4A- Part 1

Details are important, especially in a criminal trial. At first, 11 jurors were immediately ready to find the boy guilty, but, as juror 8 dove into the details of the case, he was able to sway the other jurors to aquit by providing small pieces of evidence against the prosecution.

1A

One of the major keys to contributing to aa debate or conversation is the appropriate use of civility. Civility means using restraint in a moment of anger or other emotion. Civility gives credibility to a speaker, as when juror 3 lashed out at juror 8, and lost credibility.

2B

One key factor in a constructive conversation or debate is addressing your target audience or opponent. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 8 does this by addressing each of the jurors who question him or give a counter argument. people tend to listen to debates as outsiders, and thus give more credibility to the opponent who is more focused.

2B

Finding the correct answer to a deep question takes the right mindset. It requires open mindedness and being able to make rational decisions that lead a conversation toward a constructive direction. All constructive conversations lead to learning.

B2

When debating, talking or even having a conversation people will not listen to you if you do not know what your talking about.Its always important to make sure you you focus on the person you are talking too your not gonna explain something to a five year old the same way your gonna explain something to a 40 year old professor. Knowing who you are talking to changes the way you say things, which all in all is one of the secrets to life.

B5

Being patient shows maturity, and being able to talk at the right time shows intelligence . Having these types of skills helps you not only with getting a job or a higher education but in life overall.Your more of a powerful person because you are persuasive and with persuasive comes leadership which leads to being more powerful.

A6

 Juror 8 Showed determination by changing the opinions of all the Jurors by his skill and placement of words. He single handed saved the young boys life from imprisonment by overturning every other jurors opinion.

A1

With civility you have respect and there for your opinion is respected. When Juror 10 started talking about everyone in the slums is stereo typed as a liar and thief. To show juror 10 that the other jurors did not care what he said they each stood up and ignored him to show his lack of civility.

1A

The definition of civility is calm. While Juror 3 wasn't, everyone else listened to the juror's that worked out the conflict.

6A

One person can influence everyone if they have the right mind set and is strong towards what they believe. For example, "Twelve Angry Men", one juror stuck to the defendants side with not guilty, and he influenced all the other jurors the same. Yes it was difficult, but because of how influential he was he got what he wanted.

2A

Tailoring your tactics was a strategy used in "Twelve Angry Men". Juror 8 used this method to get the other jurors to believe in his ideas. He studied them closely and made them think about every little detail. Because of him doing this, it resulted in the defendant not guilty.

Part 2 6a

One determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. In the play, juror 8 is determined to find out what actually happened in this case. Throughout the meeting of the jurors, you begin to see how skilled juror 8 is at talking with people and reasoning. He sways all of the other jurors to the side of not guilty throughout him talking and proving facts of the case. Juror 8 didn't want to just dismissed the case because of how it seemed, and as it was shown through the discussion, it proved to be beneficial in the long run. The kid was not guilty because of the reasonable doubt juror 8 distilled into the other jurors heads. Another reason he was so influential was because of how he proved everything and made it believable to the others. He was the sole reason this kid wasn't given a guilty sentence, and that was because he was determined to find the truth.

Part 2 5b

Patient silence and loud persistence can both be powerful, at the right times. When you see the active leaders in life, the ones who use their voices to be powerful and talk about an issue, you listen. When the silent kid in the class stands up and says something smart and impactful, you listen. Both of these examples can change people's ways of viewing things, topics, and life. The reason they are so powerful is the timing of these events. When the silent kid stands up and speaks, they know the right time to do so. He or she doesn't speak when no one will listen to what they have to say, then their words are pointless. When the active leader speaks, he or she do so when there is turmoil, crisis, because the people are looking for someone to follow and answer their questions. Timing is of the essence when you speak your mind, and that is something that can make the difference whether you are listened to or ignored.

2a Lance Holman

In the play, 12 Angry men, juror 8 stands up for what he believes in. He stands alone and persuades the jurors to be on his side. In life courage is a big part of one's life. Courage shows ones personality and the size of his heart. Juror 8 is very brave. He believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. He didn't want to send an innocent man to prison. Juror 8 presented his case and the evidence even if it meant that he would stand alone. Juror 8 had a lot of courage and fought for what he believed was right.

6b Lance Holman

Juror 3 was very negative and didn't care what others thought of him. He only cared about himself and gave his opinion, but thought that he was always right. When juror 8,would prove his own statements wrong, he would be stubborn and blow them off. One instance was where juror 3 insisted that if the boy said that he was gonna kill someone than he meant it, which proved that he killed his father. Later in Act 2, juror 8 gets juror 3 so upset that juror 3 yells "Im going to kill you," which basically proved his own statement wrong.
* The computer would not allow me to make corrections - it deleted my text when I tried to correct grammar.

4b Lance Holman

In the play 12 Angry Men, racial profiling is brought up through out the play by some of the jurors. Juror 10 despises kids from the slums and mentions the word "them" referring to how they, or kids from the slums will always be bad kids because they are raided in poverty. He also states that the kid should of done it because of the crimes he made before the crime. He inferred that since he had a record, the kid must of done it.That's like saying since one kid said a bad word, that he must be an awful kid at home.

4a Lance Holman

In the play, 12 Angry Men, juror 8 shows how powerful one can be. At first, he stands alone as the only one that believes the boy is innocent. Juror 8, persuades the jurors to come to his side one at a time by presenting the facts. Juror 3,is the  only person that feels negative and doesn't agree with anyone. Juror 3 battles with juror 8 through out the play arguing who is right and who is wrong.

Part 2-5b

An example of both loud persistence and patient silence is the United States at war. During the American Revolution, the U.S. persistently fought the British, never letting up in their fight for freedom. Eventually, their tactics worked and they were able to defeat the British and gain independence. The U.S. was patiently silent during, World War II, until they were attacked and joined the war. Due to the U.S. sending fresh troops into a war that had been fought for years, they were able to swing the tide of the war and help the allies win.

Part 2-6a

During the deliberation, juror 8 demonstrates the power of an individual. At the beginning of the deliberation the other jurors had all agreed on a guilty verdict, but he was able to change their minds. He does this with carefully thought out arguments and rebuttals. He is also very skillful in how he argues, by waiting until someone brings up a point against the boy, then finding the right way to disprove them. He does this using the knife he bought, angering juror 3, and the glasses of the witness across the el track.

Part 1-2b

The world is facing many complex issues in today's society. Issues such as gender, racial, religious, and marriage equality have been disputed for decades or even centuries. These issues have been discussed thoroughly and laws have been made for each time and time again. However, each issue still remains a problem in today's society. This proves how much time and effort important issues such as equality need to be resolved.

Part 1-1a

Prejudice was a problem for the jurors multiple times during the deliberation. However, the point where it was most troublesome was with juror 10. Because of his prejudice towards others he becomes one of the three hold outs left in the deliberation. It becomes so bad that the other jurors ignore his statements because of how biased they are. This is one of the examples throughout the play of how prejudice can cloud judgement and harm others.

4a part two

Reason and assertiveness can both be powerful tactics, depending on the situation. This is very true in the 12 angry men story. For example if you look at juror 8 and how he used reasoning for explaining the logic behind the facts. He also used his assertiveness to be exactly that, being self-assured and confident without being aggressive. 

6a part two

One determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. This is true in the 12 angry men story. If you look at how juror 8 and how skilled he was in showing the "facts" but in a more logical way, made the members of the jury change there mind. For example he did a little reenactment of the old man getting up to see boy run from the house and said there was no way he could of got up in time.

2b

Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. An example of this in real life is detectives trying to find a murderer, or solve a case. If you notice it is very seldom that a case get solved in just an hour, In fact it usually takes days to figure out and solve a case. 

5a

There are many interpretations of "the facts." This is true in the play 12 angry men. For example if you look at how some of the jurors thought the knife was "one of a kind" and how it was a very rare knife. This was proved wrong by juror 8 who bought the exact same knife and showed the jurors. 

Will Metcalf Part 2 1B

Civility is the key in getting people to believe you. Staying calm during an argument and not letting your emotions get in the way of the problem at hand is an important trait, as people respond better to a civil opponent than an uncivilized one. For example, when running for president, you must act civil when debating against your opponent, or you will lose voters due to your arrongance and unkindness. A calm, civilized opponent will always make a more believable argument than one who is not.

Will Metcalf Part 2 6B

There are many cases in which a single determined individual holds a great deal of power. For example, in monarchy, the king or queen hold a huge amount of influence to their people because of their skill and duty to the people. Although they are but one person, they are one person with an enormous sphere of influence, and they have a massive amount of power due to it.

