Juror #4 is my favorite character in the movie. He's calm and analytical the whole time, and only concedes when every point has been successfully challenged. Perhaps he held out a bit long to provide the benefit of the doubt, but the way he maintains composure is really impressive.
My favorite character was number 9. A nice elderly man with an eye for detail. He could tell that the older witness might be twisting the truth and that the eye-witness wears glasses.
True that. But I noticed he could have won the arguement about remembering things under emotional stressed, since #8 was asking about what'd happened days ago, it's understandable that #4 couldn't remember it. While the boy couldn't remember the movie he saw the night before.
@@YumiSumire Yes, but one of the conditions of the defendant was the great emotional distress of seeing his dead father. #4 wasn't under any stress like that, so I think they considered that a trade-off.
So far, I haven't seen anyone point out what happens at 12:34 I honestly think that this is the climax of the movie. The two most calm and intelligent people engage in a conversation and when one finds the fault in his own reasoning, he yields. However, if you noticed, you'll see a line of sweat on No 4's forehead. I think that this moment went severely underappreciated especially because sweating is a "sign" of being nervous, yet at the beginning of the film, it was established that he "never sweats" ever. Perhaps this was supposed to symbolize the first time that such an intelligent and well-meaning man had been genuinely convicted of a point theyformerly challenged time and time again.
It seemed like a much weaker point than the movie intended it to be. I don't know whether by "the second feature" they mean he watched the film, or just that it was also playing at the theater, but in any case, he was unable to correctly remember the entire name of a film which he encountered 3 days ago, switching one of the words in the title for a synonym. Seems pretty far afield from getting home from watching a movie and not being able to remember it, but I also don't know to what degree they meant he didn't remember it
"Second feature" means he watched the film. It was common back then that you paid for the price of 2 movies at once: one headlining film and a second (usually B quality) film. I think the point is well made because he is unable to remember the title of an entire film he sat through merely a few days ago while not under duress, it just shows that human memory is not very reliable, especially when under duress it could be very probable that one's memory is not reliable at all...which was #8's point.
So here's two scenarios: Scenario A) Person 1: "What was the name of the second feature you saw 3 days ago?" Person 2: "Uh ... The Remarkable Mrs. Bainbridge." Person 1: "Actually, it's called The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge." Scenario B) Person 1: "What did you do before you came here?" Person 2: "I watched a film in a theater." Person 1: "What film?" Person 2: "I can't remember." I think there's a world of difference between the failure of memory in those scenarios. Now, there's also a world of difference between being questioned in front of your fellow jurors, and being questioned by a policeman while your father lies dead in the other room, but I just don't see that translating to a world of difference in your abilities of short-term recall
@@dancinswords But thats exactly #3's point. If the guy wasn't under any emotional stress, imagine how little you could remember under the defendant's situation.
One thought: At the very end, you say that by keeping arguments civil, focused, etc. "... you will be much more likely to win your opponent over to your way of thinking." Wouldn't it be more correct to say something along the lines of by keeping arguments civil, focused, etc. "the both of you will be much more likely to arrive at the truth"? After all, the purpose of an argument is not to find _who_ is correct, but _what_ is correct. Great video; I'm loving this series.
@Anon Agreed. In the context of a jury, their decision is not based around truth, but probability. What juror #8 was doing was not to prove that the boy was innocent, but arguing that the chance of the kid being innocent is greater than being guilty.
@Peter Yost - I think the purpose of a debate is to win/get your way by convincing the majority of your reasoning. You can win a debate and still be factually incorrect; it happens all the time. Every time someone is exonerated of a decades old crime by DNA evidence and set free, we're remind that somewhere in the defendants past good debate skills and rhetoric won out over the truth, much to the despair of said defendant. Generally speaking, this is why I disagree with debate language around scientific theories. Rhetoric isn't the best way to get to the truth of whether or not CO2 traps and re-emits long wave radiation, or whether or not speciation occurs. That being said I also applaud you for this: "Wouldn't it be more correct to say something along the lines of by keeping arguments civil, focused, etc."
So after the first episode in the series I decided to watch 12 angry men. I began to write down some rules or guidelines for debates. As of late in the current political climate I’ve been eager to start up a political discussion club on my college campus and I think that this series will be a good tool to inundate folks into the atmosphere that we want to create. Thanks for this and everything else you do. I’ve been a subscriber through the good and the bad nearly since the beginning of this channel.
