How often do you consider the ubiquity of weapons of mass murder, patiently aimed at our suburbia? Every single day your life is chanced upon the 16,300 nuclear weapons, waiting to be activated at the whim of that government. Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Beatrice Fihn, outlines the necessity of banning these weapons and the imminent danger of nuclear technology with her 2017 speech. Fihn utilizes numerous literary devices—such as diction, metaphors and scare tactic—to deliver a cohesive and persuasive argument against the use and development of nuclear weaponry, whilst maintaining a connection with her audience.
Initially, she opens her speech in a similar fashion to most: with formal greetings and expressions of gratitude. Laced within these …show more content…
Aside from being a solid use of alliteration to make her points audibly pleasing, she is transforming her speech into the format of a three-prong essay—complete with sources throughout this section of her essay. For fear she (ironically) uses scare tactic to reassure you that the growing horror her speech is giving you is valid, saying “Fear is rational. The threat is real[…]. Sooner or later, if we fail to act, our luck will run out”. Skillfully, she validates your emotions by calling your fears “rational”, then grounds the situation by calling the threat “real”. She concludes by insisting there is no chance of avoidance, compelling the audience to imagine nuclear warfare as an inevitable outcome that we have merely been “luck[y]” to escape thus far. By playing into our fear of death and carnage, we become enamored with her argument much quicker than logic alone could permit. Subsequently, she cites the primary anti-nuclear weapons organization, “‘We physicians protest the outrage of holding the entire world hostage.’[…] Those words still ring true in 2017”. While providing a second source for her opinion, she also maintains her tactic by defining the entire world as “hostage[s]” to the governments possessing nuclear weapons. Additionally, sourcing this argument as being at least thirty-two years old brings a nuance of desperation to her tone—emphasizing that Fihn’s
Initially, she opens her speech in a similar fashion to most: with formal greetings and expressions of gratitude. Laced within these …show more content…
Aside from being a solid use of alliteration to make her points audibly pleasing, she is transforming her speech into the format of a three-prong essay—complete with sources throughout this section of her essay. For fear she (ironically) uses scare tactic to reassure you that the growing horror her speech is giving you is valid, saying “Fear is rational. The threat is real[…]. Sooner or later, if we fail to act, our luck will run out”. Skillfully, she validates your emotions by calling your fears “rational”, then grounds the situation by calling the threat “real”. She concludes by insisting there is no chance of avoidance, compelling the audience to imagine nuclear warfare as an inevitable outcome that we have merely been “luck[y]” to escape thus far. By playing into our fear of death and carnage, we become enamored with her argument much quicker than logic alone could permit. Subsequently, she cites the primary anti-nuclear weapons organization, “‘We physicians protest the outrage of holding the entire world hostage.’[…] Those words still ring true in 2017”. While providing a second source for her opinion, she also maintains her tactic by defining the entire world as “hostage[s]” to the governments possessing nuclear weapons. Additionally, sourcing this argument as being at least thirty-two years old brings a nuance of desperation to her tone—emphasizing that Fihn’s