Part1.1A

Prejudice does get in the way of the truth. It can cloud our minds of things that aren't necessarily true. Juror 3 is a good example of this, in the way that he believes that there is no point in discussing the case, since the defendant's guilt is plain, and he is quick to insult and browbeat anyone who suggests otherwise, just because the defendant is from the slums. People from the slums get a bad reputation from what juror 3 thinks, they are all drunks, always up to mischief and can't be trusted, leaving him with a guilty charge. Prejudice can get in the way of the truth if you aren't careful.

Part1.4B

Details are very crucial in the work that you do every day. If a single detail is missing from the equation then the outcome will be different. The details in the play Twelve Angry Men were what saved the defendant from being locked up in prison for something he didn't do. When the jurors acted out the crime scene, they went back to what the old man and the women had to say in order to prove the defendant's innocence. Small details missing, could sway the outcome of  your answer.

Part2.6A

In the play Twelve Angry Men the one individual who is determined is Juror 8. He does not argue that the man is innocent but says that he cannot condemn a man to death without discussing the case first. Juror 8 is determined to solve the case, unlike any of the other jurors in the play. He comes up with an elaborate way to solve the mystery by timing the death of the victim to prove the old man and the women across the street's guilt; however, by doing this he sways the other jurors opinions to not guilty. with a little determination, you can achieve many things.

Part 1. 2A

To get to the bottom of a problem takes a great amount of time and effort. This refers back to Juror 8 during Act 2 when he makes an effort unlike any of the other jurors to solve the crime. Juror 8 is prepared to be assertive if need be, in order to get the truth. He also proves that the defendant is not guilty, Because of Juror 8 stepping in to sway the other jurors opinions about the crime he proved the defendant's innocence, so the defendant didn't end up in jail.

Part 1- 4B

Details are important in everything you do. Details not only shape a story,  they also shape your reaction of the story. If you are explaining something to someone and you leave out a ton of details that can greatly affect what the person is thinking about the situation. People leave out details in their story's all the time, which leads to both miscommunications and mishaps. Just one single detail could potentially change a persons viewpoint from good to bad., or in this case guilty to not guilty. If you don't pay attention to all details and examine them thoroughly,  you WILL be jeopardizing whatever you are deciding. It only takes one small thing to make a huge change.

6A (Act 2) Chris Burleson

During the trial, Juror 8 ends up being one of the most influential jurors out of the bunch. His calm manner and well-thought out arguments help him tremendously in converting the other jurors to his side of not guilty. After Juror 8's different arguments, the other jurors begin to switch sides like Juror 5 when he states, "I'd like to change my vote to not guilty," (Rose 36). Juror 5 is not the only one to be won over for by the end of the trial, Juror 8 has managed to get everyone to switch to not guilty, even the extremely reluctant Juror 3. All of this proves that one determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence.

2A Chris Burleson

As exhibited by the jurors early attitudes, the trial has taken a vast amount of time. The question by Juror 4 that, "shall we all admit that it is hot and humid and that our tempers are short" (Rose 11), shows that it has been awhile and that the length of the trial has attributed to the juror's restlessness. While the trial did take an entire week, this time was absolutely necessary in getting to the bottom of a complex and high-stakes issue like the murder of a man. The time was well spent in this case. While it may be tedious, many complex issues require a large amount of time and effort to get to the bottom of.

Part 1- 6A

It is super important, when your working with a group of people, to test others' opinions, question their assumptions, and most importantly draw your OWN conclusions. In the play "Twelve Angry Man" the 12 jurors all test the opinions of juror eight by acting out the crime scene and timing it to more accurately understand what happened, and They compare these test results to the times that were stated in the testimonies. omce they test the opinions they talk about what they had just done and question what they were thinking before and how it could have been wrong. The last part of drawing your own conclusions is defiantly the most important part of this, because far to often we tend to lean towards what the majority of the people are for even though we may be totally against it. That is what all of the jurors in this story do they make their conclusion based off of what they have heard, and don't just choose something because that's what everyone else is doing.

Part 1- 1B

Prejudice can get in the way of the truth in certain situations. You can get so preoccupied in a singers looks or money that you don't even realize they aren't that good of a singer, and the only reason you think they are amazing is because of how they look and the amount of money they have. If you are very prejudice towards something it will definantly affect how you see things and this will lead you away from the truth. Now, even though this could be a possibility I also believe that prejudice does  not always get in the way of the truth. An example would be a mothers perspective on her sons baseball skills, now even though she will tell him he is amazing and the best player on the field, she knows this may not always be true. She definantly is prejudiced towards him, but she still understands that there will be better people out there and she doesn't want to hurt her son by telling him the truth. So prejudice towards the truth  can definantly go both ways, it just depends on the situation.

1A- Amanda Esteves

Prejudice gets in the way of the truth. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, prejudice is displayed by Juror 10. Juror 10 refers to the the defendant as "those people" meaning that juror 10 is placing all of the troublemakers, and different colored skin people into one category. In Act three, Juror 10 goes on a long monologue explaining how he doesn't understand the other jurors and asking how they could, "this kid is innocent? Look, you know those people lie. I don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is. And let me tell you, they -- don't need any real reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Nobody's blaming them. That's how they are. You know what I mean? Violent!" (Rose #59). Juror 10 was being prejudice by categorizing the defendant as one of "those people".

1B (Act 2) Chris Burleson

When presenting your opinion or argument, gaining the respect and interest of your audience is very important. Without earning these things, your argument is deemed useless and does not accomplish anything. However, there are many ways to capture your audience with the most important being to respect them and remain civil. Nobody wants to have someone yell at them angrily in any situation. It shows that the person is unable to control their emotions and therefore results in the loss of respect and interest in that person's argument. Being civil does in fact encourage your opponents, or audience, to keep listening to you.

Part one- 2A

Getting to the bottom of a complex issue definitely take a ton of time and effort.  If it doesn't take a lot of time and effort you either didn't do it correctly or didn't spend enough time getting the most efficient answer to your problem. It's very hard to get to the bottom of a complex issue, and most of the time we just end up going with whatever seems the most obvious at the time, even though it may not be the right thing. This issue basically takes place the whole time in the play "Twelve Angry Men". Juror number eight, in the beginning, is the only one who doesn't jump to conclusions and votes guilty, the which is the most obvious thing at that moment. The juror really looks at the case and does a thorough investigation to make sure they aren't missing any major points. This juror finds many reasons to have reasonable doubt in the dependent and he slowly changes all the jurors minds to not guilty. If it wasn't for one juror who decided to stick out and take their time looking at the crime an innocent man would have been in prison. This is just one example of many, this happens everyday from not taking enough time doing math homework to a crime scene just like this. Just taking your time and putting a little more effort into something can greatly effect the outcome of the situation.

Part Two: 3A- Allison McCarty

Coalitions can work for or against you-- and they can shift in Twelve Angry Men.

There were many alliances that the jurors made in Twelve Angry Men. All of Juror Eight's alliances worked out for him in the end, because he presented undeniable evidence and a calm demeanor that made people want to agree with him. One alliance that didn't work out in the end though was the bond between Juror Four and Juror Three. They always listened to one another and voiced their opinions many times, but towards the end, Juror Three kept denying the facts, which made Juror Four stop listening to him. Juror Three then began to beg Juror Four to help him and stay on his side, but Juror Four finally agreed with Juror Eight and didn't want to side with Juror Three's nonsense anymore.

1B Chris Burleson

Humans form prejudice due to many different encounters in life. It is very common for everyone to experience these feelings against others many times in their life. Despite the commonness of this attitude, prejudice is never positive. No matter how hard humans try, we cannot deny that prejudice effects the way we think about something and may cloud our opinions in shying them away from the truth. Our preformed opinions about someone or something will always cause us to believe what we think off of these thoughts is correct and dismiss any other conflicting argument which may in fact be right. Prejudice can, and will, always get in the way of the truth.

4a

When arguing a point, both silence and persistence can be virtues, if used at the right time.In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 8 consistently argued his point by being patient and listening to what others had to say. However, when the right moment struck, he took advantage and proved a major point. When Juror 8 was arguing with Juror 3, he took advantage of his rage and said he would kill Juror 8. Juror 8 used this to prove that even if someone says,"I'll kill him! I'll kill him!"(Rose 43), that doesn't mean they will, which proved Juror 8's view.

Part Two: 1A- Allison McCarty

Civility will encourage your opponents to listen to you in Twelve Angry Men.

