When To Pick A Fight {Episode 03}

[Music] in 1957 12 Angry Men 12 jurors deliberate the guilt of an 18 year old boy on trial for murdering his father in the first episode of this series we studied the characteristics that can help you to convince those who disagree with you to change their mind in the second episode we analyze the ways in which a debate can be conducted in order to make it as productive as possible in this episode we'll focus on how to pick your battles when it would be wise to confront an opponent and when it would not be wise it is to be expected when you take part in a debate that somebody is going to say something that you disagree with and when that happens you'll have to decide whether it is worth confronting that individual to contest that particular point or not it would be foolish to contest every point you do have to make some concessions in a debate but naturally it wouldn't be a debate if you conceded everything you do have to contest an argument that you do not agree with eventually so when should you yield when should you fight and why is it so important to make the right call well to answer the last question a debate is very much like a game of chess you not only have to make a series of many good decisions just one bad decision could ruin you attack the wrong piece or strike too soon and you may only make it easier for your opponent to defeat you you could say that you reap what you sow consider the following exchange between juror number 12 and juror number 3 frankly I don't see how you can vote for acquittal so easy to arrange after number 4 makes an argument in favor of a guilty verdict number 12 argues that he is unable in that moment to decide whether or not the boy is guilty because there's too much evidence to consider in order to make a quick decision number 3 decides to contest this point by insisting that all of the evidence could be disregarded with the only exception being one eye witnesses testimony and this works out for number three in the short-term number 12 promptly changes his vote back to guilty but when the testimony of that particular eyewitness is called into question and deemed unreliable number three makes the following argument it's just like in a game of chess when you move one of your pieces on the board you cannot undo that move you have to bear the consequences of that maneuver similarly when number three argues that only one piece of evidence matters he unfortunately finds himself backed into a corner when that one piece of evidence is revealed to not be credible in hindsight this was the wrong fight to pick now obviously no one can see into the future to know for sure whether or not they're picking the right battles so you're going to need some sort of standard for deciding this one of the easiest rules of thumb would be to ask yourself if it's possible to challenge an opponent's point on a purely factual basis meaning is it possible to challenge what they said without even making an argument but by simply stating a cold hard fact here are a few examples of one of the jurors being challenged with a fact and nothing else I just think he's guilty I thought it was obvious from the word go nobody proved otherwise nobody has to prove otherwise the burden of proofs on the prosecution his widow was right ups and hers across the L tracks and she swore she saw him do it through the windows of a passing L train and they proved in court that at night you can look through the windows of an L train when the lights are out and see what's happening on the other side I was wondering how clearly the old man could have heard the voice through the ceiling didn't hear through the ceiling the window was open so was the one did you old man say he ran to the door right what's the difference he got on they never got there they know wait a second said he ran at least I think he did I don't remember what he said but I don't see how he could have run to the door then he went from his bedroom to the front door he's a common ignorance lab he don't even speak good English he doesn't even speak good English the hallmark of any good debate is one where everyone has their facts right if your opponent omits a fact or states something that is not a fact it's virtually always worth confronting them and you don't necessarily need to construct an argument to do so just state the facts the reason why this is a smart strategy in a debate is not just because it's worth being correct but also because it's the least likely strategy to make the confrontation personal a confrontation that turns personal is one of the worst things that can happen in a debate it's not just something that should be avoided as a matter of principle making a confrontation in a debate personal bears consequences that can hurt you more than your opponent during the deliberation juror number 10 makes an offensive remark about people who were born and raised in slums this without the knowledge that juror number five was born and raised in a slum the kids will crawl out of these places are real trash I don't want any part of them I'm telling you how does personally offending juror number 5 inhibit juror number 10 well for one thing number five becomes one of the first jurors to change his vote to not guilty which is politically damaging for number ten considering he's one of the most vocal members of the quote-unquote guilty party but it also results in number five becoming one of the most vocal members of the not guilty party regularly fighting back when an opponent contests one of his allies you'll notice for the rest of the picture most of number Ten's a hemp's to fight an opponent are intercepted by number five well did or didn't he he says he did says he did boy how do you like that look witnesses commitments they're sure when you want them till they don't house kind of you're the only one of this one wants to see exhibits all the time this one or maybe you just didn't think of what do you mean didn't think of it if the Comanche Liddy does