by David Schneider

Created on: February 13, 2009   Last Updated: March 08, 2009

Reflections

"The Great Debaters", a movie drama based on the true story of Melvin B. Tolson a professor at Wiley College located in Marshall Texas, in 1935 he inspired the student body to form the schools 1stdebate team, which went on to challenge Harvard in the national championship. The movie has an academy award-winning cast, consisting of Denzel Washington playing the lead role of Melvin B. Tolson; Forrest Whittaker, who plays the stern father in the character of Dr. James Farmer Sr.; his son, a debate team member played by Denzel Whittaker; the only female debater, played by actress Jurnee Smollete and Nate Parker who plays the young 'fire in the belly', Henry Lowe. Together these actors and actresses paint an inspiring story of a truly difficult era for not only African Americans, but for all seeking civil rights.

In the movie and throughout this story, we can identify several examples of good arguments and bad arguments, or good thinking and bad thinking. The following logical fallacies were identified; attack of a person, the argument from authority, the argument from tradition, appeal to force, as well as popular appeal. The first logical fallacy I would like to key in on is popular appeal. I believe this was demonstrated when Melvin B. Tolson was attempting to form a union with the sharecroppers, he tried to convey the message that bonding together their voice would become stronger than the individual sharecroppers all pleading their cases separately, I believe that this is an example of good thinking. While I am identifying this formation of unions, I also identified in the movie a scene where an old union busting tactic was used and this was an example of bad thinking. During the scene where the Sheriff of Marshall Texas is questioning the 2 sharecroppers as to their knowledge of the secret meeting, he was attempting a tactic known as divide and conquer. This is still used today by management to attempt to foil the attempt of workers unionizing, and is a pure example of bad thinking.

The argument from tradition is demonstrated when Melvin B.Tolson instructs the debate team that only he will write the arguments. While I believe that tradition to a certain extent does have its place, to follow it at all times leaves no room for expansion of thought or for the opportunity of new traditions to be started. The argument from authority is apparent when Dr. James Farmer Sr. makes inquiries of his son as to his whereabouts and why he was returning home late. People tend to respond to authority when they know of the consequences of their actions. This was also demonstrated when the authorities violently broke up the meeting of sharecroppers, the appeal of force was used here. I enjoyed the argument for the need or use of welfare, the premise of people without welfare are starving and showing the contrast that a fat person that is unemployed is not starving; this concludes that the major premise is not logical. To make the argument that unemployment relief doesn't actually come from increasing the population's taxes, but by providing jobs is not only good thinking it is great thinking. This poignant drama is a small important piece of our history in our development as a great nation and people.

Learn more about this author, David Schneider.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.