Juror Eight is a perfect example of how civility will get your opponents to listen to you, even if they don't agree with you. At first, none of the jurors thought he had anything important to say, thinking that he was hanging to loose strings that weren't real evidence. But gradually, he created more and more doubt throughout the jury, just by being calm and collected. He listened to everyone, despite them not being civil to him, and guided all of the jurors to the conclusion that he was hoping for. Juror Eight the best example of when in doubt, be civil.

1b

Civility is important in our society today. Now, when there is a disagreement, it's usually handled with yelling or violence, which is never effective, especially when making an important decision. As proved in Twelve Angry Men, when you argue your view with diplomacy, your opponents will listen, and most will also be as civil. When you try to force your view on someone, they will not listen, and they will only disagree with your idea.

Part 2- 6A

In Twelve Angry Men, the one determined and skilled individual, that can wield a lot of influence is juror 8. He is a talented man when when it comes to persuasion. He was able to explain the side of facts that proved the defendant innocent. He broke apart the evidence the prosecution brought into court, and made cleat the parts that were lacking solidity. Juror 8 persuaded all the other jurors, who were convinced that the defendant was guilty,  that he was actually innocent. Juror 8 had a lot of influence of the decisions the rest of the jurors made, he was the reason they changed their minds all because of his powers of persuasion.

Part One: 6A- Allison McCarty

Test others' opinions, question their assumptions, and draw your own conclusions in Twelve Angry Men.

When Juror Eight stood up to all the other jurors in the play, he always stuck to his words. Although he was vastly outnumbered in his unpopular opinion, he always backed it up with unshakable evidence. When others attacked him and told him he was wrong, he calmly listened to what they had to say. Once they were done, he'd contradict them with evidence from the case or how he thought it went (like when he acted out the old man getting to his door). Juror Eight always tested others opinions, and was respectful to others when they didn't agree, but never gave up in his pursuit of justice. He convinced the other jurors that there was reasonable doubt and stuck to his opinion. 

Part 2- 1B

Civility will encourage your opponents to keep listening to you, because when you respect their point of view, they are more likely yo reciprocate that respect. If you are in a disagreement and you are not civil, it could turn into a competition to see who can shout the loudest and who has the best comebacks, not who makes the most logical and convincing argument. When you listen carefully and are calm, you might also learn something. But nevertheless being civil will give you a better opportunity to add in your point of view or make you side known and understood.

6a

Twelve Angry Men proves just how important the details are, and how you must question everything you know to come to a proper conclusion. The best example of this would be in Act One, when the foreman brings in the knife for the jurors. It was supposedly one-of-a-kind, which was proved wrong when Juror 8 pulled out the exact same "one-of-a-kind" knife from,"a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house"(Rose 24). Something that all the jurors thought was an unquestionable fact turned out to not be true, and so they could make a new conclusion about crucial evidence.

Part 1- 2A

Complex situations take time to get to the bottom of, because there are many different aspects of that need to be taken into account. In Twelve Angry Men, juror 8 knows that the situation they are in should not be cut and dry, everything needs to be looked at and taken apart to be inspected . The defendant deserves their time and the jurors must put effort into this case so that they may be confidant in their decision.

Part 1 1b

Prejudice gets in the way of truth. When have we not seen this in life? We believe or are taught one way or one thing in life and then that ends up shaping how we perceive things later on. When you have already made up your mind on a topic, do you not want others to feel the same way about it? If you feel that school should be let out at 3 p.m. instead of 4 p.m., why wouldn't you want others to feel the same way as you? Now to relate this to the topic, if you show prejudice towards Mexicans and believe that whites are better, you would want others to feel that way as well. You wouldn't want others to call you out and say that you were wrong and everyone is equal, because that's the truth, everyone is. There is no better race and that's the cold hard truth, but you will still want to believe in your lie, because it's how you know your life to be so far and how you view everything.

4a- Jamie Holliday

Details are what make a story or event tick. Without them, how are we suppose to fit the pieces of a crime, the this case, together. In the play "Twelve Angry Men", juror eight goes back to talking about the lady that supposedly witnessed the murder. They had already talked about how she could have seen it and at what time she saw it happen. What juror eight points out is that during the trial, the lady had bifocals on. Bifocals are really thick glasses that show that a person wearing them has a great deal of trouble seeing. Knowing this background information, juror eight persuades the other jurors to think that most people don't put their glasses on just to see out the window or to get up in the middle of the night. So, juror eight assumes that she was not wearing her glasses when she supposedly saw the murder happening. Without juror eight bringing the detail up, the jurors would still think she is a key eye witness and that might have put the boy in a position to be guilty.

Part 1- 5B

There are many different interpretations of the "facts", especially when it comes to gossip. Rumors can fly off of facts that are misinterpreted. Due to the fact people have different personalities, and take actions and words a different way than others, we don't all interpret things exactly as everyone else does. Facts can get lost in the grape vine when people interpret them how they weren't meant to be interpreted.

3a- Jamie Holliday

There are sayings about trusting your gut and that your gut is always right. I wouldn't trust my gut off of a feeling. I would obviously check it out before I do anything drastic. Juror eight displays this in "Twelve Angry Men", when he ,in the very beginning, talks about a feeling that he has that the defendant is not guilty. He then went to check out the evidence and realized that his gut was right. On the other side of that, juror three shows how you can trust your intuitions too much and you can get the wrong idea. All throughout the play, juror three is one of the only ones that never changed his mind. Partially because he just wanted to get the trial over with and that he was using pre-implanted ideas that he has had his life. He trusted his intuitions so much, that he in the end gave way to saying not guilty because he was the odd man out. In the end, though, I believe he still thought that the boy was guilty and just gave way to get it over with.

1a

In Twelve Angry Men, there are many examples of prejudice. Specifically in the beginning of Act One, almost all the jurors, with the exception of 8, believe the boy is guilty. However, when asked for an explanation as to why they think he's guilty, they can come up with no reason. For example, when asked why he believed the defendant was guilty he simply replied with,"Oh. Well... I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious"(Rose 17). He has no reason to proclaim the defendant's guilt if he has no actual reasoning in the first place.

Part 1 2a

Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. In the play, all of the men, except for one, we're ready to say this was a guilty man. They didn't want to talk about it at all because they were tired and hot. Juror 8 was the only one who actually wanted a conversation about what they had received from the lawyers. He wanted to give the kid a fighting chance, otherwise his life would have been over. Juror 8 eventually begins to sway people over to the not guilty side because over time he begins to put reasonable doubt into their minds. While this took a lot of effort to do, he was willing to because he knew it was the right thing to do. If he were to just give in and not talk about it, the kid would have been doomed but the evidence they found through the length of the play which was valid and proved reasonable doubt in my mind, kept him alive.

Madison Part 2 #5 B

Patient silence and loud persistence can both be powerful, at the right times. At times being strong in your tone in voice as well as strength in argument is needed to prove the point you are trying to make but at points a softer approach is more appropriate rather than pushing your beliefs through forceful tones and actions. Being able to decide the appropriate times for both of theses strategies could be difficult as well as very important and a key in your argument.

Part 2-4A

In the play, juror #8 uses the tactic of reasoning, while juror #3 is assertive. Both can be powerful tactics, but i think that reasoning is best in the play because it is a criminal case. You need reasoning in this situation because being forceful only makes you look bad as juror #3 shows when he threatens juror #8. Juror #8 convinces many other jurors while juror #3 looks like a fool.

A4

Its important to be open to other peoples propositions even when you don't agree at all. In "Twelve Angry Men" Juror 3 was the last to say not guilty even though he didn't want to because of his disregard for the other jurors opinions. This demonstrates that people can be stubborn and only think negative of others perspectives. If a person is willing to be cooperative they need to be Open minded to the voice of others.

Pt.1: 1B - Sophie Astro

Without really understanding something, how would you know it's completely true? We can't assume if something is true or false. The facts and background should determine the accuracy of a statement. Prejudice can sometimes interfere with the truth. Before we conclude if something is right or wrong, we should have a good knowledge about why it would be true or false. If you don't know the whole story behind it, there's no way it can be 100 percent true.

Madison Part 2 #3 A

Coalitions can work for or against you -- and they can shift. In Twelve Angry Men, juror eight started standing alone with 11 people against him, but as he gained more people to see his view point they began pointing things out that helped the not guilty that jurors side grew. The guilty side did not have a successful coalition when juror ten began talking racially hurting their sides strength.  

