The fact that you analysed your channel and addressed criticism that the content wasn't addressing the argument, and the first series of videos you make after is an analysis of arguments is very commendable, and I have gained a great deal of respect for you as a person.
I agree with you, as a matter of fact, adressing the oneself's mistakes is something that get's one to self-improvement, sorry about any mistake I made while organazing my opinion, english isn't my first language
Thank you for exposing people to this wonderful film. I saw it first in high school. You would think a bunch of teenagers wouldn’t pay attention to an old black and white film taking place in one room. But everyone was glued to this movie. Even arguing amongst each other.
0:05 Plot and Recap 1:08 When to run? When to fight? 2:11 Disregard all the other evidence. Good in short run, looks dumb in the long run. 3:12 Standards for contesting arguments - Pick Factual Fights, Not personal ones 7:33 What about when you disagree with your opponents argument? 9:02 #8 uses evidence/reason to argue 10:56 #3 Picked the wrong fight. #8 makes a risky move (character attack, leading to possible violence)
Milgram experiment is fake. And also wasn't scientifically accurate and the point it was trying to make was proven false later by other more credible tests.
@@Draconis_Eltanin I'd say so as you can connect everything discussed in the video to the movie. You see how it played out in it's entirety and then get to look back with the video series to analyze it
I watched this in school years ago. Like 2 decades ago. This channel makes me realize how much I didn't pay attention then. I'm definitely gonna rewatch it.
@@Draconis_Eltanin As a movie buff, I cannot recommend this movie more highly. It is an effective and powerful drama that showcases masterful directorial skill, scripting, and acting ability. For anyone interested in touchstone moments of cinematic history, thoughtful analysis of the judicial system, thoughtful analysis of debate, thoughtful analysis of human nature, or for those simply looking for an engaging movie that asks that you keep thinking, rather than not, then this is definitely a movie for you.
**A possible clarification of the argument of juror number three.** - 1:38 While it wasn’t e̲x̲p̲l̲i̲c̲i̲t̲l̲y stated, juror number three’s line of reasoning may have been that in view of this piece of evidence, the sworn testimony of an eyewitness under oath, the “dubiousness“ of the other evidence could not provide reasonable doubt in the light of such a seemingly watertight and powerful piece of evidence. However, when this supposedly watertight and undeniable piece of evidence is proven to be questionable, the rest of the evidence would still matter, perhaps even more so, as while the remaining evidence may not be as powerful, it could still incriminate the boy under question. Although in this case juror number three fell back onto evidence that was already shown to be at the very least questionable, and possibly even highly unlikely, *had his argument been as stated in the first paragraph* perhaps it wouldn’t have placed him into a corner. This isn’t to discredit or devalue your videos, in fact I thoroughly enjoyed this one and many others, but is a possible _“counter argument”_ I thought may be worth considering. I really would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this or the input of other commenters. Thanks for your time!
Astute observation. Unfortunately for No. 3, however, he gambled too high. I. e. too high for his seemingly non-existent ability to concede when he has erred.
If he hadn't used such strong language, e.g. if he said "just focus on the woman's evidence, how can you dispute that?" it would have been much more difficult to throw his works back at his face.
Given how bad TH-cam is at monetising worthy sources, I'm wondering if it would have been a good idea to put an affiliate link to 12 Angry Men. I'm seriously considering getting hold of it thanks to this series, and I figure you deserve some commission for that ;) (On that note, does Google Play do commission links?)
5:00 I've always had this problem, where the person *denies* the fact. Even if the fact is correct. How do I convince them that the fact is correct? Putting more facts on them?! What if they deny those facts?
1) Make sure the fact is correct 2) Keep a calm demeanor. My father once told me that the difference between a fact and an opinion is that you can explain a fact without getting angry. While that isn't exactly true, staying calm will help convince the other person that you are confident in your preparation. 3) Keep going back to the same fact until the other person is able to refute it, put it into question, or they accept it. 3a) Try to answer the other persons objections.
Sadly some people will always deny whatever you say, but without making an argument of their own they can rarely win the debate. Some people just won't change their mind, but if you really want to try and convince them I suggest sticking to the fact and questioning them about it. Stay calm and try to get them to talk. This way you can hopefully get them to state an argument about the fact in question that either is wrong, contradictory or just dumb and challenge what they just said. If you manage to make them admit they were wrong on something you have a better chance at convincing them. But that's really just my opinion anyway. Goodluck!
