Friedersdorf's Persuasive Speech Summary

Recently there has been an advancement in the capability of technological innovation that has risen ethical and moral questions of how, when, why, where, and the manner of which such technology should be used. Journalist and public speaker, Conor Friedersdorf, published his speech “Distant Death: The Case for a Moratorium on Drone strikes,” in 2013 in the politically moderate The Atlantic. Because of this moderate view, there is no set biased amongst the audience for Friedersdorf to work against, instead his job is to persuade the audience to agree with his view on a suspension of drone strikes. Friedersdorf has a background in politics, philosophy, and economics that he focuses his journalism and research on, thus the audience would expect

Friedersdorf was prompted to argue the case against drones when he found himself perplexed by the question of morals behind it and also understanding the “secrecy” of its use by the U.S. government. Friedersdorf references the controversial use of drone strikes in places such as Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in order to remind that audience of the government’s “abuse” of the drones and makes an emotion appeal to the innocent civilian lives they claimed (The Atlantic).

Throughout his published speech, Friedersdorf uses an informal tone when addressing the audience. The tone of the piece begins light-hearted and relatable to the audience with Friedersdorf making conversational, sarcastic comments regarding the dark aspects of drone warfare to gain their attention and give his argument momentum. However, when the tone shifts to a serious note it is to redirect the focus of the audience to his argument against the immoral use of drones. Friedersdorf’s argument against drones is motivated by how he believes it’s use by the government is

Because Friedersdorf does not take the time to define what a drone is or describe what a drone does, it is implied that he assumes his audience is educated with basic knowledge about drones and the controversy around them. Friedersdorf calls for citizens to take a stand when he urges the audience to, “call for [the government 's abuse of drones] to stop” and that “it is [the audience’s] responsibility to call for a moratorium on drone strikes,” by doing so, he is assigning a duty to the audience to mobilize to create change in a circumstance that he views as wrong (The