I might recommend against "inundating" anybody... Initiate, or perhaps, Introduce them into the atmosphere that we want to create... Inundating is more akin to swamping them, or smothering them in it, kind of like how I prefer to treat my minute steaks with onions... or cheese when I'm in "that" mood. ;o)
Good for you ! I presume you're in the US ? From what I have seen online of what goes on in college campuses of shouting matches and lack of reasoned debate is saddening. This proposed approach of yours seems like a step in the right direction.
Not only is this channel teaching us how how to argue and debate better, it's also reviving interest in and introducing folks to great cinema that they may not have even sought out themselves. A double dose of awesome.
So, I sat on an attempted murder trial 2 or 3 years ago. Some of us talked about Twelve Angry Men, and how it was important to our shaping of our understanding of the legal process and how trials are approached. There were a lot of nebulous details surrounding the trial, no witnesses but those involved, no "clean characters", no forensic evidence. It still haunts me that we may have come to the wrong conclusion as a jury. I said all that so that there's a little more weight behind it when I say I'm grateful you're doing this, so that people can learn how to argue from logical and factual positions. I'm terrified we made the wrong call, and not a small part of that is due to the deliberation we had, and whether or not it was motivated by facts and logic or emotion and bias. I'm not concerned with whether or not we came to the "correct" conclusion as much as I am mortified that there's the potential that an innocent was sent to prison for reasons that may not have been apparent to everyone involved. I hope this series reaches everyone, and they learn it. Because while I wouldn't wish my doubts on anyone, I will wish that no one be falsely imprisoned due to apathetic, or biased, or exasperated jurors. Thank you for what you do.
If a guilty defendant is found not guilty due to lack of convincing evidence, it’s not really the jury’s fault. Either A) The prosecution is at fault for not providing relevant details B) The defendant was lucky/discrete enough with their crime to make all evidence presented in court appear identical to that of a defendant who is innocent, so again, the fault is not the jury’s.
In my country the legal system doesn't use trial by jury, but I'm certain I'd be mortified too, to have that much power over someones life. I'd be afraid of not posessing the wisdom and insight to evaluate the evidence, even after arguing about it. I'm not sure which is the more fair system, with or without jury, but I think one of the disatvantages of a jury is that most people don't have former legal knowledge and argue with their emotions rather than rationally. btw, what is the role of the judge in the USA/UK/AUS system, can he overturn the verdict of the jury, or can he just dicide the punishment after the defendent is found guilty?
This is also why the arguent that the witnesses could be wrong is silly and hypocritical. Was there ever a case where you could actually "kniow" (philosophical definition) whether the person was guily or not? To actually prosecute criminals, you would have to dealwith probabilities and not abolute knowledge. How likely i it that both witnesses were lying, not "is it possible". Wait, the jury is not made up of educated solicitors? wtf? The whole point of a legal system is a fair trial. 12 people witbout legal training getting to decide a person´s fate by majority vote is the most bullshit thing I have ever heard. But I guess it´s better than corrupt judges discriminating based on idelogy and not getting fired for it.
@@warwickthekingmaker7281 Hi, are you adressing my reply in that last part, cuz I don't see anything in the original comment about uneducated solicitors?
"but I think one of the disatvantages of a jury is that most people don't have former legal knowledge and argue with their emotions rather than rationally." I interpreted this as a statement that jurys often aren´t made up of solicitors but rather common people. Or do they consist of newly graduated unexperienced ones, is that what you are trying to say?
13:48 *or to change over to your opponent's way of thinking if you are demonstrated to be wrong. That's just as important since none of us is immune to the backfire effect.
This is very important. If you consider almost any public media a response like #4 ended with is almost unimaginable. It's hopefully because of audiences primarily. It's easy for an audience to be deceived that debate should be between closed minds. And that the judgements passed by an audience are right because nothing suggests that they're wrong. They're not given good examples. It doesn't help that almost all that's discussed is highly controversial issues that are hard to solve.
Actually the wmsweating is because they are stuck in a juror room on a hot day, its completely arbitrary lol I know because I watched the movie and early on they complain (thats why the windows are open and the jackets hung up)
@@theprogrammer32 Except, theres also a point where it's pointed out that juror 4 is the only one who doesn't take off his jacket in that hot juror room and when questioned by juror 5 if he sweats, he says no. That is until 8 has the debate with him about remembering details under emotional stress, and you see the singular stream of sweat on 4's brow when he finally concedes.
I actually watched that movie after your first episode, after watching all I can say is it bloody well deserves its 8.8/10 on IMDB. Such a great movie and there is so much more to it than the video let on.
