，他们所关心的问题是什么，等等 。
掌握了听众的特征和心理，在此基础上恰当地选择材料，组织材料，是演讲成功的必要条件 。写作演讲稿还有一个特别要注意的，就是对演讲节奏和时间的把握 。
每一场演讲都是有时间限制的，少则一分钟，多则一两小时甚至一天，演讲者必须把握自己演讲的速度和内容，既不能时间到了，还没有讲完，也不能距离演讲结束还有一段时间，而演讲者已经无话可说了 。演讲稿对于演讲速度和节奏的把握有着极其重要的作用 。
写作时，要不时地停下来，用自己的正常语速大声朗读，根据朗读的结果调整演讲的内容 。另一方面，还要根据演讲时间的长短调整要讲的内容，做到整场演讲的音调有高低起伏、节奏有轻重缓急、情绪有高涨有低潮，波澜起伏、收舒有度 。
最后，演讲稿还要在情绪上具有较强的感染力，语言上做到生动感人 。在没有时间限制的情况下，尽量做到短而精，在听众的精力分散前戛然而止，余味悠长 。
3. 英语演说 Media reports and official publications have frequently portrayed drug takers as lacking self-esteem, unable to resist peer pressure, seeking oblivion, rejecting traditional norms, anti-social and willing to violate laws. This research by a team at Demos tested these impressions by examining young people's attitudes, through quantitative re-analysis of a survey of 854 young people (respondents - divided into those who had tried and had not tried illicit drugs) and a qualitative study of 110 young people (interviewees - classified as non-users, recreational users and problem users). It found: In the quantitative survey, those who had ever tried an illicit drug tended to be similar to those who had not in terms of: sociability (those who had tried drugs tended to be slightly more independent, more at ease in complex situations and less introverted) levels of trust and respect for their families levels of resignation and self-esteem holding a 'puritanical' outlookIn the qualitative study, recreational user interviewees were as likely to disapprove of behaviour they regard as being 'out of control' as were non-users. Recreational users were a little more distrusting than non-users of authority figures in general, and had a significantly less positive attitude to the police and law enforcement. Attitudes and behaviours that reduced the potential harm of drugs were evident within the youth sub-cultures of interviewees. For example, there was a strong sense of duty to help those in trouble with drugs or those they perceive to be becoming addicted. Among interviewees in the relatively deprived area of Wythenshawe, fatalism and family and social breakdown among young people did coincide with drug use. However, the research suggests that these 'stereotypical' characteristics only apply to a minority of young drug users, primarily in deprived areas. The researchers conclude that policy responses to drug taking need to be targeted at particular youth cultures. An effective role for the 'drugs czar' may therefore be as a champion of local services and disseminator of good practice. Introduction For nearly a decade, Britain's politicians and popular press have been seriously alarmed about young people's use of illicit drugs. The appointment of the new 'drugs czar' and the launch of an inquiry to review drugs law makes it even more important that policy makers and professionals share an informed image of drug takers. Descriptions of drug takers, such as those in recent Ofsted reports on drug education and in some of the papers commissioned as part of the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative, often highlight their poor self-esteem, lack of personal resilience and anti-social values. This research into the attitudes and outlooks of 15- to 24-year-olds who do and do not use drugs found that these images may apply in part to some users, but are not generally representative of young people who have ever tried an illicit drug or who use them 'recreationally' rather than as the central focus of their lives. The research included a re-analysis of a survey of 854 young people (aged 15 to 24), and qualitative in-depth interviews with 110 young people around the country. In the survey, the attitudes of the 39 per cent who had ever tried an illicit drug were compared to the average for all young people in the sample. The qualitative interviews were undertaken with members of three groups: those who took an illicit drug less than twice a year ('non-users') those who took drugs fairly frequently but did not use heroin or methadone, and in interviews did not describe themselves as having a problem and did not describe drug use as a dominant element in their lives ('recreational users') those who attended a drugs agency and took heroin or methadone daily ('problem users') The first part of this Findings shows that in the quantitative re-analysis, those who have tried drugs have similar outlooks to young people in general - and what small differences there are tend to undermine the popular stereotypes. The second part then looks more closely at drug users using the qualitative research, distinguishing between the non-user, the recreational user and the problem user. Quantitative analysis of young people who have ever tried drugs Sociability, individualism, and introversion Those who take drugs are often portrayed as socially inadequate and strongly influenced by their peers. However, the survey found that young people who have tried drugs indicate levels of sociability similar to young people in general. A little under half of both groups (43 and 45 per cent respectively) have a strongly 'sociable outlook' ('show feelings freely', 'enjoy making new f 。