Debating Rhetoric

Debating can be simply defined as an exchange of ideas or views on any one subject. The objective of debating or arguing is to persuade your audience that your idea or view is better than the opposition. Aristotle wrote one “must always represent things in one of three ways: either as they were or are, or as they are said to be or seem to be, or as they ought to be” (Murray 92). Using this small piece of philosophy combined with mastering the art of rhetoric and applying it to a speech in a debate you can begin to sway your audience in your favor.
In a YouTube clip on nonviolent civil disobedience, the movie The Great Debaters gives a concise example of Aristotle’s philosophy on speech and writing. The speaker combines all three of Aristotle’s rules to show his audience what life is like in the South. He begins by saying, “In Texas, they lynch Negros” (Nonviolent). Then he paints a picture of him and his teammates’ experience witnessing the lynching of an African-American man in the South. His clear, simple opening sentence satisfies Aristotle’s first rule. He then proves his argument with an eyewitness account.
When addressing Aristotle’s philosophy about stating how things are “said to be or seem to be,” (Murray 92) the speaker mentions his opposition’s quote who said, “Nothing that erodes the rule of law, can be moral” (Nonviolent). The speaker unveils that there seems to be a double standard in this statement since killing is against the law, yet in the South this law was not enforced on the lynch mob.
Aristotle’s third rule says one has to represent things “as they ought to be” (Murray 92). The speaker quotes St. Augustine saying, “An unjust law is no law at all” (Nonviolent). Using this quote the speaker justifies violence and civil disobedience as means to oppose unfair and unjust treatment of blacks in the South.