Great video and a very good movie. However one thing I didn't like was #8 wasn't demanding guilt to be established beyond all 'reasonable doubt' He wanted guilt proved 'beyond all shadow of a doubt' The system doesn't work like that.
Love the consitency of the black and white aesthetic, using black and white footage from the British Pathe and even making the ideas board black and white.
Juror #4 is my favorite of the jurors for his respect of debate and logical line of thought, but he's often overlooked because the rest of the jurors argue loudly or more dramatically. I'm glad he's getting some appreciation in this video series!
12 Angry Men: Part 2 0:40 The Purpose of Debate and How To Present Arguments. 0:51 Juror #9 Argues with #10 1:50 You can object, but address the reasoning, not the person doing the reasoning 2:28 “I’d like to ask you something...” 3:18 If a line of reasoning has a flaw, address the flaw in your argument. 4:47 Debates get messy because they get off topic and unfocused on points raised. 6:33 #11 vs #4. Good, proper debate. No need to repeat, it becomes an inquiry 8:09 Questioning #11’s loyalty leaves him skeptical 9:08 #3 and #12 were unproductive. #4 was productive. 9:38 #8 vs #4. Question vs Answer. Challenge the argument. (Civil And classy) 13:14 Conclusion, tips for debate
The "do not make it personal" thing speaks to me in so many levels. In my country literally every debate ends up as one politician accusing the others of doing whatever. Every time. It happens a lot to my nearby friends and family too, but nobody cares because they're too busy arguing. This is honestly one of the few qualities I think 4chan has over other methods of discussion. Since everyone is anonymous, there's little to no way for such thing to happen. You're arguing exclusively over ideas, without even minding the speaker.
@@tortture3519 That is if they're interested to debate. Of course 99% of users will say "fck u fgt", but if there are two or more parties interested in debating an idea, it's an excellent platform. Besides, I did say it was onr of its *few* qualities, didn't I?
If you think 4chan is just insult chucking, try not to go to the idiot-bait boards, you know, the boards where everyone does that and you're an idiot for going there (/b/, /pol/, etc) Most of the stuff that gets posted is dross, but you can actually have really-indepth debates, which I have been involved in more so than most people that even visit the site, I should think. When it works, it works well. Very well. An interesting quality is you can start to see character portraits being drawn of speakers even without names. Their writing style, their talking points, word choice, etc. People will start to figure out (or think they've figured out) their opponents, and if things get especially heated, they will try to make it personal. I suppose it's human nature.
@@Kaixero Your point is totally valid. I've barely used 4chan so maybe it was dumb for me to claim to know what 4chan is actually like as a whole. Do you know any better boards to go to? Maybe I would give it a second try.
Just realized I did exactly what he said, in the last example of this video. I convinced a friend of mine to stop playing video games and focus on his life. He is now preparing for a upcoming test that might just change his life. I just gave him some examples why he should get his life together and focus on his test, didn't say anything else. He unexpectedly agreed. I never knew how powerful that kind of argument felt until now. Thanks counter argument for this great video
Videos take time my dude, There are a lot of elements that go into it. For instance in this video we have the study of the movie, The gathering of footage and assets to be used, scripting, recording and editing of audio, the highlighting of specific moments to illustrate a point and the visual editing that suplements information conveyed (such as the tracking of the jurer number at 0:58) then you have to consider that the content creator might have a job becuase adsense is unreliable and pays shite all for what it's worth.
@@Peterscraps I know exactly why it takes time. a lot of the best content creators imo have a lot of time between videos. On top of tradition editing and scripting, he has to formulate an argument that doesn't deviate from the topic. I'm merely saying that I love his videos, and that he needs to continue, not shorten the time frame.
This was VERY well done; I've always been interested in debates and how to debate, and you broke things down in a clear and concise enough manner that I (without any previous formal debate experience) could follow along. Can't wait for the next installment. :)
Wow this... Was very good. I would love to see our society get back to a point where we can have productive debates, and sportsmanship is put above absolute victory. Losing breeds vitriol and winning breeds gloating, you can see this in any given twitter feed that has a disagreement. I truly hope this sows the seed that can inch our culture in a more positive direction. Cheers.
I have been really liking the 12 Angry Men videos, lately. Not only do i learn points on how to be a better debater, i get to see great clips supporting those points. While also getting more interested in an awesome show.
