The Great Debaters

                                                                                       

The Great Debaters is a biographical screenplay based on a publication about the debate team in Wiley College. Despite some minor alterations for cinematic and dramatic intents, the movie represents the actual occurrences about the underdog debate team that overcame monumental challenges to win the debate championship. The film also focuses on the team’s coach, Melvin Tolson, and his struggle while pursuing civil rights in the Jim Crow South (Washington et al. 1). The three debates during the movie represent Tolson’s fight against white supremacists, like the Sheriff, and the final contest against students at Harvard University is the climax of the film. The wins at the contests represent both the victorious actions of Tolson and his debate team. Therefore, the audience is both ennobled and entertained by the scenes in the movie as they identify with the struggle Tolson faces against segregation. The members of the Wiley debate team maintained an unbeaten winning streak as they used the three persuasive techniques, ethos, logos, and pathos, during their debates.

The first debate involves the debaters’ competition against Paul Quinn College. The debate’s resolution was that after the Great Depression came to an end, the relief given to those who could not find work should be stopped. The members of the Wiley debate team were Hamilton Burgess and Henry Rowe, and they were opposing this claim. Rowe appealed to the feelings of his listeners when he mentioned the look on a mother’s face when she is unable to feed her kids (Washington et al. 1). By doing so, he was urging his listeners to sympathize with the lady in question who could not find work. Furthermore, Burgess established the credibility of his argument when he used facts to substantiate his claims. He quoted the concept of duty that existed when capitalism was gaining popularity. Lastly, Burgess also appealed to the audience’s intellect when he argued that the relief should remain because unlike the past, more men were willing to execute tasks than the jobs available. Consequently, it was not a person’s fault even if they could not secure employment. Rowe respectfully acknowledged his opponent’s claim about saving money by withholding welfare but refuted it by comparing his line of thought to a General killing innocents to achieve peace.

The second debate involves Wiley going up against Oklahoma City College. The claim to prove was that African Americans deserve the chance to be admitted to State Universities, and the Wiley team was supporting this resolution. The members during this debate were Samantha Booke and Rowe. Booke used pathos when she insisted that the time for fairness and justice was supposed to be the present (Washington et al. 1). Booke was appealing to her listeners’ sense of humanity when she argued that whites and blacks needed to be admitted to the same colleges starting then. Secondly, Rowe used logic when he compared the changes that had been made to the South and their effectiveness to the futility of having different colleges. Rowe correctly stated that whites were resistant to change, but once it was forced upon them, it led to good results. Additionally, Booke used ethos when she quoted both legal and historical facts that proved that African Americans were a vital part of America (Washington et al. 1). Lastly, Rowe conceded to his opponent when he recognized his claim about Dr. Dubois. Nevertheless, he gave a strong counter when he reminded his opponent and the audience that Dr. Dubois was an African American who received a doctorate from Harvard.

The last debate was the climax of the movie, and Wiley’s rivals were Harvard University who were opposing the claim. The contest’s resolution was the concern over whether civil disobedience was a righteous weapon in the fight for justice. The Wiley team consisted of James Farmer, Jr. and Booke. Farmer appealed to his listeners’ emotions when he urged them to make the distinction between Dyer’s and Gandhi’s definition of morality. While Gandhi had opposed the rules to protest violence, Dyer has killed innocent citizens to teach them a lesson about morality (Washington et al. 1).  Moreover, by mentioning the historical facts about the British rule in India, Farmer established his credibility with the audience. Thirdly, Farmer used a logical appeal when he compared the Jim Crow South to a lawless land, thus, proving that the whites’ actions were immoral as they eroded the law (Washington et al. 1). Consequently, the blacks were right to resist with civil disobedience. Lastly, Booke acknowledged her opponent’s claim that majority should decide what was right and what was wrong. Nonetheless, she refuted his claim by reminding him that a person’s conscience was the only tool that should decide this.

In summary, The Great Debaters involves the debate team at Wiley and their competitions whose wins represented victories in their personal lives as well. During the first competition, both Burgess and Rowe used all the three persuasive techniques and refuted their opponents’ claims which led to their win. Secondly, Booke and Rowe made use of pathos, ethos, and logos to argue their case against the Oklahoma City College successfully. Lastly, Booke and Farmer won their debate over Harvard University using these three strategies to sway both the judges and their listeners.

 

Work Cited

Washington, Denzel, et al. The Great Debaters. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 2007.