2 angry men - Examining debate skills and techniques in the movie

TLLCE – Project 1 Equality on a trial         Step 2- 12 angry men - Examining debate skills and techniques in the movie

How To Change One's Mind  

Watch the video and read the script as you do: highlight what you think are the most important part of the video and be ready to answer the question raised by the video (that is to say : how do you get to change someone’s mind?)

12 Angry Men is a film about a jury deciding the guilt of an 18-year old boy on trial for murdering his father. Their verdict whether guilty or not guilty must be unanimous and if they find the defendant guilty he will be given the death penalty. In the beginning of this film all members of the jury vote guilty, all but one. By the end of this film all 11 jurors who voted guilty have changed their vote to not guilty. What happens between these two moments is one of the greatest cinematic exhibitions of human psychology. If you've ever wanted to learn how to argue effectively, how to communicate your reasoning, question the reasoning of others and win them over to your way of thinking 1957’s 12 Angry Men is something to be studied

[Music]

What makes 12 Angry Men a great film to study regarding argumentation is the fact that these characters by virtue of being on a jury, do not have the luxury of agreeing to disagree. They must agree on the matter at hand unanimously. Also by virtue of them being on a jury, none of them know each other personally and nothing personal is meant to be at stake. They are simply tasked with determining the truth. For all intents and purposes the protagonist in this picture is juror number 8. He is the strongest advocate of acquittal and the first man to vote not guilty. The antagonist in this picture is juror number 3. He is the strongest advocate of a guilty verdict and the last man to vote not guilty. In the beginning number 8 is alone everyone else seems to be convinced that the boy on trial is guilty. And not only does he appear to have no arguments even he isn't sure that the boy is not guilty. And yet this is the man responsible for changing the jury's verdict. In the end number 3 stands alone, everyone else has been convinced that the boy is not guilty. How does this happen? How is this one man able to convince the other 11 to change their minds? Especially given the fact that he initially claimed he wasn't trying to change anybody's mind.

“Couldn't change my mind if you talk for a hundred years”/ “I'm not trying to change your mind, it's just it we're talking about somebody's life here, we can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong? “Supposing we’re wrong” Supposing this whole building should fall out of my head you can suppose anything that's right

A good place to start in analysing juror number eight is with his relatively passive personality. While there are rare moments in which he is confrontational number eight is typically soft-spoken and non-aggressive. He admits when he is not sure about what he thinks, he does not contest every single rebuttal that's given to him. What's more he virtually never states his disagreement with somebody. And in fact he often states his agreement with one of the other jurors voting guilty. This is what makes number eight the ideal rival for number three. Number three states in that he is certain about what he thinks he does contest every single rebuttal that's given to him, he reliably states his disagreement directly to whomever he disagrees with, and he virtually never concedes a good point when it's made by a member of the jury voting not guilty.

To understand how number eight ultimately wins the jury to his way of thinking and how number three gradually loses the jury, let's begin with the first characteristic of expressing uncertainty.

The very first exchange between these two men happens when number three asks number eight a simple question.

“You really think he's innocent?” “I don't know.”  

When number ten asks him a question he gets a similar answer:

“I ask you something:  do you believe his story?”  

Shortly thereafter number ten asks him another question and gets another similar answer: “what are we sitting here for?” / “I don't know, maybe no reason.”

At face value this does not seem like a winning strategy in a debate. How can you change somebody else’s mind if you don’t seem to have your own mind made up? Well consider the impression that this gives the other people in the room if somebody who arrives at a different conclusion than you is positive about it you're probably not going to see any sense in trying to argue with them in the first place. And even if you do you'll likely just be playing defence the whole time. But if somebody who arrives at a different conclusion than you admits that they're not quite sure what they think, then there's no need to feel so defensive about what you think. As backwards as it seems convincing somebody that your mind can change is necessary for allowing their mind to change.  

If your opponent suspects that your mind cannot change they will not allow theirs to change either.  Because number eight expressed uncertainty not only do the other jurors want to hear what he thinks, everybody makes an effort to reason with him. 

“Perhaps the gentleman down there who's disagreeing with us, perhaps you could tell us why you know it let us know what you're thinking, and we might be able to show you where you're mixed up”

Compare this or rather contrast this with juror number three, when he stands alone near the end of the film. Rather than expressing even an ounce of uncertainty he maintains absolute certainty.

“Every single thing that took place in that courtroom but I mean everything says he's guilty what do you think I'm an idiot or something?”

The reaction is what you might expect nobody makes an effort to reason with him.  

“Well say something”

So remember in order for someone else's mind to change they must believe that your mind can change. Another characteristic of juror number eight is the fact that he does not contest every single counter-argument that's given to him. Obviously he does contest many of them, but there are many more which h he does not.

...