Once you've reached the point where you realize that this person isn't going to accept a demonstrable fact, especially one that isn't something potentially data driven and skewed (beware source bias, it's a pain), then you have to accept that you are no longer debating with that person. This leaves you two basic options. Each one has its context, so I'll try to provide some. First, you can drop it. This is often the best choice when the stakes are low or non-existent. If you have nothing to gain by continuing the argument, and no long-standing relationship is involved, this is easily the best choice. Life, unfortunately, is messier than that. Second, you can keep going. Do this if there is something worth winning. If you can only lose by continuing the discussion, don't follow this advice. Also, if you think that you can convince the person in denial, stop. You've lost that battle. Do this, however, if you aren't trying to convince the person you are arguing with, but someone else (like the audience in general, or someone in specific). Hope that this helps.
you keep adding some sick classic tunes. some of my personal favorite jazz hits. top bloke. really good series so far. i'm autistic, and i've heavily struggled with defending my arguments in a non-confrontational style like this. especially back in the day i got very wrapped up in all the bureaucracy, keeping tables of points made and circling back to those points in something resembling trench warfare. arguments with me were intense, crass and mentally draining for both parties. i hope that this series and your channel can help me circumvent my natural stubbornness, stay more open minded, and get my points across while remaining respectful and bearable.
this movie has entered my top 10 favorite movies of all time thanks to these videos. I've watched the movie almost 6 times since your first video using it. Such a goddamn good movie.
I love this channel. About two years ago it inspired me to join the debate club and now I come back for every upload because it made me aware of how enjoyable a proper debate can be.
Thank you for this series. I don't usually comment but your doing really well. Thank you for sticking to your "new year resolution" about sticking to the arguments not the people
Another Counter Arguments video so soon? Your videos are my heroin, I cannot get enough of them! You also use a lot of Jazz which is my favorite genre. I will have to go listen to So What after watching this. You gotta use more Guaraldi though.
I have never heard someone use Countdown to choreograph a debate. It really brought out the excitement in making the wrong move. Kudos to you, this video is amazing!
Everytime I watch your videos, I always get so invested in how complex arguments can be. You're channel has gotten me very interested in the science of arguments as you always make it very entertaining and interesting with both your visuals and your commentary.
Few of the movies I've seen, in my personal opinion, could be considered as great a battle of ideas and debate as this one. Inherit the Wind (1960) is the next best one I'd recommend... [SPOILER BELOW] ... though its not so much a debate as it is a trial done in parts. The trial itself isn't even won/lost by debate but by politics in the background, though you can definitely tell who knows how to make an effective counterargument and who doesn't as much. The bantor and arguments between the characters are also well-written!
If you liked Henry Fonda you should consider watching Gideon’s Trumpet, a film about the Gideon vs. Wainwright Supreme Court case. Really interesting watch. We watched this alongside 12 Angry Men in my Law & Justice class.
This 3 part series is gonna go down as one of your best contributions to youtube and I think that's especially beautiful considering it came right after a slump of sorts. Good job.
Just finished this movie 20 seconds ago. I don't tend to watch movies, let alone really old ones but this was genuinely one of the best, and made me think more than any other movie I have watched.
This series has been excellent. I watched this movie not long ago for the first time and loved it, but I did not pick up on so much of what you've discussed so far. Thanks for sharing this.
Thanks a lot for this series. Number 2 has been my favorite. I've always generally been uncomfortable with debates because I'd be shit, and not really know what I was doing, but now I feel much more free to contest people I disagree with. Which is dope.
I had seen this movie before you started this series and I must say, your breakdown has shone new light on it! You turned a great movie into an excellent classroom lesson. Keep up the awesome work!
These are phenomenal, I’ve shown my girlfriend and my parents. I can’t share this content enough. I really think that self reflection did some good man. As a fan and hopefully someday a friend, I respect what you’ve done here.
This series is fantastic! Wish I had this a few years ago before going through college. I did ok, but if I had this I would have done so much better. And it involves one of my favorite movies!