1a- Jamie Holliday

Prejudice is something that is implanted in every person's mind when someone meets someone new. We judge them for what they appear to be like and then compare them to other times and stories we have heard that sound like them. This is what gets in the way of some of the jurors opinions in the play "Twelve Angry Men". Juror ten is a great example of this. He argues at one point about why they're even considering some of the facts when, in his opinion, they're not applicable. The reason he thinks some of the facts are not applicable is because of where the defendant comes from, or where he lives. Since the defendant was from a bad part of town, he prejudices the boy just because of stories he's heard about what people are like that come from that area. Another juror then speaks up and says he is from the same part of town that the defendant is from and that he is a middle-class working citizen. He talks about that even though you grow up in a specific situation doesn't mean that you will be affected by that situation.

4b

Reason and assertiveness are very important skills to have in everyday life being able to use reason to make proper calls and decisions is very important. Also being able to take few fact and make them into something after looking over them constantly is good because it can help to make hard decisions easier. In the play then men had to reason over the few pieces of evidence after many long hours of rummaging through detail they came to a conclusion based on their views and what the saw.

Part One: 1A- Allison McCarty

Prejudice gets in the way of Truth and how it applies to Twelve Angry Men.

At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men, many of the jurors vote guilty when asked to say their opinion, mostly because the defendant comes from the slums. The jurors hold prejudice against the people living in the slums, Juror Ten going so far to say that they are used to killing people because they live in poverty and violence. Juror Ten is even one of the last characters in the book to hold out against a not guilty verdict because of his out dated beliefs. Society is even like this today, siding with their opinion on what they think a group is like instead of listening to the facts.

In Twelve Angry Men, the majority of the play is Juror Eight trying to convince everyone else that the defendant is not guilty because of reasonable doubt, and that includes him breaking down the prejudice that plagues the jury. Once Juror Eight begins to dismantle the stereotypical views that the jurors hold of the defendant and his background, they come to a agreement of not guilty.

Madison #6 A

Test others' opinions, question their assumptions, and draw your own conclusions. In Twelve Angry Men, from the beginning of the play juror eight had tested juror three's thoughts and assumptions as assistance to prove certain points. For example, at the end of act two the action of juror three stating "I'll kill him" and juror eight replying with "you don't really mean you'll kill me do you?" (Rose 43). Testing others opinions can assist with a point you can or are arguing.

6a

I feel that in 12 angry men their was a juror who stood out as more powerful and convincing then the others and that's juror 8 because he was always so confident in the non guilty verdict that he had to persuade other to that side to he used every piece of evidence he could find to back him up and through his determination he was able to persuade that whole jury to a non guilty verdict. I think it's imporant for us to persuade and push people to what we belive is right to especially if you have evidence to back yourself up.

Lauren Ahn 1A

Predjudice gets in the way of the cold hard facts because in Twelve Angry Men, some of them already had a pre-conceived idea because they lived in the slums they were used to the kind of activity that went on in the slums, therefore created a stereotypical approach to the boys innocence and gives an unfair verdict to the defendant.

Part 2-6A

Juror #8 had one of the biggest influences on the other jurors. He was the only person that had reasonable doubt at first and proved that the witness was lying. He was determined to find everyones answer about the verdict, and he did it skillfully. He got many jurors to change their decision in the play. In the end, he was the most influential on all the jurors because he was determined.

5a- Jamie Holliday

Facts are the most important details in a criminal case. It pieces together what the court did or did not see. In "Twelve Angry Men", the jurors had no sense of what had happened other than that a young boy is on trial for the murder of his father. As the plot thickens, juror eight brings up one side of a fact and juror three brings up the other view of the facts. Throughout the play, jurors eight and three argue about the interpretations of the facts being corrupted by already planted ideas in their minds. For example, juror ten describes/ identifies the man as an african american when in reality the defendant is italian. These already planted ideas are what make facts tricky. One person can look at a negative point of view, and another person can look at the positive view. In the end, though, juror eight is the one who interpreted the facts for what they are and not for what was seen at first glance.

B1 - part 2

The definition of civility is formal politeness and courtesy in behavior and speech. Being kind yet firm is the best way to get people to listen to what you have to say. On top of that, practicing civility will also get most everybody’s attention. Throughout my life I have had a lot of opportunities to practice civility with my siblings. When my parents put me in charge of babysitting them, I find that the best way that they will listen to me is if I am patient and I don’t put them down; or in other words, being civil towards another is the best way to get others to listen, especially stubborn siblings. When civility is directed towards another person, that person will most likely fill respected and more inclined to respond in the same way and to listen to what is being said.

Part 2 1B

We, as humans, tend to get emotional and we trust our instincts to lead us to where we are getting to, whether that be an actual place or winning an argument. During the debating or arguing process, when we think that we aren't being heard, we get louder, more forward, and try to win with comebacks; all in order to prove our point(s). Though when you are calm and collected, it will be the opposite, it allows your “opponents” to have the opportunity to listen to your ideas and your reasons in order to prove your point. In exchange they will most likely do the same thing, for they have no purpose to get emotional or use their instincts in order to win the argument. Being civil is something that people don’t tend to use on a daily basis, though this may be because of the fact that we see it everyday, and when we catch a glimpse of someone being uncivil, it’s a different sight. Usually, it will have mixed reactions, whether the person agrees with the individual’s argument; but most think that the individual is acting uncivilized, crazy, and too wild. Those that treat those in a civilized manner, tend to get farther than those that act ill-mannered.

Lauren Ahn 6a

Testing others statements and assumptions can show if the person really means what they say or is just saying it to go against what what everyone else thinks is right. For example when juror eight tested juror three's statement when juror three claimed that when someone says "ill kill you" that they wouldnt say it unless they mean it, so juror number eight provoked three and finally got him to say "ill kill him! ill kill him!" which contradicts what he said earlier and makes him hypocritical.

B1

I belive that being civil does help people to understand and want to listen to you. Unlike when juror 10 went on his racist rant and everyone looked away from him people like juror 8 who are civil and patiently tell their point of view are more like likely to get followers because when people are getting yelled are or talked rudely to it make it more difficult to want to listen. This is why I believe being civil during situations can help to prove your point even if you are quieter and more peaceful.

A3

It's critical that you look through even the smallest detail in a situation. Because you need to consider that those small details can be very influential and may turn the case around. For example when one of the jurors pointed out that the lady across the street had impaired vision, this completely changed the way everyone came across this situation. It is important that you pay attention to small detail because its what determines one outcome from another.

2b

In everyday life complex choices are forced apon us. In the story twelve random people who probably had no liking to jury time were forced to deliberate for hours and take all the time they needed to come up with a correct verdict based on the information. We are forced to make complex decisions to and I believe that it's very important to take our time and think through the options clearly before making any rash decisions.

Will Metcalf 2B

1. Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. This theme is easily applicable to real-life scenarios, as it a complex issue demands a complex investigation. A hunch or gut feeling is normally without reason or consideration, and and can result in a hasty arrival at an incorrect conclusion. For example, if you conclude something about a person based on who you perceive them to be, instead of getting to know them first, you will often find yourself sorely mistaken at the result, leaving you wondering why you did not step back and take the time to take the time and effort to fully analyze the issue at hand.

Lauren Ahn 4b

Even the smallest details can make the biggest differences.For example, say you are trying to find out if a friend lied to you, you may think that you have the answer but at the last minute you remember one small piece of information which completely changes the situation and that one detail can make your answer completely turn around. in Twelve Angry Men, the little details just like when they tested how long it actually took the old man to get to the door.that changed the verdicts among some jurors. the little details are still big details in the end.

Part 2 6A

In “Twelve Angry Men,” the play is about 12 jurors deciding the fate of a difficult case in the 1950’s. Though the main reason of them discussing the case and reexamining the evidence is because of one juror, juror 8 questions the guilty verdict of all the rest of the jurors claim. The persistence of juror 8’s questions and disproving facts, leads to the eventual verdict of “Not Guilty” because of reasonable doubt. The way that juror 8 was able to sway the rest of the jurors was by simply using his knowledge and questions in order to get the answers that nobody would have guessed or looked for in the first place. His mentality to question everything until there was an answer, lead the other jurors to question the “Guilty” verdict as well, until the very last juror, juror 3. Even though juror 8 probably didn’t know he was, but he was influencing the rest of the jury (men) to make sure that all the evidence pieces together in order for the verdict to be right.

