1/30/18

Today we talked about Implicit vs Explicit Claims, SOAPSTone, Nichols’ VS Moore’s claims, discussing how the viewpoints differ, mostly about Nichols and how he was crazy, compared to Moore. We discussed how Moore portrays people in a way that makes them seem less credible, using different conversation and tactics to make them seem like they are making fools of themselves. This allows Moore to connect with his audience better by making them believe he is right. Using these tactics, Moore created a convincing argument in his documentary, bringing more people to his point of view.
This can be applied to the real world by committing quick SOAPSTone assumptions, we can analyze the people around us and determine their credibility. By determining their credibility, it allows us to work on points that can bring people over to our side of an argument. Convincing others to change their argument can cause new melded viewpoints to be put in play. This allows a new way to convince audiences of a speaker's purpose, by conveying a new perception of the subject. These are all aspects of the SOAPSTone format we used.


These are the charts we made in class, this might give some insight into how we went about determining the credibility of Nichols and Moore using the SOAPSTone technique.

S- James Nichols

O- Farm in Michigan, for a documentary, after OK City Bombing

A- Non-Radicals, Moore

P- To prove he isn't crazy, to explain and warn

S- OKC Bombing, Gov Tyranny

T- Passionate, Aggressive, Ominous, Creepy, Defensive

S- Michael Moore

O- Farm in Michigan, for a documentary, after OK City Bombing

A- Viewers, Nichols

P- To show how crazy he is, and how his anarchist views are dangerous, especially since he has a gun

S- OKC Bombing, Govt, Why whackos shouldn't have guns

T- Ironic, Condescending,