At 4:30 the juror on our right points out that the juror on our left uses incorrect grammar. This is a fact. However, it is completely irrelevant to both the case, and the argument being made. Rather, it points out a flaw in the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem logical fallacy, and by definition, a personal attack. True or not, it is not a good example of arguing with facts.
I see it more as taking a humorous jab to lighten the mood ever so slightly. One criticizes someone for not speaking correct English while making a grammatical error himself − pointing it out teaches him a bit of humility.
Juror on the left was committing the same fallacy about one of the witnesses. Juror on the right corrects Left's grammer to demonstrate that that observation is irrelevant when applied to him and by extension the witness. The only way for Right to double down on his personal attack on the witness is to concede that his own poor English discredits him somewhat as well. Mind you I haven't actually watched 12 Angry Men I'm basing this on the clips
@@nicholasperalta3614 and yet you analyze it perfectly, pointing out a fallacy as a fallacy doesn't always discredit the argument. Sometimes the fallacy must be restated in different terms to shed light on the error in an opponents relying on said fallacy. "All A's are B's." " *All* A's are B's?" "Well...not *All* ."
@@nicholasperalta3614 *grammar. But this is the best justification for calling this a decent argument that I've seen so far. Accepting that your grammar is horrible, and that it lowers your credibility, is a valid tactic in response to this ad hominem, though. And it does nothing to invalidate your argument that the witness don't talk good. It only establishes the premise that bad grammar loses the speaker credibility. Correcting the juror on our left is a logical fallacy no matter how you slice it, and easily becomes a losing gambit.
Ever since your reflections on the direction your channel has been taking the quality has sky rocketed! Congrats on the phenomenal series this far. I look forward to more!
Loving this series! Also I'd like to see a video on showing how, when in a debate, you must be aware that your argument has the possibility to be wrong/misguided and what evidence/argument would convince you of your misguided thought. It may not be your whole mindset that's wrong but more specific details of that mindset. People go into debates to WIN and I don't think that's the right way to approach it.
I really love this series of videos. Top class stuff. Seeing this movie and watching the rational discussions and seeing their merits over the irrational tempers... really inspires you to become a more rational speaker. Definitely a goal we should all be striving for in all aspects of debate and discussion. It feels like true rationality really is one of the highest honors one can strive for.
Very insightful! It's worth noting that for much of the second half of the film, Jurors 3 and 10 (and 7, before he switches his vote) insist upon the boy's guilt because of feelings, rather than facts. Their arguments become increasingly flimsy, with them basically saying that the boy is guilty, that it's obvious and self-evident, and you should just take their word for it and vote 'guilty'. They even at times attempt to resort to intimidation instead of using the evidence to sway people, like Juror 4 does.
I'm so glad i found your channel, the way you present stuff is well and I also love how a bit ago you even called yourself out. Also i need to watch this movie
MUST WATCH: Juror #3 gets absolutely DESTROYED with LOGIC and FACTS!!
And what he does next will BLOW YOUR MIND!!
Yall are great
What happens NEXT will SHOCK YOU
Mr. Shapiro is that you?
@@timboneiod1780 Juror #8's blue blood flows through Shapiro
The fact that you analysed your channel and addressed criticism that the content wasn't addressing the argument, and the first series of videos you make after is an analysis of arguments is very commendable, and I have gained a great deal of respect for you as a person.
I agree with you, as a matter of fact, adressing the oneself's mistakes is something that get's one to self-improvement, sorry about any mistake I made while organazing my opinion, english isn't my first language
The person who wrote this comment is cute?
@@theforcefor frankly, you speak it far more intelligently than most native speakers.
I'm really enjoying this series. I also really enjoyed 12 Angry Men. Thanks for the movie recommendation.
It is an absolutely amazing movie. It's too bad that the movie going public at the time didn't see it that way.
What you said
Nuclear Gandhi I watched/read it in HS and remember liking it back then but I never paid any real attention to the details of the work.
Here's to hoping he do more!
@@Argonnosi
What do you mean?
Thank you for exposing people to this wonderful film.
I saw it first in high school. You would think a bunch of teenagers wouldn’t pay attention to an old black and white film taking place in one room. But everyone was glued to this movie. Even arguing amongst each other.
Damn Counter argument, ur delivering some damn good quality content lately!
