Before an integrated audience of 2,000, the “Great Debaters” of Wiley College of Marshall, Texas, defeated the reigning national champion, the University of Southern California. The victory meant a defeat for scientific racism, which pervaded the day. Professor Melvin B. Tolson organized the first debate team at a Black college in 1924 and began challenging the first White teams six years later. As the “Great Debaters” took on all comers across the nation, Tolson saw these debates as a way to improve race relations.
His teams over the decade saw unparalleled success, reportedly losing only one time. The experiences became a great training ground for the debaters. Henrietta Bell Wells, the first female member of the debate team, became a prominent poet. James Farmer Jr. joined the team when he was only 14 and went on to become one of the nation’s most important civil rights leaders, heading the Congress of Racial Equality, which sent Freedom Riders across the South in 1961 to challenge segregation on interstate buses. Source: Mississippi today
The Great Debaters is not just a “debate movie.” It’s a case study in how language becomes power when a society is designed to deny power. The students are learning argumentation, yes—but they are also learning how to enter public life when the public sphere is hostile.
Learning goals
Students will:
- Generate, refine, and prioritize questions using the Question Formulation Technique (QFT). See more info in this The Question Formulation Technique.
- Extract claims and evidence from a journalistic feature article and assess how the author builds credibility.
- Analyze how historical context (Jim Crow, racial terror, segregation) shapes public speech and opportunity.
- Produce a short argument (written or spoken) that includes a claim, relevant evidence, reasoning, and a fair counterargument.
Sequence of learning
1) Before the film: inquiry launch with QFT (student ownership)
A. Question Focus (QFocus) — choose ONE statement
Project one QFocus and keep it visible:
- “The ability to argue well is a form of power.”
- “There are times when doing the right thing is dangerous.”
- “In an unjust society, words can be a weapon—and a shield.”
B. QFT steps (tight, high-impact)
The Question Formulation Technique
Use the QFT process with your original structure, plus one modern “debater’s filter.”
Step 1: Produce questions (groups of 4)
Rules:
- Ask as many questions as you can.
- Don’t discuss, judge, or answer.
- Write questions exactly as stated.
- Convert statements into questions.
Step 2: Improve questions
-
Label as closed vs open.
-
Convert two questions:
- closed → open (deepen thinking)
- open → closed (make researchable)
Upgrade: “Debater’s filter.”
Tag 5 questions as:
- [Values] (what should be true?)
- [Evidence] (what can be verified?)
- [Policy] (what should we do?)
This prevents students from mixing moral claims and factual claims—a major weakness in everyday “debate.”
Step 3: Prioritize
Each group selects 3 questions and writes a justification:
- Which question would change your understanding the most?
- Which question is hardest to answer honestly?
- Which question feels most urgent today?
Post the 3 questions to Talkwall/Padlet with tags.
Teacher move: quickly scan for patterns. You’re looking for the class’s “big tensions” (justice vs law, speech vs safety, education vs power, etc.). Those become your discussion spine.
2) Read the Guardian article as a “lens text” (before or after viewing)
I recommend reading the Guardian article before the film as a curiosity-builder and historical anchor. It introduces the real Wiley College team’s achievement (1935 championship), the coach Melvin Tolson’s methods, and the context of segregation and racial terror.
How to read it (not passively)
Use a “Claim–Evidence–Craft” annotation:
- Claim: What is the article arguing or implying?
- Evidence: What facts, numbers, names, and examples support it?
- Craft: How does the author build credibility or emotion (quotes, anecdotes, contrasts, loaded phrasing)?
Questions for understanding (based on the Guardian article)
These are designed as a progression: literal comprehension → inference → critical literacy.
A. Retrieval and clarity (literal)
- Who is speaking in the opening anecdote, and what childhood memory does he describe?
- What did the Wiley College debate team achieve in 1935, according to the article?
- Who coached the team, and what subject did he teach?
- The article names three debaters. Who were they?
- What debate topics does the article say the team argued about during their run-up to the championship?
- What statistic does the author give about the team’s win–loss record before the championship?
- Which opponent did the Wiley team defeat in the final described in the article, and on what date?
- What does the article say about the social conditions of the era (especially in the Deep South)?
B. Interpretation (inferential)
- Why do you think the author begins with a family argument scene instead of a historical fact? What effect does that choice have?
- The article says Tolson would “switch sides halfway through” debates. What skill does that train in students?
- What does the phrase “David and Goliath victory” suggest about power and expectations in 1935?
- The author mentions that the team included “two men and one woman.” Why might that detail matter in a 1930s setting?
- What picture of Tolson’s classroom does the article create (fear, awe, discipline, admiration)? Identify two details that support your view.
- The article connects Tolson to later civil rights figures and actions. What argument is the author making about debate training and social change?
C. Critical literacy (author’s choices, reliability, perspective)
- What sources does the article rely on (interviews, autobiography, yearbook entry, numbers)? Which seems strongest, and why?
- The article notes the film “shows” Wiley beating Harvard and says this is “believed” to have happened early in the championship. What does that wording signal about certainty and historical adaptation?
- Identify one moment where the author uses emotionally charged context (for example, mentioning lynching). What purpose does it serve in the article’s argument?
- What information is missing that you would want to fully evaluate the story (e.g., primary documents, opposing accounts, details of debate format)?
- If you were fact-checking this piece, what 3 claims would you verify first, and where would you look? (archives, college records, newspapers, etc.)
3) During the film: Argument Log (active viewing)
Give students a simple template (paper or digital):
Argument Log
- Quote (exact line)
- Claim being made
- Evidence used (in scene or implied)
- Best counterargument
Pause 2–3 times at pivotal scenes and ask students to add:
- one new question to their QFT list
- one piece of evidence they’d want to verify in real life (teaches healthy skepticism)
4) After the film: return to questions, then build arguments
A. QFT revisit (closure + extension)
Groups revisit their top 3 questions and label them:
- Answered by the film
- Partially answered
- Not answered (research needed)
- Complicated/contested
Then each group chooses:
- one research question (evidence-focused)
- one debate question (values/policy-focused)
B. Mini-lesson: evidence ethics (modern upgrade)
Teach a compact “Evidence Integrity” standard borrowed from debate culture:
- Identify the source clearly.
- Quote accurately and in context.
- Don’t “clip” quotes to change meaning.
- Separate evidence from interpretation.
You can point students toward debate evidence expectations as a professional norm.
C. Mini-lesson: civic online reasoning (modern upgrade)
If students will research modern parallels, teach lateral reading:
- Who is behind the information?
- What do other sources say?
- What’s the evidence trail?
Digital Inquiry Group’s Civic Online Reasoning materials are free and classroom-ready.