Oklahoma City College Ethos Pathos Logos

556 Words3 Pages

Everyone has made an argument. It could be as little as argueing so you can to your friend’s house to as big as why you should be president. Whenever you make an argument you’re trying to persuade the person to listen to you. The points you make are ethos (appeals to credibility), logos (logic), or pathos (emotion). You do it without knowing. In the movie The Great Debaters in the second debate (Wiley College Vs Oklahoma City College) logos was mostly present. The colleges were debating about if Negroes should be admitted to state universities. The very first argument is logos. The debater Samantha Booke (from Wiley College) said the Negroes hold America together. She added, “May 13, 1865: Sergeant Crocker, a Negro, is the last soldier to …show more content…

He said that the most eminent Negro scholar in America, Dr. W.E.B. Dubois quoted, “It’s a silly waste of money, time, and temper to try and compel a powerful majority to do what they are determined not to do… It is impossible - impossible for a Negro to receive a proper education at a white college”. Henry Lowe (from Wiley College) responded using logos and ethos. He said that DuBois is the first Negro to receive a Ph.D. from a white college and is a product of an Ivy League school. Then he said, “... DuBois knows all too well the white man’s resistance to change. But that’s no reason to keep a black man out of any college. If someone didn’t force upon the South something it wasn’t ready for, I’d still be in chains”. If DuBois got the opportunity of the best education so should the rest of the …show more content…

Wiley College thought that Negroes should be allowed to go to a state university with the whites because it’s fair that non colored people get more opportunities. OCC thought that Negroes shouldn’t be allowed to go to a state college because they 're not meant to go there and they would be too unhappy to focus on school.Throughout the debate the debaters mixed logos with ethos and pathos. Having a good mixture of the three makes your arguments stronger. In the debate when the debaters combined two of the three there counterarguments were