Damn straight. He's really followed up on his reflections in his "Dear Subscribers" video. I thoroughly look forward to the next installment.
@@andrewcarroll9738 Agreed! It's refreshing seeing someone thoroughly acknowledge their errors and clearly make changes to improve.
0:05 Plot and Recap
1:08 When to run? When to fight?
2:11 Disregard all the other evidence. Good in short run, looks dumb in the long run.
3:12 Standards for contesting arguments
- Pick Factual Fights, Not personal ones
7:33 What about when you disagree with your opponents argument?
9:02 #8 uses evidence/reason to argue
10:56 #3 Picked the wrong fight. #8 makes a risky move (character attack, leading to possible violence)
Thanks!
Hey buddy I watched the video too.
I didn't know we were supposed to be taking notes! I hope this isn't on the test...
Wouldn't want to watch all 13 minutes to find this out...
Cartoon Hanks these are time marks for finding specific parts of the video faster
Well done on the series. 12 Angry Men should be shown in Middle/High Schools. That, and the Milgram Experiment out of Stanford U.
And "The Stanford Prison Experiment" with Philip Zimbardo.
Milgram experiment is fake. And also wasn't scientifically accurate and the point it was trying to make was proven false later by other more credible tests.
America does this too. Or at least where I went.
Carton: "Milgram experiment is fake." Citation please. Was it a 'fake' (a fake-out) to the subjects, yeah. So, what do you mean by fake?
SmartrMelons en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment Wikipedia’s article is a place to start under the “Criticism and response” heading
I watched this film because of this series. Thank you, it was well worth it!
@@Draconis_Eltanin Yes it is, watch it.
I watched it after the first video, and it's been very interested now watching this series after watching the film
@@Draconis_Eltanin I'd say so as you can connect everything discussed in the video to the movie. You see how it played out in it's entirety and then get to look back with the video series to analyze it
I watched this in school years ago. Like 2 decades ago. This channel makes me realize how much I didn't pay attention then. I'm definitely gonna rewatch it.
@@Draconis_Eltanin As a movie buff, I cannot recommend this movie more highly. It is an effective and powerful drama that showcases masterful directorial skill, scripting, and acting ability. For anyone interested in touchstone moments of cinematic history, thoughtful analysis of the judicial system, thoughtful analysis of debate, thoughtful analysis of human nature, or for those simply looking for an engaging movie that asks that you keep thinking, rather than not, then this is definitely a movie for you.
This is the kind of content the internet needs.
Hope other people share!
You took me off a PewDiePie video when I saw this notification. You can see where my priorities lie I suppose.
Same!
Same lmao
Same here too
DannyDaDuffyDucking Daffer He didnt choose right he choose different
Yeah, but Counter Arguments was surpassed by T Series.
**A possible clarification of the argument of juror number three.** - 1:38
While it wasn’t e̲x̲p̲l̲i̲c̲i̲t̲l̲y stated, juror number three’s line of reasoning may have been that in view of this piece of evidence, the sworn testimony of an eyewitness under oath, the “dubiousness“ of the other evidence could not provide reasonable doubt in the light of such a seemingly watertight and powerful piece of evidence.
However, when this supposedly watertight and undeniable piece of evidence is proven to be questionable, the rest of the evidence would still matter, perhaps even more so, as while the remaining evidence may not be as powerful, it could still incriminate the boy under question. Although in this case juror number three fell back onto evidence that was already shown to be at the very least questionable, and possibly even highly unlikely, *had his argument been as stated in the first paragraph* perhaps it wouldn’t have placed him into a corner.
This isn’t to discredit or devalue your videos, in fact I thoroughly enjoyed this one and many others, but is a possible _“counter argument”_ I thought may be worth considering. I really would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this or the input of other commenters.
Thanks for your time!
Astute observation.
Unfortunately for No. 3, however, he gambled too high.
I. e. too high for his seemingly non-existent ability to concede when he has erred.
If he hadn't used such strong language, e.g. if he said "just focus on the woman's evidence, how can you dispute that?" it would have been much more difficult to throw his works back at his face.
Given how bad TH-cam is at monetising worthy sources, I'm wondering if it would have been a good idea to put an affiliate link to 12 Angry Men. I'm seriously considering getting hold of it thanks to this series, and I figure you deserve some commission for that ;)
(On that note, does Google Play do commission links?)
