Speech 6 Debate Journal #8: 12 Angry Men
Aside from being an excellent film, 12 Angry Men is a study of argumentation in a reallife setting. The entire film focuses on the debate of whether a young man is guilty of
murdering his father. At the start, 11 jurors vote “guilty” while 1 votes “not guilty.”
Arguments and refutation then ensue to decide the defendant’s fate.
1) Flow the arguments in this film like you would a debate. Create an AFF column and a
NEG column and then chart the arguments of the film as each piece of evidence is
presented.
2) Identify any fallacies (at least 3 different ones) that you see and provide an explanation
as to why they fit.
3) Identify at least one instance where Fisher’s narrative paradigm elements are exercised
in the analysis of evidence and/or claims.
1
2) Juror #8 could be said to be the Leader of Opposition. What juror(s) would fit the role
of Member of Opposition? Why?
3) Juror #3 could be said to be the Prime Minister. What juror(s) would fit the role of
Member of Government? Why?
4) Use Brockreide’s 3 types of arguers. Identify and explain which type the following
jurors are.
#3
#8
#9
#10
2