The Great Debaters effectively provides insight into the idea of rhetoric and its fundamentals by stressing the success of certain diction when used to make one’s point in the debates. When stating the affirmative on the topic of social welfare, Henry Lowe, contrary to Mr. Tolson's notion, ultimately wins the debate by appealing to pathos in his closing argument; the inciting moment that prompted the series of victories for Wiley College. When arguing his case Lowe asks, “Can you look that hungry child in the eyes, see the blood on his feet from walking barefoot in the cotton fields? Or do you ask his baby sister with her belly swollen from hunger if she cares about her daddy's work ethic?” (). In the context of a social idea, Lowe understood the use of a personal anecdote …show more content…
Tolson’s idea of direct logical appeal would have fared significantly worse on the topic of social welfare which extends the idea that ethos, logos, and pathos is not interchangeable in the name of persuasion. The serious man would have strayed away from heavy pathological appeal and would have defended his argument from a more practical point which would have created distance between the speaker and the audience. In the final debate between Wiley College and Harvard we see a different approach to rhetoric as the audience and topic has influenced how one effectively uses rhetoric. James Farmer begins by using logos when stating facts about Gandhi and his example of civil disobedience. However, we see the first Harvard debater rebuts this claim by referencing logos from World War I and utilizes anaphora when claiming, “Two hundred and forty brave young men were hurled into eternity every hour, of every day, of every night, for four long years. Thirty-five thousand hours; eight million, two hundred and eighty-one thousand casualties. Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and