I don't know if you have Stan but you can stream it on there. It is truly one of the greats of cinema.
Has anyone else noticed that every video on the channel is perfect in length?
shows how powerful the algo is at influencing content.
@@JewTube001 Shows how dedicated Counter Arguments is to symmetry.
5:00 I've always had this problem, where the person *denies* the fact.
Even if the fact is correct.
How do I convince them that the fact is correct? Putting more facts on them?! What if they deny those facts?
1) Make sure the fact is correct
2) Keep a calm demeanor. My father once told me that the difference between a fact and an opinion is that you can explain a fact without getting angry. While that isn't exactly true, staying calm will help convince the other person that you are confident in your preparation.
3) Keep going back to the same fact until the other person is able to refute it, put it into question, or they accept it.
3a) Try to answer the other persons objections.
@@welshieranger4697 I really liked that quarantine expression. Kudos.
Sadly some people will always deny whatever you say, but without making an argument of their own they can rarely win the debate. Some people just won't change their mind, but if you really want to try and convince them I suggest sticking to the fact and questioning them about it. Stay calm and try to get them to talk. This way you can hopefully get them to state an argument about the fact in question that either is wrong, contradictory or just dumb and challenge what they just said. If you manage to make them admit they were wrong on something you have a better chance at convincing them.
But that's really just my opinion anyway. Goodluck!
@@welshieranger4697 Thank you
Once you've reached the point where you realize that this person isn't going to accept a demonstrable fact, especially one that isn't something potentially data driven and skewed (beware source bias, it's a pain), then you have to accept that you are no longer debating with that person. This leaves you two basic options. Each one has its context, so I'll try to provide some.
First, you can drop it. This is often the best choice when the stakes are low or non-existent. If you have nothing to gain by continuing the argument, and no long-standing relationship is involved, this is easily the best choice. Life, unfortunately, is messier than that.
Second, you can keep going. Do this if there is something worth winning. If you can only lose by continuing the discussion, don't follow this advice. Also, if you think that you can convince the person in denial, stop. You've lost that battle. Do this, however, if you aren't trying to convince the person you are arguing with, but someone else (like the audience in general, or someone in specific).
Hope that this helps.
Counter Arguments, keep it up man. This stuff rocks.
you keep adding some sick classic tunes. some of my personal favorite jazz hits. top bloke. really good series so far. i'm autistic, and i've heavily struggled with defending my arguments in a non-confrontational style like this. especially back in the day i got very wrapped up in all the bureaucracy, keeping tables of points made and circling back to those points in something resembling trench warfare. arguments with me were intense, crass and mentally draining for both parties. i hope that this series and your channel can help me circumvent my natural stubbornness, stay more open minded, and get my points across while remaining respectful and bearable.
12 angry men is such a perfect platform for discussing the psychology of debate, thanks for showing us this gem! :)
These last 3 videos are some of my favorite videos on YT. I hope this series never ends.
This channel is more relevant than ever. I miss it often.
this movie has entered my top 10 favorite movies of all time thanks to these videos. I've watched the movie almost 6 times since your first video using it. Such a goddamn good movie.
Truth:)
This movie and this channel are like a match made in heaven. I love how much it's giving CA to talk about.
I love this channel. About two years ago it inspired me to join the debate club and now I come back for every upload because it made me aware of how enjoyable a proper debate can be.
I’m really enjoying this series man! It’s so nice to see an in depth analysis of such a deep movie!
This series is easily the best content created by this channel.
please continue
Thank you for this series. I don't usually comment but your doing really well. Thank you for sticking to your "new year resolution" about sticking to the arguments not the people
I love this series! Making my brother and I better debaters while we work. Keep it up!
Thanks for the videos, Cheers
I am loving this series
Another Counter Arguments video so soon? Your videos are my heroin, I cannot get enough of them! You also use a lot of Jazz which is my favorite genre. I will have to go listen to So What after watching this. You gotta use more Guaraldi though.
I have never heard someone use Countdown to choreograph a debate. It really brought out the excitement in making the wrong move. Kudos to you, this video is amazing!