A2

It becomes evident in the initial stages of the case that the majority of the jurors have already established conceptions in regards to the defendant’s guilt. This is seen by the 3rd Juror’s comment of “it .. amazes me the way these lawyers talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this one”. It is through this comment in which we see how easily we form a rigid perception in regards to an issue, therefor making it difficult for us to get rid of our original concepts in the fight for true justice.

2A

In the beginning of the play, the jurors obviously want a quick verdict that will allow them to move on from the experience, go home and go back to their lives. Though this becomes the opposite of this, as soon as the voting ends up as an unbalanced verdict and causes an outbreak of questioning and going over the evidence, and after relentless arguments and having the evidence re-examined, it leads to the verdict of 12 “Not Guilty.” The only way they got to this verdict was through taking the effort of questioning the holes in the crime, disproving the old man’s witness statement of the timing, disproving the old woman’s witness statement of seeing the defendant kill the victim, without her glasses, and also recreating the actual crime. The timing in the play of how long the verdict took to come to agreement is not exact. But the time to read and act the play, made it seem to take longer for the jury to reach a verdict. The fact that the jurors even argued whether or not that they were a hung jury, took time itself.

6B

When people test others opinions it allows them to come to their own opinions. The point of arguing is to hear each others opinions in a usually “aggressive” or emotional state that eventually leads to one party winning the argument or the more common compromise. Even though this isn't about arguing, its the general principle, to get to the bottom of the truth or situation, and for people to question everything in order to prove their points and opinions. You draw your conclusions by listening to the opposing party which finally leads to an overall point to the conversation. For example, if your parents want you to not have any social media outlets because they worry for the content you, a teenager, would share to the world; is the opinion of your parents and something that you and most teens, don’t agree with. Then you, wanting to prove your point of why social media is acceptable for you and the benefits to it, questions you’re parents authority and their statements of why you can’t social media. Though this argument can go in different directions, the overall discussion is whether or not you should be able to have social media; and now depending on the outcome to the argument, you may still believe that you should be able to have social media or that maybe you being a minor, can go without social media for the time being.

a3

Intuition can come as a helpful tool, or a dangerous pride issue. In the case of almost every juror, it was a pride issue that, if hadn't been challenged by juror 8, may have lead to the conviction of this boy. There is no room for egos in a trial of that size. Some of the jurors are so strong minded, that they would be willing to " lock that kid up forever"(Rose#10). You sometimes have to stop and actually question yourself, and maybe even ask, "Am I wrong?". It could very be what changes the decisions you make, and your thought process.

a1

Prejudice lives within every single person. Wether or not we chose to let that side of us come out, decides our say in a situation. Juror 10 is repeatedly accused of trying to inject his own prejudice ideas into the trial. And he does so very openly. He came across as almost foolish to the other jurors, and was ridiculed, and was eventually swayed away from his side of the argument. Prejudice may have its effect in your mind differently then in the mind of someone else.

1A

In "Twelve Angry Men" it teaches you that you need to be open minded and accepting of as many points of view as possible, If you have this, then any outcome could be produced. The discussions in the jury room are geared towards showing the different perspectives needed to render an effective verdict. Once they cover these different view points then everything starts to fall in place.

6A

One determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. In the play Twelve Angry Men this proved to be very true. At first, all of the jurors were completely sure that that the boy was guilty without a reasonable doubt. There was one man though who did not believe this and stood on his own slowly changing the jurors minds. He was able to prove facts inaccurate and save the boy from a life in prison for something he most likely may not have done, all because of his determination to show the other side of the story.

4A

Assertiveness and reason can be powerful when used correctly. When Juror 8 used both of these tactics it worked in his favor. The others jurors that tried these same tactics ended up failing because they contradicted themselves or Juror 8 contradicted them. Other jurors, like Juror 3, got too emotional when discussing their arguments. In Act Three, "How do you know what she saw? Maybe she's far-sighted...How does he know all these things" (Rose 62). Juror 3 lost whatever kind of argument he was going to create when he got too emotional. He was more angry at Juror 8 not voting the same way as him, that he lost his argument.

4b

It's easy to overlook details, especially whenever the main problem seems so huge and overwhelming. Very few people sit down and really riddle out how small details can tip the scale for them. Usually people overlook details that involve what someone else may have experienced, such as an el train "mak[ing] a lot of noise"(Rose#32). Taking into consideration how others view an incident, or how they may have possibly behaved, usually can offer insight that changes everyone's view on a matter.

1A

In the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror 8, the main protagonist, remains calm throughout the yelling and the arguments of the other eleven jurors. He presents his arguments time after time even though at first, no else agrees with him. He also uses his powers of observation to gradually influence the others to see the bigger picture. "I want to talk for a while. Look-this boys been kicked around all his life. You know-living in a slum-his mother dead since he was nine. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock 'em over the head once a day, everyday. I think maybe we owe him a few words" (Rose 15). By remaining calm, Juror 8 was able to keep the attention of his opposers.

Part 1-2A

In the play, getting to the verdict, takes a lot of time and effort. The whole play is 3 total acts, which is a great deal of time. Also, during those acts, there is a lot of arguing and bickering, which takes a bunch of effort. All of the jurors are on a complex task of deciding whether they think the defendant is innocent or guilty, that is how it applies to the play.

Part 1-3b

Intuitions are a valuable resource in your life. When you know you're behaving in a way you shouldn't, you have a little voice in the back of your head telling you whether it's a good idea or not, that's your natural intuition. Or if you are hearing a lie, and you automatically just know that the person is being dishonest without them having to tell you they're lying. First you have to check and make sure your intuitions are true because if you act on them, and they aren't true, bad consequences could occur.

2b-ERICA H

 Any issue, even a small one, can take a lot of time and energy, but the potential consequences of the decision truly dictates the care that is taken when considering a choice. Juror 8, who starts out as the only juror even interested in trying the boy not guilty, states "there's a life at stake here."(Rose#18). Of course not every life situation will be so risky, but the size and severity of a consequence, especially if it greatly affects yourself or another person, will most likely be the ultimate factor in deciding how much thought you put into an issue.

2A

We all encounter that one person that says something so ignorant and unreasonable, that you just want to get away from. Prejudice will make you that person. A biased opinion reflects you poorly to others, because most of the time, it is not a reasonable opinion. The worst instants of this show people denying other people views, because all of their lives, they have been told otherwise by friends and family. Kids are easily vulnerable as their minds are still growing, and they are more gullible. Before voicing an opinion you have only been informed of through word, try to hear what the other person says, and take it into account.

2B

Procrastination is very disabling, and being lazy is a very poor attribute to hold, especially when it comes to dealing with the real world. If its not something you fix by the time you grow up, you will have trouble getting your work done in situations like your job, or school. People must understand that it takes work to get by in life, and you can't expect everything to come easily to you. I can say I have been a lazy person all my life, and it is something I need to get a hold of because it affects me very poorly, especially in school.

1A

Prejudice against others can get in the way of discovering the truth. This was almost the case with the defendant because many jurors, but mainly Juror 10, believed that because he lived in the slums he was guilty. "I don't understand you people. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how those people lie. I don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is. And let me tell you they-don't need any big reason to kill someone, either" (Rose 59). This juror let his prejudice get in the way of hearing the facts. All he wanted to do was send the defendant off to die without hearing the other side of the story first. He was even willing to be the boy's executioner. If it hadn't been for others with a clear head, the story might have ended up differently.

5A

Every single piece of evidence in Twelve Angry Men is presented to us, and most jurors instantly vote guilty because it all looks solid to them. The further we get into the screenplay, the quicker we realize that there is more to the evidence than we think. The jurors begin to see that there are some doubts to a lot of the evidence presented to them. We see that a lot of these situations are unreasonable, and are likely unbelievable. When they are presented with facts, they question them and interpret them differently.

6A

One determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. Juror eight is the perfect example of this. At the beginning of the play, he was the only person who voted guilty. In the end, he was able to persuade all the other judges to change their votes due to possible doubt. Not only was he persistent in his claim but he also used skills such as listening and remembering. He remembered almost every piece of evidence from the trial and then further analyzed that information with prior knowledge from his experiences. He displayed his listening skills in Act II. "Let me go! I'll kill him! I'll kill him!" (Juror Three page 43) "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?" (Juror Eight page 43). Juror eight was paying such close attention to what the other juror was saying and he caught him when he contradicted himself. When the other jurors understood what had happened, it made it harder for them to side with someone who didn't seem to know what he was talking about.

