12 Angry Men: 6 Mistakes to Avoid in an Argument (and 6 Tips to Win One)

12 Angry Men is a 1957 film following the jury’s discussion over the guilt of an 18-year old boy accused of murdering his father. Beyond its depiction of justice,  the film is still relevant almost half a century later, if not more so, as a masterclass in argumentation. We’ve heard it said countless times: we’re in an age of poor communication and extreme polarization. But is anyone actually addressing it? We don’t live long enough to make all the mistakes ourselves, we have to learn from others. So, let’s look at twelve angry men, locked in a jury room, and see how they deal with disagreement.

#1 - DO clearly establish the purpose of the argument

The Foreman, uncertain quite what to do with the power he has, nevertheless manages to step up and kick the jury’s discussion off, first making sure that everyone is in the room (Juror #9 was in the bathroom) and sitting down at the table. He doesn’t force a manner of course, but reminds them, “This has to be a twelve-to-nothing vote either way. That's the law.”

The jury discusses in order to reach a unanimous verdict. Why are you and your partner-in-argument having your argument? Is it to prove to them that you’re right and they’re wrong? Or is it to reach common ground and mutual understanding?

#2 - DON’T adopt the most popular opinion just because

Juror #2 quickly raises his hand for Guilty after seeing the other jurors (save #8) raise theirs in the initial vote. When he tries to explain his decision, he has no solid reason: “Well it's hard to put into words. I just... think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word go. I mean nobody proved otherwise.” As #8 quietly reminds him, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. … That's in the Constitution. You've heard of it.” Flustered and floundering, #2’s response trails off helplessly.

Don’t be #2. If you’re going to take a side in an argument, have a real opinion about it, don’t just  echo whatever voice is loudest. You’ll sound like a parrot.

#3 - DON’T accidentally prove someone else’s point

Juror #3 thinks the boy is guilty because a witness claimed he said “I’ll kill you.” #8 counters by asking how many times each of them has used that phrase; “It doesn’t mean we’re going to kill someone.” Later, he’s proven right when #3 lunges at him, yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” and #8 replies, “You don’t really mean you'll kill me, do you?”

Beyond making #8’s argument for him, #3’s temper and emotions undermine every one of his arguments. He sounds desperate, latching onto any shred of evidence that might prove his point only to throw it out and then try to lean on it again later. There’s another lesson here: keep a cool head, don’t lose it.

#4 - DON’T forget to analyze all the evidence

Juror #4 is all about facts, facts, facts. He claims that the only evidence they need is the woman’s account of seeing the murder happen. Yet he fails to recognize a vital detail: though she wasn’t wearing glasses when they met her, #9 points out that the woman had the same marks on her nose as #4 does from his glasses. Which means she needs glasses, and because she witnessed the murder from her bedroom window when she was about to fall asleep, she wouldn’t have been wearing her glasses and couldn’t have identified the boy.

At least #4 admits he’s convinced after that. It’d be stupid to argue in denial of valid evidence offered by your opposition.

#5 - DO offer and speak from your personal experience

Juror #5 is the only one to come from a slum like the boy, and his experience becomes invaluable when he is able to explain to the other jurors that the boy—like himself—who is familiar with knives, wouldn’t have stabbed his father downward when a switch-blade is held underhanded.

We are each a collection of experiences that informs who we are. You can use your personal experience to inspire empathy in your partner-in-argument. Even more, engaging with different perspectives can strengthen your points beyond what you can support on your own.

#6 - DO always be open to the possibility of being wrong

While it can make him sound weak, Juror #6 often admits that he could be wrong. While he believes that the boy is guilty he’s also willing to entertain #8’s “supposing” in order to figure out what really happened.

Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you’re changing it, but it does offer a chance to see beyond your own argument and gain a level of objectivity.

#7 - DON’T walk away just because that’s easier

Juror #7 is anxious to make it to a baseball game, and he’s so antsy that he changes his vote to Not Guilty in the hopes that it speeds the matter along. Juror #11 rebukes him, “If you want to vote not guilty then do it because you're convinced the man is not guilty... not because you've had enough! And if you think he's guilty... then vote that way!”

While we might not often change our minds like #7, I do believe that we often choose to walk away from an argument that we think is too much effort to have. But convincing takes effort. If that’s what you’re in an argument to do, it won’t be easy.

#8 - DO ask for collaboration to reach an understanding

Juror #8 carries the Not Guilty argument but does so by walking the jury through his “possibilities,” starting not with his conclusions but with whatever point is core to each of their arguments. Like a teacher, he constantly asks the other jurors to supply him the information instead of presenting it himself, then he presents them with all the pieces they proved put together and asks what they think now.

In your arguments, are you trying to prove your partner-in-argument wrong? Or are you working with them to reach new conclusions together?

#9 - DO ask to hear more from your opposition

Juror #9 is the only reason the jury’s discussion continues for as long as it does. He’s the first to change his vote to Not Guilty, saying, #8 “gambled for support, and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy on trial is probably guilty. But I want to hear more.”

A productive argument requires hearing your partner-in-argument out, and if 12 Angry Men proves anything, it’s that some arguments don’t hold up when they’re heard and thought out.

#10 - DON’T be a hypocrite and/or a bigot

Juror #10 votes Guilty because he’s classist and believes the boy’s slum origins are his entire character. Eventually he is collectively dismissed by the rest of the jury after one too many bigoted tirades, but his arguments are weakened by his hypocrisy. Although he rails against the boy for his improper grammar, it turns out Juror #10’s is less than perfect. He says, “He [the boy] don’t even speak good English,” and it's the German immigrant who corrects him: “He doesn’t even speak good English.”

Being a bigot makes you look stupid and being a hypocrite makes you look doubly so. Don’t plant your argument in such ill-suited earth. You will win no points in your favor.

#11 - DO take the time to gather your thoughts

Juror #11 is the most well-spoken of all the jurors, in part because he takes the time to think his own thoughts and listen to those of others. He takes notes and presents his observations and questions clearly to the group, often moving the discussion forward and maintaining the higher sense of justice that brought them together in the first place.

A well-spoken argument is far superior to a fast-spoken one, if #3, #7, and #10’s styles are anything to go by.

#12 - DON’T forget that it’s not a game

Juror #12 is a salesman, often doodling products and treating the whole situation rather lightheartedly, only to change his vote back and forth with more and more shame as he must reckon with the realization that this isn’t a game and he doesn’t actually know what is right. None of them do. Even when the jury has reached their verdict of Not Guilty, they are not happy, but at least they have learned to practice good justice, and there is some satisfaction in that.

Our failure to communicate about divisive topics today is that we don’t practice having good arguments. For as much advice as I have given about how to win an argument (or at least to not lose one), a good argument isn’t about winning. It’s about reaching a new understanding of the subject you’re arguing about, the person you’re arguing with, and your own beliefs.