I love this series, and I’m excited for the next two. You should keep up these lesson-like videos
Loving this series and rewatching this movie to learn more and more
Everytime I watch your videos, I always get so invested in how complex arguments can be. You're channel has gotten me very interested in the science of arguments as you always make it very entertaining and interesting with both your visuals and your commentary.
I have to say that these has to be the most civil and well spoken comment section I have ever seen on this platform.
Why is it that you don't have a billion subscribers???
You are the best youtuber ever great video
This has been questionably my favorite set of videos you've made
@Counter Arguments
Really good to see that you are back on track with the original intent of dissecting arguments.
Thank you.
This series makes me appreciate how brilliantly written this movie is.
Love this series so far. Very informative. Thank you
You inspired me to watch 12 angry Men and I loved it! Do you know any other movies that are a battle of ideas similar to this movie?
My Cousin Vinny has a similar kind of mental battle, but it's more of a comedy than a drama.
"In the Heat of the Night" comes to mind... it's not a courtroom drama, but it is of the same era of thought-provoking movies.
Few of the movies I've seen, in my personal opinion, could be considered as great a battle of ideas and debate as this one. Inherit the Wind (1960) is the next best one I'd recommend... [SPOILER BELOW]
... though its not so much a debate as it is a trial done in parts. The trial itself isn't even won/lost by debate but by politics in the background, though you can definitely tell who knows how to make an effective counterargument and who doesn't as much. The bantor and arguments between the characters are also well-written!
If you liked Henry Fonda you should consider watching Gideon’s Trumpet, a film about the Gideon vs. Wainwright Supreme Court case. Really interesting watch. We watched this alongside 12 Angry Men in my Law & Justice class.
Unthinkable 2010, A Few Good Men 1992
Great movie. Really like this series. Looking forward to the next one.
Really great set of videos. 12 Angry Men is a classic.
I love your selection of jazz tunes
This series is utter gold
This 3 part series is gonna go down as one of your best contributions to youtube and I think that's especially beautiful considering it came right after a slump of sorts.
Good job.
Just finished this movie 20 seconds ago. I don't tend to watch movies, let alone really old ones but this was genuinely one of the best, and made me think more than any other movie I have watched.
I have truly missed these essays!
The fact that I'm not being taught this video series in school is a shame, this is great content!
Thanks for making this series of videos. This is one of my favorites and it's incredibly important to American culture.
I thought number 8's most risky manoeuvre was when he exclaimed: 'If everybody still thinks the same, I will change my vote'!
This series has been a really good return to form
Background music is just perfect. Kinda Blue fits this so well. Great video!
This series has been excellent. I watched this movie not long ago for the first time and loved it, but I did not pick up on so much of what you've discussed so far. Thanks for sharing this.
this series is s-tier, all three vids have been great
These series are so great. Keep it going man.
you have taught me more about debates then any teacher ever has.
Loving this series!
LOVING the soundtrack as well as the content!
Another excellent video. Thank you for taking the time to make it.
Fantastic series of videos that I now admire for a movie I have admired for a long time now.
Thanks a lot for this series. Number 2 has been my favorite. I've always generally been uncomfortable with debates because I'd be shit, and not really know what I was doing, but now I feel much more free to contest people I disagree with. Which is dope.
I'm glad to see you're still analyzing this film. Another great video, please keep up the good work
I feel like this channel helps me grow. Great analysis!
Enjoying this series .
Your work has been impeccable lately. Fantastic
Can’t wait for parts 4-12 of this series!
An excellent video. Thank you
When he said he'd reform his videos, he wasn't kidding, this series is amazing!
Idk how you do it, but you always make videos right when I'm thinking of different conflicts and how to approach them. This is one of my favorites!
Better than always being right is that Counter Points recognises when being wrong... or perhaps the better word would be "arguable".
Ah, 12 angry men. Classic! Watched this the other day. Brilliant film.
I had seen this movie before you started this series and I must say, your breakdown has shone new light on it! You turned a great movie into an excellent classroom lesson. Keep up the awesome work!
Loving these new videos!
These are phenomenal, I’ve shown my girlfriend and my parents. I can’t share this content enough.
I really think that self reflection did some good man. As a fan and hopefully someday a friend, I respect what you’ve done here.