6A

Other people have opinions that may be different than yours and that's okay, but there is no reason why you shouldn't discuss your opinion with others. With most arguments, people on both ends benefit with an answer by the end. When people deny that they might be wrong, and refuse to debate, no one benefits, and all they do is agree to disagree. People like juror 3 don't change their views on things because of other people. Though he voted not guilty, he likely didn't agree with the decision and wanted to end the debate. So the situation ended, but he left none the better.

6B

You should never openly believe or follow someones opinion without first questioning their assumptions.  It is important to draw your own conclusion based on your knowledge. In life, it is never good to openly follow someones opinion because their facts seem correct. For example, a lot of students have study groups in which they split up some questions and discuss them as a group once they have finished. In this case it is important that the whole group has a discussion over the finished answers. If people just blindly copy the other person's answers, how will they know if the others are correct? Because you exchanged answers, you are fully relying on the other person to have gotten them right. It is essential for one to make their own conclusions.

Part 1~1A

In the play, prejudice does get in the way of the truth. Juror #3 proves this for us. He judges the defendant by his background, and also, where he lives. Juror #3 even gets so angry because he is prejudice, that he threatens to "kill" juror #8. His mind is clouded and gets in the way of the actual truth. He is proven wrong multiple times but he is still close minded because of what he thinks of the defendant.

Part 1-2b

In Twelve Angry Men, it takes extensive research and time to finally get to the bottom of the issue. Much effort is put in by all of the jurors to figure out the verdict of the case. For example they reenacted the stabbing scene and the scene where the old man walks from the bed to the door to find out the accurate timing of the situation. The jurors could of easily walked away from the case and said "guilty" but they decided to commit and put in the time and energy to get to the resolution no matter how long it takes.

2B

The Jurors all at the beginning of the play Twelve Angry Men were arguing and wanted to get out of the hot juror room, and they just wanted to get away from each other. The jurors just wanted to prove him guilty and move on, but juror 8 put everything he had into that case, and he ended up getting what he wanted he convinced 11 other men that the boy that was accused of killing his dad was not guilty, that just proves to all of us that we should look at the whole situation instead of jumping to conclusions.

1A

Prejudice gets in the way of the truth. Biases are strong and affects how people view a certain subject based on their personal experiences on what they have seen or heard. This can be seen with juror 3, and 10 especially. Juror ten brought his prejudice with him to the deliberation, calling the defendant one of "those people." Whatever he may be describing, it is obvious that he was relying on his past biases, and not paying attention to only the evidence. Because of this fact, his view on the case could have been offset and, had he not had his biases, his view on the case would most likely have been different earlier on.

2A

The jurors in the play weren't letting juror 8 look at the whole play, they were just wanting to jump right to conclusions to be done with it. Juror 8 wanted to let the boy tell the whole story, and when he did he got to the bottom of it, and they found a ton more evidence about the case instead of just stereo typing the kid. They looked at how the woman across the street couldn't have seen the murder, because she wasn't wearing her glasses.

A6 - MacKenzie

In "Twelve Angry Men" the jurors should have tested others opinions, questioned their assumptions and drawn their own conclusions during the process of figuring out if the boy was guilty or not guilty because doing so would have really made them think independently and deeply about what they were saying and hearing. If you draw your own conclusions based on the things you heard from others really makes you think. Questioning others also really makes you deeply think because you have to ask yourself if you agree or disagree with what someone else is saying.

5A

There are multiple interpretations of facts. This can be seen in the play when juror 8 is bringing the point up that the elderly man's testimony might not have been as accurate as he had said. Throughout the play, each jurors take on the facts opened up new views for the jury to deliberate from as they tried to put together what happened. Some of they other jurors, such as number 3, refused to believe what most of the other jurors thought because he did not view what the others firmly believed, as facts. Due to the fact that people read facts differently, not all jurors saw all of the evidence as solid. They each painted their own conclusions based on which of the pieces of evidence they viewed as facts.

6A

Being determined, and having the skill to persuade people is a great quality. Juror 8 convinced every single one of those judges that he was not guilty. Juror 3 took all the convincing he had, but Juror 8 had some very solid points throughout the play, if you can convince people to do what you want then you can get whatever you want or believe is right much like Juror 8.

Part 2-1a

In Twelve Angry Men, the jurors had a strong disliking towards juror 3 because all he would do is yell and get upset, so no one would like to listen or agree with him. When juror 8 was really calm and would continually show evidence to everyone and make it peacable, it made it easy to maintain a conversation with him. Naturally humans don't respond well to being yelled at, so just talking in a normal tone and being understanding is what we are drawn to and what juror 8 grasps well.

6B Part Two - MacKenzie

One single person, with the right mindset, can change the way others think about a situation. If you disagree with everyone around you, but you know you're right, and you can persuade the others you can change the way the others think about a situation. As long as you have the facts to back yourself up and can prove every word you're saying with valid evidence or reasoning you can influence others around you. For example Juror 8, in Twelve Angry Men, was able to get everyone to agree that the boy was not guilty.

2A-Sammi Grant

Listening to all the evidence and looking at the whole picture is a huge part of the case and i think juror 8 did an excellent job of that, because after looking at all the evidence the other jurors started to realize that maybe there was more to the story, and that maybe they were wrong about the boy. Juror 8 really knew how to persuade, because without him, the other jurors would've gotten no where.

2B

Getting to the bottom of an issue takes time. When one person has to make a decision, it can take them a long time, and with each person you add to the group, you are also adding their opinions of the matter, sometimes lengthening the decision making process. I know my it takes my family fifteen minutes to decide where to go for dinner. I can't imagine how long it would take to decide the fate of a persons life in court. Decisions like these take a lot of time and effort in order to be resolved.

Part 2- 5B

Patient silence and loud persistence can both be powerful, at the right times. Sometimes being a good listener and staying silent is as powerful as standing up for your beliefs. Martin Luther King Jr. organized and participated in peaceful protests for the civil rights of black citizens. Sometimes, it is easier to express what you are trying to say by not saying anything at all. All the jurors, except number 11, went to stand up and face away from it and it made him realise his hostility towards the boy. On the other hand, sometimes, it is better to stand up and verbalize what you stand for. Many rioters decide to fight for their beliefs by making big statements in a public place. Kurt Cobain from Nirvana was loud in their songs to get his feelings and points across. Their songs were very powerful and have touched a lot of people. There are other bands where the lead singer is loud to get the point across. Both of the types of power can come with consequences, both positive and negative, and just be prepared for both whenever the time comes.

2B - MacKenzie

Getting to the bottom of a complex issue does take time and effort because if you are trying to solve an issue between a group of people, like the disagreement between the jurors in Twelve Angry Men, you have to take the time to listen to everyones opinion and figure out whats true or not. What the real facts are and what aren't true facts! That takes time because people are going to twist around the story to back up what they're saying and from there it will only get worse. Resulting in it taking lots of time and effort.

Part 2-3b

In our own lives, we use coalitions everyday with family, friends, classmates and teammates. When you're trying to side with your siblings agaisnt your parents, you will almost always lose because they're your authority. But if you're in school trying to make a point to another student, you might have others, who are on your side, help you get the point across. Coalitions help build up your character and self esteem.

4A

Reason and assertiveness can both be powerful tactics, depending on the situation is really represented in the play. Whenever juror 8 used reason on discussing the evidence which was a right time, but whenever juror 3 used aggressive assertiveness against juror 3 it was at the wrong situation and actually hurt his point he was trying to make.

2B Austin M.

An example of, getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort, in real life would be: a detective trying to solve a case and it's a hard one to solve. He is in his office all night and day for a week not really putting all of his heart into it. But if he actually makes an effort and wants to solve it over time he eventually solves it because he actually tried to solve it. He just needed to try and take a little time to solve it. This is just me thinking off the top of my head.

4A

Details are something important and should be taken into consideration. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror 8 showed why the attention to detail is so important. Without his careful consideration several important facts would have been overlooked. He saved a possibly innocent man from death by taking a second look. "There were eleven votes for guilty-it's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first" (Rose 15). Juror 8 did not let prejudice get in the way of the truth. He presented the facts to the other jurors even when they didn't want to hear it. He was able to tear apart the prosecution's witnesses and figure out the most probable timeline of events. As seen in a later section of the play, "And maybe he didn't lie. Maybe he did lose the knife and maybe he did go to the movies. Maybe the reason the cashier didn't see him was because he sneaked into the movies, and maybe he was ashamed to say so. Is there anybody here who didn't sneak into the movies once or twice when they were young" (Rose 24). By making it personal, Juror 8 made the others think twice before sending the defendant off to die.

