The first argumentative strategy dialogic can be defined by a conversation between people. Most of the time when someone uses the dialogic strategy, it consists of two characters. In stories, dialogic often have two characters that have a dialogue conversation. Usually, one of characters says more things than the other with two different points of views. In “Apology of Socrates”, Socrates tries to plead for his innocence and talks to Meletus. The majority of the time, Socrates tried to persuade his audience into believing what he was doing was right. There was a few times where Meletus spoke to answer a few of Socrates’ questions. Confessional is the second argumentative strategy in which someone opens up to their intentions. Confessional can be used when someone reveals their motivation for doing something. It can also be used to talk about a purpose for an action someone took. David Henry Thoreau wrote “Why I Went to the woods” to explain why he did not want to live the city. He tries to convince his readers that living life means to not live in city but to live in the wilderness. He explains his reasons why he believed that living in city was not living. Didactic can be defined as a lecture. The argumentative strategy is meant to teach an audience new lessons and new things. When teachers and professors teach their classes, they lecture and use a didactic approach to teach their students. In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell attempts to teach his readers about how the English language can affect politics in some of the way people speak. Orwell tries to teach his readers what they can do to avoid any confusion while talking to anybody. Lastly, Epistolary is a letter of instruction. Usually, people using this argumentative strategy use it in a religious way. Epistolary is meant to tell a story from a character’s point of view. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letters from Birmingham Jail” strives to inform readers about King’s views on how the government is unjust and what he believes the civil right activist should do next. The main purpose of his letter was to allow people to read his point of view about how the city officials are unjust. The most dominant argumentative strategy seems to be didactic because it gives the audience an idea of what is going on in an argument. Authors and speakers can easily voice their opinion through didactic argument because they can lay out facts and give opinions on it rather than just talking about the subject. Didactic can be applied to analyze “Deliver Us From Evil” and “Jesus Camp” by stating the facts and comparing their similarities. It is easier to tell an audience about the important facts that are state in the two films. “Deliver Us from Evil” is documentary about Father Oliver O’Grady who goes around to different catholic churches to abuse children. Amy Berg exposes O’Grady’s life of what he does to the little kids. Berg makes O’Grady confess in front of the camera about how the little children make him feel. O’Grady mentions it makes him feel good inside when he sees little children in underwear but it does not make him feel the same when he sees adults. He has sexually urges towards the little kids. Amy Berg also shares details of which church he has been where he abused some children. O’Grady goes around to different churches and helps out. He attends the camps to help out the church, but during those times, he abuses the children secretly. The memories of what happened in the past still affect the kids are now adults. Parents had to go through their lives knowing what had happened to their children. Mr. and Mrs. Jyono did not know what O’grady was doing their daughter Anne. One day, they saw the newspaper and Anne’s parents were really shocked. In the documentary, Bob Jyono cried in front of the camera to express how hurt he was about the ordeal. O’Grady seemed to be one of the greatest priests in the area. Many families trusted O’Grady with their children but did not know what he was doing to them. Another catholic documentary made was called “Jesus Camp.” The documentary was made to unfold how an Evangelical church was influencing children into believing God a major way. The directors Heidi Wing and Rachel Grady followed the events that took place during the church. Becky Fischer and parents influence the children to believe that the bible and God are always the answer. It causes the view of the little kids on certain aspects of life to become uncommon with others. Fischer uses examples like how the Muslims teach their children to fight for Islam. She suggests that if the children can fight for what they believe in then they can change the world into a better world. A man named Mike Papantonio expressed his feelings about what the evangelical church was doing to the children and how it was disrupting the boundaries between church and state. During the church summer camps and retreats, Fischer constantly pushes the word of God onto the children every day they were there. Footage from the camp shows the kids pray for God fanatically. When Fischer tells the children to speak in tongue, it makes the children seem like they do not know what they were doing. They do not look like they were doing something that was normal. When Fischer was asked about the scene by the camera man, she told him that the children were able to do that because they were really close to God. When Fischer was explaining the reason why the little girl on the screen was doing what she was doing, she had a worried look. The directors want to exploit what goes on in the church and what happens in the camps. The two documentaries give an idea on what happened in a few churches in America. What O’Grady and Fischer were doing to the children affects the children and parents’ lives because the things O’Grady and Fischer were doing. O’Grady and Fischer seem to believe that they were doing the right thing. O’Grady confesses that he does have urges towards little kids in the park and Fischer continually defends what she does in church to be the best way to help the kids. Both documentaries expose to the public the issues that had happened. Kids that are now adults still have memories about what O’Grady did to them and parents are still aggravated. Fischer says many things to the little children that affect their behavior in a big way. She strengthens the beliefs of God in a way that makes other kids judgment seem illogical. Becky Fischer makes an accusation that Harry Potter was evil or bad; however, in the long run, restricting the children from doing fun things will ruin their childhood. O’Grady also made false accusations when he was with the kids. An old woman told the camera man that the reason why she did not have a reaction to poison ivy was because she slept with O’Grady. Overall, the two documentaries were made to share and show what O’Grady and Fischer were doing to the kids during church. The things they were doing to the kids were shock because Fischer was brainwashing the kids in a way and O’Grady was abusing them. They were very trusted people that parents are grateful to put their children lives in their hands. Didactic argumentative strategy was useful in explaining and comparing the two documentaries. It was easier to give some opinions on what the films explored. It was simple to state the facts the documentaries shows because the information that was able to be present straightforward rather than just saying things in a confusing way and metaphorically.