This series is fantastic! Wish I had this a few years ago before going through college. I did ok, but if I had this I would have done so much better. And it involves one of my favorite movies!
At 4:30 the juror on our right points out that the juror on our left uses incorrect grammar. This is a fact. However, it is completely irrelevant to both the case, and the argument being made. Rather, it points out a flaw in the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem logical fallacy, and by definition, a personal attack. True or not, it is not a good example of arguing with facts.
I see it more as taking a humorous jab to lighten the mood ever so slightly. One criticizes someone for not speaking correct English while making a grammatical error himself − pointing it out teaches him a bit of humility.
Juror on the left was committing the same fallacy about one of the witnesses. Juror on the right corrects Left's grammer to demonstrate that that observation is irrelevant when applied to him and by extension the witness.
The only way for Right to double down on his personal attack on the witness is to concede that his own poor English discredits him somewhat as well.
Mind you I haven't actually watched 12 Angry Men I'm basing this on the clips
@@nicholasperalta3614 and yet you analyze it perfectly, pointing out a fallacy as a fallacy doesn't always discredit the argument. Sometimes the fallacy must be restated in different terms to shed light on the error in an opponents relying on said fallacy.
"All A's are B's."
" *All* A's are B's?"
"Well...not *All* ."
@@Lyendith Managing another person's humility is never anyone's job, especially in the context of a debate.
@@nicholasperalta3614 *grammar.
But this is the best justification for calling this a decent argument that I've seen so far.
Accepting that your grammar is horrible, and that it lowers your credibility, is a valid tactic in response to this ad hominem, though. And it does nothing to invalidate your argument that the witness don't talk good. It only establishes the premise that bad grammar loses the speaker credibility.
Correcting the juror on our left is a logical fallacy no matter how you slice it, and easily becomes a losing gambit.
This is the kind of quality content I subscribed to you for!
I’m glad that I got the opportunity to watch this film in English class.
Thank you. This series makes up for 2018.
12 Angry Men. Miles Davis. Ah, I see you are a man of culture like myself.
Wait...
@@mat7083 wait what?
I am so glad i found this channel. You do great quality videos
Ever since your reflections on the direction your channel has been taking the quality has sky rocketed! Congrats on the phenomenal series this far. I look forward to more!
Great Video Counter Arguments!
This has been a heckuva interesting series so far, both in concept and execution. Kudos. 👍🏻
Show this in every public school and college.
This is a very good video. I'm good at debating but absolutely horrible at chosing fights. It'll make me think twice, so...thanks for that
I really love this series
really enjoyed this series
This is a great series. It’s just as riveting as the movie itself. Thank you for this.
I loved the movie when I saw it, and watching a deconstruction of a debate with this movie as an example is magnificent
Loving this series! Also I'd like to see a video on showing how, when in a debate, you must be aware that your argument has the possibility to be wrong/misguided and what evidence/argument would convince you of your misguided thought. It may not be your whole mindset that's wrong but more specific details of that mindset. People go into debates to WIN and I don't think that's the right way to approach it.
It’s like ur normal videos, but without drama. Keep up the good work man!!!
I really love this series of videos. Top class stuff.
Seeing this movie and watching the rational discussions and seeing their merits over the irrational tempers... really inspires you to become a more rational speaker. Definitely a goal we should all be striving for in all aspects of debate and discussion. It feels like true rationality really is one of the highest honors one can strive for.
I’ve absolutely love these past three videos. Keep making videos in the is vein. Just subbed.
Your work is underrated my friend.
Very insightful!
It's worth noting that for much of the second half of the film, Jurors 3 and 10 (and 7, before he switches his vote) insist upon the boy's guilt because of feelings, rather than facts. Their arguments become increasingly flimsy, with them basically saying that the boy is guilty, that it's obvious and self-evident, and you should just take their word for it and vote 'guilty'. They even at times attempt to resort to intimidation instead of using the evidence to sway people, like Juror 4 does.
Best series ever!
I just want to say, I'm happy you did this whole video in Black & White. Nice touch.
This is a great series.
This series is incredible, great work! :)
hey this is a really great series. thanks!
I'm so glad i found your channel, the way you present stuff is well and I also love how a bit ago you even called yourself out. Also i need to watch this movie