5B - MacKenzie

There are many interpretations of "the facts" because everyone has different ideas of whats the real facts are and what's not. For example if you and 3 other people witnessed a crime and you were asked to give your side of what you saw and give the facts that you know of the crime, what you say may be completely different from what someone else might say. Because what you would consider a fact might not be what someone else would consider a fact. Like in Twelve Angry Men the jurors would disagree on what they thought the true facts were because they had their own opinions on what was true!

2A Austin M.

Getting to the bottom of a complex does take time and effort. You have to put your mind to it and if you don't you will be trying to figure it out longer. In Twelve Angry Men the jurors took a long time to figure out if the defendant was guilty or not guilty. Not all of them put there all into this trial because they want to go home and not be there anymore. Eventually they saw that the defendant can be not guilty then they start actually working and come up with the final verdict.

Part 2: 2B

In life, it’s important that, if you want to convince someone of something, one takes their target/audience into account. Different groups of people have different faiths, beliefs, interests, hobbies, etc. and they're influenced by all of them. Because of these differences, people are persuaded in different ways. The way one would want to approach a child would differ vastly from the way you would an adult, for example. People respond better to some approaches than others, and some may even offend certain people, it's important to take that into account.

Part 2- 3A

Coalitions can work for you or against you -- they can also shift. In Twelve Angry Men there were a few coalitions formed to try to persuade opposing jurors to make the right decisions. It obviously depends on what side of the coalition you're on as to whether it works for you or not. Some people are against a group of people, like Juror 8, at the beginning. He was alone and had no one to back him up and it started to backfire until he started to get another juror to support his beliefs. A coalition can also shift back and forth. Origionally the views were 1-11 guilty, but it ended up being not guilty through many people varying their views and switching sides. When a juror had someone to support their story or view of the crime, they were stronger and it was easier to express their view.

Part 2: 1A

          As jurors 3 and 8 demonstrate, civility can work wonders in getting people to agree with you. During the entire play, Juror 8 was very calm and collected, while Juror 3 was pretty much yelling almost the entire time. He kept getting very worked up, while Juror 8 didn’t raise his voice once. One specific example of success of Juror 8’s approach was Juror 2, as he explained, “[Juror 8] seems so sure. And he has made a number of good points. While [Juror 3]... only gets mad and insults everybody” (Rose 48). Calm civility is more convincing than angry yelling every time- it’s no coincidence that Juror 8 was the one who got everyone else to be on his side.

Part 1: 5A

As the jurors learn in the play, “the facts” are all about how you perceive them. It’s only once you look at them from many different angles that you can draw an accurate conclusion. The jurors had only really considered the facts as the prosecution portrayed them- until Juror 8 drew their attention to different interpretations. For example, when they were discussing the kid’s alibi, the jurors took the facts that the kid had no stub and that the employees didn’t recognize him to mean that he couldn’t have been there. Juror 8 then pointed out that “maybe the reason the cashier didn’t see him was because he sneaked into the movies, and maybe he was ashamed to say so”, he even asked the jurors if “there [is] anybody here who didn’t sneak into the movies once or twice when they were young”, which nobody really denied (Rose 24). How the jurors perceived the facts was up to them, but it was only once they considered other sides of the story that they were finally able to reach a decisive conclusion.

Part 1- 6A

Test others opinions, question their assumptions, and draw your own conclusions. Others opinions shouldn't matter to anyone. They didn't matter to Juror 8 in Twelve Angry Men. He stood up for the boy who had nothing to say for himself in a room of people who were mostly deciding his fate based on a stereotype. He knew if he presented his doubts, he probably wasn't going to get a positive response and he didn't, but he stood his ground. He questioned the other Jurors stereotypes and prejudice because he felt he was the only advocate for the boy. The boy had made mistakes, but Juror 8 knew he probably didn't commit this crime, so drew his own conclusion and tried to convince others of his conclusion of not guilty.

1A

When you are not civil to others, they will not be willing to listen to you. This is displayed when Juror Ten goes on his rant about 'those people'. He critcizes any and everyone who has ever grown up in the slums, putting them all in the liar category and goes on to bash them openly in front of everyone. The other jurors start to get up and turn their back on him by going to the window, trying to indicate to him that he needs to stop talking because they don't have much respect for his opinion any more. He finally yells, "Well don't you know about them? Listen to me! What are you doing? I'm trying to tell you something!" (Juror Ten page 59 of Act III) Then juror four lets him know, "I've had enough. If you open your mouth again I'm going to split your skull." (Juror Four page 60 Act III) Because juror ten was so rude, not only did the other jurors not want to listen to him anymore, but one actually threatened to hurt him. The tone of his voice and his stereotypical word choice was enough for the other jurors to decide to ignore him all together. He could have gone a much different, nicer, more educated route and that might have produced a much different result. But he was doomed from the start because he choose to be uncivilized.

2B

People tailor there tactics to fit there targets everyday, and they might not even realize it. It is something that comes second nature to us. When a five year old breaks the rules you will most likely just put them in time out, so it teaches them to not break the rules again. But when a fifth-teen year old breaks the rules you will need to do something more than time out. So when a fifth-teen year old breaks the rules, you ground them. These two tactics of punishment are tailored for each individual age group, and will work a lot better in teaching them there lesson.

Part 2: 2A- Sinyoung Lee

In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the juror eight tailored his tactics against juror three. He schemed out to make juror three contradict himself and one of his strongest arguments. Juror eight gets juror three really rallied up and makes him yell, "I'll kill him!"(Rose 43). This proves juror eight's argument that the boy did not mean what he said when he was mad at his dad and said that he will kill him. Juror eight knew he could get juror three to heated easily and make him say something he did not mean. He knew the other person's weakness and used it against him to prove him wrong.

Part 1- 1B

Prejudice gets in the way of truth. Society has kind of set up our social class to have stereotyping a norm. Most people then judge people based off of the stereotype, even though every person is their own human beings and almost no one fits this social norm set by society. Stereotyping, racism, sexism, and prejudice are some of my pet peeves. If you don't like someone because of their personality, that is fine, but don't dislike someone because their a person that lives in a nice house. You don't know their story and therefore, you shouldn't dislike someone based on prejudice set by society.

Pt. 2 5A

 Patient silence and loud persistence can both be powerful, at the right times. In Twelve Angry Men juror eight used both of these tactics, and both were affective for him. Juror eight used patient silence when he would sit and listen to others arguments, and wait his turn to speak. Then he used loud persistence to argue about the different pieces of evidence, and how there is definitely reasonable doubt. If used correctly and consistently patient silence and loud persistence can really persuade ones way of thinking.

4A

Reason and assertiveness can both be powerful tactics, depending on the situation. In the Twelve Angry Men, reason as a tactic was applied with some of the jurors who were easily persuaded. However in the situation of juror number 3 assertiveness was necessary to change his vote. Depending on the personality type both arguing and resistance is needed when logic fails.

1A-Part one

Prejudice gets in the way of the truth. In the play " Twelve Angry Men" I think the jurors were prejudice by automatically assuming that the boy was guilty because of how he looked and that he lived in the slums.  

6A- Sinyoung Lee

In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the lesson of testing others' opinions and questioning their assumptions is clear through the actions of juror eight. He states his opinion and goes with his instincts even though he was against eleven other jurors. Juror nine says,"it takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly" when he was describing juror eight (Rose 28). No matter how much smarter or powerful the other person is, you should be entitled to form your own opinions.

2B

Coming to a conclusion of a complex issue takes time and effort. For example, making a big decision like moving across the U.S. for a new job. The decision to move has many factors to consider like leaving family or buying a new house to live in. Many issues come into affect when making a decision over a complex issue.

5B

"The facts" can be interpreted many different ways. It mostly depends on who is doing the interpreting. Say two kids get in a fight at school and a teacher sees one of them punch the other in the jaw. In the principals office, one of the facts will be Timmy (the boy who threw the punch) started the fight. The teacher who believe that fact because she witnessed it. However, Timmy's mother who gets a phone call, will not believe it because she is Timmy's mother and in her eyes, he is a sweet little boy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Different people will consider different facts to be true and it all depends on the person and how they are or aren't related to the situation.

6A - part 1

Test others' opinions, question their assumptions, and draw your own conclusions. In the play "Twelve Angry Men" every juror tested each others thinking. I think it can be a good thing to share your opinions as long as you think them out before you say it. I think some of the jurors made a mistake by saying something that came of rude.

2A

As seen in Twelve Angry Men the jurors took a substantial amount of time to conclude if the boy was guilty or not guilty. Since the boys life was on the line they new to be thorough and analyze every detail possible. If the jurors would have rushed the decision process then the would have declared an innocent boy guilty.

