最後與哈佛的精彩辯論 - The Great Debaters EVER (嚴重劇透，不喜誤入！）

************這篇影評可能有雷************

The Great Debaters EVER
2013-11-15 19:54:27
  只是剛剛看完 《the great debaters》
  因為 Denzel 華盛頓而去看，最後卻為電影中一場場的辯陳詞所傾倒
  無話可說 這無疑是部很棒的電影 讓我無法忘記
  來來回回地把最後一場和哈佛的辯論聽寫下來
  多麼鏗鏘有力的文字 我真的很崇拜寫出這些文字的人 在他們的內心 必定有更加強大 以致於改變世界的力量

Resolved:
Civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice. But how can disobedience ever be moral? Well, i guess depends on one's definition of the word. In 1919, in India, 10000 people gathered in Amritsarto protest the tyranny of British rule. ( 有借鑑wiki，歷史太差，誒—）General Reginald Dyer (對英文人名的反映度還是遲鈍...） trapped them in a count yard and order his troops to fire into the crowed for ten minutes. 379 died. Men, women, children. Shot down in cold blood. Dyer said he had taught them a moral lesson. Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence but with an organized campaign of non-cooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested. But the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a moral victory.(電影裡，海默父親解救了Mel，同樣的）

The definition of moral:
Dyer's lesson or Gandhi's Victory?
You choose.

Applause:

From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute, the world was at war.
Four men laid down their lives (沒有懂這句話什麼意思...), Just think of it. 240 brave young men were hurled into eternity, every hour of every day, of every night. (誒，知道他一直說240是在強調傷亡人數的龐大...但是， 你懂得，主角光環，就算對手是哈佛...) XXXX 這段我跳過去了，大概就是在講人死的很多，在這期間. Here was a slaughter, immeasurable greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing...Except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe. Civil disobedience isn't moral because it's non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence, can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all; life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal its true face... anarchy.


Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one's opponents. even of they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that law breakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy? Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is ,after all, an American concept. You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu scripture. But from Henry David Thoreau, who i believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.


My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad, and, like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said, "any man more right tan his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."(也不太懂，梭羅先生果然有深度...) Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words.

The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: No idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day, not a majority of one.
Majorities do nit decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does.So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator? No, we must never, ever kneel down before the tyranny of a majority.

Applause:

We can not decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could i'd never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: A police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend, was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad'a face. Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it. （當哈佛辯手說這句話的時候，他的鼻孔都微張了，真的用了真感情，我有被他說服到，特別是最後一句話，不過，前提是，所謂的法律，是公正的。）


亮點來了！！！可愛的=-= 海默二世停頓了小久，小眼睛咕嚕咕嚕地左右瞧座位上的聽著。我等待著他的一語驚人。

In 德州... they lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates, i saw the fear in their eyes...and worse, the shame. What was this Negro's crime that he should be hung, without trial, in a dark forest filled with fog? Was he a thief, was he a killer? Or just a Negro? Was he a sharecropper? A preacher? Were his children waiting up for him? And who are we to just lie there and do nothing? No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal. But the aw did nothing, just left us wondering why. My opponent says, nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, （這地方是神馬———）not when Negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals and not when we are lynched. St. Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all," (這句經典！！！足足反駁哈佛辯手的 鼻孔微張時說的那句！！也是他老爹之前說過的話！！—）which means I have a right, even a duty, to resist with violence or civil dis0bedience. You should pray i choose the latter.




BRAVO!!!!
我打的好累...

勿噴！
敬禮~