Hey, I thought this channel was for making fun of late-night comedians, not going over old movies! . . . in all seriousness, I have been watching your content for several months now, but I wasn't inclined to subscribe. Then, you can out with a public apology for your perceived failings and started with some new-and-improved content. I think that was very big of you, and I decided to subscribe. Keep up the good work!
I just wanted to say, I have been thoroughly enjoying the recalibrated direction of this channel since your "Dear Subscribers" video. I had almost stopped watching this channel, because of the direction it had been going. But now, I look forward to new videos from you again. This "12 Angry Men" series has been both entertaining and educational.
#8 is so much better in this film than the 1997 adaption. You can tell exactly the kind of flow they were going for when they move through each sequence, the 90's film took out essential parts and gave certain arguments to other jurors while de-emphasizing their power to the story.
"Number 9 clearly disagrees with this line of reasoning, but reather than arguing against the reasoning, he merely judges number 10. He challenges the man, but not the argument. This does not accomplish anything." This should be taught in every college.
Well, there is that part of the movie where they all judge #10 collectively and refuse to engage with him or validate his arguments and it accomplishes a lot by showing him how vile his opinions are.
I have never seen 12 Angry Men prior to today, and because of your channel, I have witnessed it and it was a beautiful movie on the topic of Law and Order and debating in general.
Man, I've been watching this channel for so long, but this series of videos really knocks it out of the park. Not only is the subject matter interesting and presented clearly, I have another movie on my watch list.
This is great timing, in one of my classes. 12 of us read and acted 12 angry men in September, we watched it not long after and I noticed only a few of these, so I'm glad to see a full list
It is so inspiring to see how you took your own critiscism seriously and improved on your already very good content. And looking at the comments a lot of people seem to enjoy your work as much as I do. I hope you can enjoy this development as much as we can and are a little bit happier with your content.
@Counter Arguments: I fully respect and support how you recently acknowledged flaws in your style of argumentation and are seeking to correct those habits moving forward. Growth is difficult for someone who is constantly scrutinized, but you've done such an incredible job in the face of adversity. I love the shift in content and having a series like this makes the reasoning easy to follow. It's almost like viewers are watching you set up the pillars of argumentation and how this channel will judge arguments in the future. Bravo, Sir.
I don't always manage to keep the points in these vids all in mind, but it has been incredibly satisfying when I do. Always fun to re-watch these 5 videos. As curious as I am to have seen what you'd have made of 2020, I'm glad you left such a resource for the rest of us. Hope you're well.
How does it feel to be back to making such quality content? Because as a viewer it feels fantastic. You addressed in one of your recent videos your dissatisfaction with how you handled some of your counter-arguments, and these videos are a wonderful course correction for the channel. It makes me so happy to see these sorts of videos again.
I have to thank you for making this series, as someone who feels like they've often had trouble with adhering to some of these finer points of conversation. I'll try to be more mindful of these things going forward. Thank you, and wonderful work!
It says something about the quality of a RU-vid video when you have over 2k likes and only 5 dislikes (at time of comment). I am thoroughly impressed by this series.
You know I really loved these two videos on 12 angry men I really learned a lot and have taken a lot from them so thank you I found them really insightful
I watched this movie straight after your first video. So many sick burns without a single voice raised. Your channel makes me feel like it's fun to debate, great moves, keep it up. Proud of you. :D
Great series so far, my man. This shows a point I always make. It's only worth debating if both you AND your opponent are willing to have their minds changed. That said, when people are making arguments in bad faith, they should always be pointed out.
As i've said on other videos in this series, please continue in this vein. Detatch yourself from current politics, and focus on the core of what this channel proclaims to be. The 12 Angry Men series has been the best content that you have produced, and more informative because of the detachment from current emotional trends. Please, keep this up. Society needs this information and perspective. I remember watching this film in High School, and how much it influenced me. I'm left to wonder if it is still included in modern curricula...
Really great acting on some of these. At 2:34, the guy's smile just kinda fades. The sudden realization that his own argument works against his position.
I gotta watch this movie. Great work, man; way to go on admitting your mistakes and learning from them. Really looking forward to what's yet to come from this channel.
I am a man of many interests, as I believe most people are. I am extremely interested in the act of debate, and this channel is one of my favorites on the entire platform. However, the only interest I’ve pursued professionally is acting, and I just so happen to credit 12 angry jurors (gender neutral title) as one of the best shows I’ve ever put on. When I saw you begin to talk about this show, I was absolutely ecstatic, and I would like to personally thank you for doing so.
I am loving the series. Thank you for making it. I will be trying to donate soon to support more wonderful and enlightening content that you take the time to make.