4A-part 1

Details can be important, in context; think in terms of contingencies. In the play " Twelve Angry Men" details were very crucial. Through out the play the jurors did pay a lot of attention towards the details. The jurors all argued about the details and what is right or wrong. When the jurors figured out that the old man was lying about how much time it took the boy to get way was because they looked at the details. If they didn't, then I think the boy would of been charged guilty.

2B

Getting to the bottom of a complex issues does take time and effort. A complex situation is usually defined as an issue that has many facts that contradict each other and can be seen from several different point of views. Because of these characteristics, it becomes difficult to produce a final resolution that everyone agrees on. Once you understand that this is a matter that will need time to thoroughly dissect the situation, the process will become easier. Time is required to go over each fact and each persons point of view of the facts and the way they intertwine. Effort it then needed to actually try and understand others points they are making. All together, it is important to recognize a fragile or complex situation and cooperate with your peers to make sure that nothing is over looked and everything is taken care of. 

1B

Often times many people have been prejudice throughout their life. Being prejudice can hide us from many good things in life. This premature judgement is very close minded and bad. It stops us from experiencing many things. We should work on overcoming prejudice.

1A

Being prejudice got in the way throughout the play. Some jurors were close minded and were unable to see the truth. The jurors were unable to look past the boys past and assumed he killed his dad due to his criminal background. If the jurors had continued to suppress the current facts, they would have put an innocent man in jail.

Part Two: 2B

It's dark. Your friend took her beanie off after the light's went out, and you keep leaning over to her to tease her as she hides behind the folds of thin fabric.
"C'mon, dude, this movie isn't even scary. "
She puts her fingers to her lips and looks at you angrily.
"People will hear you. Just because it isn't scary to you doesn't mean it's not scary."
Another badly edited zombie crashes into the camera on the screen above you. You scoff, lean back in your chair and put your feet up on the seat.

About two weeks later, the theatre is nearly empty, and you look excitedly to your friend. With nearly all the seats avaliable, you jump from row to row just because you can. You stop jumping when the lights go out. A long, slow groan begins with the screen still black. It flashes to an empty room with a rocking chair in one corner, creaking slowly with quiet, ominous fading slowly in the background. It's too quiet. All of a sudden a bloody face appears in the center of the screen, twitching unnaturaly and you curl up inside the folding chair, screaming and silently glad that it's just you and your friend in the theatre.
You look over to her and she's grinning from ear to ear.
"I thought you said this was a comedy! Is this some sort of joke?"
"Well, you said scary movies aren't scary, so I thought it'd be funny to you."
"I said zombies don't scare me! Haunted houses do!"

While scary movies aren't the only thing that tailoring tactics relates to in life, it's a very good example. Scary movies get a bad wrap from big critics who claim that they aren't scary, when they could be terrifying to other people. The level of scare depends on what the audience is afraid of, and how much of that particular subject it takes to get them into blood-curdling fear. The same idea is apparent in arguements. A person who cares nothing for the environment will likely be indifferent towards a persuasive method that talks about how something negatively affects wildlife. When presenting why you feel a certain way and trying to cause someone to feel the same, the arguement is usually more of an impact with several different angles.

Part Two: A1

As Ms.Madrid's student, she has taught me that in a persuasive essay, do not make your point sound insulting to the reader. A person will not listen to reasoning if they believe that it is stemmed from an emotion that causes a clouded mind, or if it causes them to become upset. An upset reader will be less likely to listen to an idea. It's very much like how we act as children, 'I'm not going to listen to you because you hurt my feelings," and it's a very effective punishment.

In Twelve Angry Men, while the various men all have their different ideas, viewpoints, and occasional biases, the group becomes the most isolated from one of the men, Juror Ten, when he speaks as though he is above the boy. He refers to the boy and people from the slums as "them" and goes into a rant about how "they" cannot be trusted and are likely to always be the cause of trouble in a civilized society. Juror Ten is an older Juror, the oldest one in the meeting I believe, and it's difficult to teach someone stuck in one mind set for so long a different way of thinking. Regardless, the other Jurors left and ignored him as he was talking because of their strong offense and disagreement to his arguement. They're a prime example of civility causing attention, because they likely would've listened if they thought his point had more validity other than mean thoughts.

2A- Part 1

Getting to the bottom of a complex issue takes time and effort. In the play "Twelve Angry Men" it was really difficult to get to the bottom of the case. Every juror had a different opinion about every situation in the case. There were many times when some of the jurors wanted to go home or just charge him guilty. Juror eight really saved the case to me. He did not give up and was determined to figure out the case. In a situation like this you have to be willing to give time and effort to get to the bottom of a lot of things.

Pt. 1: 1A

          Time and time again throughout the play, jurors rejected each others' stances on the trial based on their personal prejudices. Whether it be classism against the defendant or racism against their fellow juror, all of their viewpoints are altered by them. Juror 10 is particularly vehement, going on to rant for quite some time about how those in the lower class "get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Nobody's blaming them. That's how they are. You know what I mean? Violent!" (Rose 59). Unfortunately for Juror 10, it was those very prejudices (and that very rant) that ended up discrediting everything he said. Everyone, including those with their own, knew that his prejudices were getting in the way of him seeing things in a different light (whether that be what really happened or not). Because of his beliefs, it took every single piece of evidence he thought about to be disproved for him to even consider the others' viewpoints.

Part Two - 6A

It is true, one skilled and determined individual can wield a lot of influence. Or in other words, persuade people to come around to that individuals way of thinking. To be as determined as Juror 8 in the play Twelve Angry Men, takes great belief in something. Juror 8 had a reasonable doubt in his mind since the beginning of the play. Even when he stood alone, this did not matter. Throughout deliberation, juror 8 was very influential as to other jurors opinions or thoughts on the trial. Not only due to the explanation or sometimes demonstrations of the evidence provided, but also because of his determination to prove that the defendant was not guilty. 

Part Two - 1A 

Civility can and will encourage your opponents to keep listening to you. To be civil towards a situation shows that you are capable of considering other people's opinions, thoughts or understand their reasoning. If a person is to get out of hand because they aren't trying to hear both sides of a story, or in this situation the reasoning behind beliefs of guilt or innocence, then not too many other individuals will stand by to listen to it. In the play, Twelve Angry Men juror 10 starts to get a bit out of hand with the statements being made, implying that all or most people from areas like the defendants are good for nothing drunks and or junkies that are nothing but trouble. Due to juror 10s actions and statements, not more than one juror stuck around to listen to the ignorance spoken. 

Part One - 1A

Prejudice gets in the way of the truth in various ways. One of witch is the prevention of people seeing the facts of a situation because of their own previously formed thoughts based on their own emotions, likes and dislikes. If a person does not like another person because of their background, race, religion or sexual orientation, then one will not go off of facts, but off of their own preformed opinions. In the play Twelve Angry Men Some jurors assume that because of where the defendant grew up, he is surely guilty. This is going off of the defendants background and not the factual evidence. 

Part One - 2A

To get to the bottom of a problem takes a great amount of time and effort. Complex problems, are not something that you can take at face value. You have to know the actual facts of the situation and not make assumptions off of what it may appear to be. In the play Twelve Angry Men,  not many jurors wanted to really analyze the case. Most wanted to hurry up and get home so, based on the location of the murder or where the kid grew up, and the two testimonies made by an elder man in the same building, and an elderly woman across the street, jurors didn't need much more to prove the defendants guilt. But through out each act, Juror 8 continued to point out different points in the trial or in the witnesses testimonies that didn't really add up. As this continued, more jurors had a reasonable doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the defendant. If it weren't for the analysis of the case, the problem wouldn't of been solved and an innocent person could've been sent to prison for a crime he did not commit. 

6B: Megan Hamma

Someone who is determined and skilled can wield a lot of influence on a person or even a large audience.  Today, we generally see this through pop stars and their fans.  Usually the pop star might be respected for a talent or skill that they have, and they might be on a commercial saying, “use this product, I use it all the time!” 

The pop star may not realize it, but all of their fans that look up to them are, 'hooked' hence the fans wanting to buy whatever it is that the star is trying to sell. 

Another example, from a historical point of view, is Martin Luther King Jr. He wrote and read speech, after speech, after speech. This impacted African Americans and parts of other ethic communities. This influenced many groups of people to start protesting for equality, and civil rights. This also showed how one man used his determination for freedom, and skills of writing to invoke a movement and march for what he and his followers both believed in.