something it's an obvious thing did you think of they said a smart guy don't matter with I thought of it look this is absolutely insane what are you wasting everybody's time in the air for number five makes a continuous effort to undermine number ten all of this could have been potentially avoided if number ten had just not personally offended number five to start with because he did even though it was by accident he pays a price this makes for a good example of why you shouldn't try to win a debate with personal criticisms not only will you squander any chance of winning over those who get caught in the crosshairs they might just dedicate themselves to bopping you over the head every time you speak okay so you should never pick a personal fight and you should always pick a factual fight but what do you do when your disagreement is not personal nor factual but rational what if you disagree with an opponent's argument well that depends on how reasonable of an argument they make and ultimately that comes down to your own judgment but a good example of what it looks like to yield to a counter-argument occurs when number four challenges number eight early on number eight argues that the boy being slapped by his father was not a very strong motive for murdering his father this boy's been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a it's a normal state of affairs with him I just I can't see two slaps in the face provoking him and a committing murder it may have been two too many everyone has a breaking point number eight does not contest number fours point frankly number four made a good point it was the right thing to do for number eight to yield and just as with correcting factual errors or avoiding personal criticisms is not merely the right thing to do as a matter of principle there are practical reasons it's a game of chess each move either gives you an advantage or a disadvantage if number eight had fought number four on this particular point this early on the jury's verdict may have never changed he would have lost the war just to win this battle it wasn't worth the fight and he knew that so when does number eight think that it is worth fighting back well there are two answers and both of them are kind of obvious when he's made a better argument and/or his argument is not properly challenged fast forward to this moment when number eight puts two pieces of testimony together one of the witnesses the old man claimed to have heard the killing and heard the boys scream I'm going to kill you but the other witness the woman across the street claimed to have seen the killing just as an elevated train went by based on this number eight argues that the old man couldn't have possibly heard the boys scream anything if an El train was going by at the same time the old man according to his own testimony I'm gonna kill you body hitting the floor a split second later would have had to hear the boy make this statement with the Ale roaring pestis knows it's not possible he heard something he's still kind of identified the voice with the air roaring by you're talking about a matter of seconds nobody can be that accurate well I think testimony that could put a boy into the electric chair should be that accurate this time number eight was right to fight back against number three whereas number three was wrong to pick a fight with number eight number eight made a reasonable argument and number three did not properly challenge it first he calls number eight argument idiotic next he stubbornly insists that the boy screaming at the top of his voice was good enough for him to which number eight smartly grants that point just for the sake of argument but then argues that the voice could not have possibly been identified finally number three barks about how no testimony could ever be accurate enough for number eight to do what he just did at no point as number three ever try to properly address number eights argument all he really tries to do is make the argument seems stupid and it doesn't work once again number three picked the wrong fight what's the matter with you guys you all know he's guilty he's got to burn you're letting him slip through our fingers slip through our fingers are you as executioner I'm one of them perhaps you'd like to pull the switch one of the most dramatic moments in this picture occurs when juror number 8 sets an example for one of the riskiest maneuvers one can make in a debate you'll recall that we've already established how avoiding personal criticisms is a good rule of thumb so what you're about to watch is not recommended ever since you walked into this room you've been acting like a self-appointed public Avenger you want to see this boy die because you personally wanted not because of the facts you're a sadist the reason why this is not recommended is because it's just too great of a gamble attempting to undermine an individual's character can severely backfire if done at the wrong time in the wrong way or against the wrong person if number eight had done this to a more popular or sympathetic member of the jury he would have damaged his own reputation if number three didn't react the way he did number eight would have appeared to be the aggressor if number five number six and number seven didn't physically hold number three back this figurative fight would have become a literal fight and once somebody gets punched in the nose the debate is over so again it is not recommended that you pick this particular kind of fight it can be effective it can play out in your favor but if it doesn't it could cost you the entire debate so you really shouldn't prepare for it hopefully you now have a better idea or a better standard of how to decide when you should concede and when you should contest during a debate you

Channel: Counter Arguments

Views: 191,275

Keywords: Counter Arguments, When To Pick A Fight, 12 Angry Men, Juror #3, Debate

Id: 9Ux_6hshdWA

Length: 13min 0sec (780 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 19 2019