Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

The Prosecution is correct in "12 Angry Men"

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Trent0405
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Movies
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
3,500
Contender / Con
Points: 2
Description
12 Angry men(1957) is a movie about a boy on trial for the murder of his father, 11 jurors see the boy as guilty, but the 8th juror disagrees, by the end of the film all 12 jurors vote not guilty, saving the boy from execution.
Here is a great cover of the case in question READ BEFORE EXCEPTING---
https://quizlet.com/54307343/twelve-angry-men-evidence-flash-cards/
BOP is on me, as the juror number 8 points out the BOP is on the prosecution.
Any changes to the rating status, voting period, or time for argument will be addressed by me if I am okay with making said change.
I hope to have a debate on an amazing film.
again, read this- https://quizlet.com/54307343/twelve-angry-men-evidence-flash-cards/
Round 1
Published:

The Knife

When the police found the boy’s dead father, he had a knife jammed in his chest. The knife jammed in the father's chest was a very rare knife, and the boy admitted to owning the exact same knife on the night of the murder. The storekeeper who sold the knife to the boy admitted that it was the only one he had ever had in stock. The knife had  weird carvings on the side as seen here, this was a very unique knife. So, to the voters, is it reasonable to presume that a boy had  a knife the same night of the murder of his father, the same night as a fight they had where the father punched the boy, and it just so happens that the father is stabbed that same day with the same rare knife.

 if the teen is innocent. He didn’t kill his father right after threatening to kill him, but someone else did, with a knife identical to the one the teen owned and lost on that exact same night?

This quote sums this up well, the boy claimed he lost the rare knife when it fell through his pocket on the way to the movies on the same day of the murder by the
way.

Source for quote. Source for information stated above.

The Alibi 

The boy did offer an alibi, but boy was it flimsy. He claimed he went to the movies during the time of the murder but he couldn’t remember the movie he saw, or the actors who played in them. Also, not one person in the theater said they saw the boy there on the night of the murder. So it’s quite obvious that the boy didn’t see a movie at the time of the murder, now, if the boy will lie about this, than what else may he be hiding, and why lie about his alibi.

Source for information stated above.

The Old Man's Testimony

The old man lived downstairs under the room where the killing took place. At 10 minutes after 12 on the night of the killing, he heard loud noises. Said it sounded like a fight. And he heard the kid yell out "I'm gonna kill ya." A second later, he heard a body hit the floor. Ran to the door, opened it up, saw the kid run down the stairs and out of the house. Called the police. They found the old man with the knife in his chest. The coroner fixed the time of death around midnight.

Source for quote. Also, the quote is from the movie's dialogue itself.

So, the man heard the boy scream “I’m gonna kill ya”, heard the body hit the floor shortly after, and the man saw the boy running down the stairs. The times match up as well. How reasonable is it to presume the man heard what the boy allegedly did, went to the door, and saw a boy quickly rushing down the stairs at the same time of the murder but that boy wasn’t the 18 yearold on trial.

Source for the old man’s testimony.

The Woman's Testimony

The woman saw the boy stab his father at 12:10, this matches perfectly with the coroner and the old man’s testimony.

Source for the woman's testimony. I'm low on characters but I'll go deeper in the later rounds.

Conclusion

In conclusion, to the voters, if you want to vote Con, you must hold that somebody stabbed the boys father the same day they had a fight with the same knife the boy admitted to own on the night of the murder, that the man’s testimony which lines up perfectly with the woman's testimony for the time of the incident are false in some way. But, if the boy’s alibi isn’t true, he still could be innocent, although that ought to arise suspicion of the boy if he opts to lie about his alibi.


Published:
The problem is that my case lies in rebuttals. 

There was so much wrong with the prosecution's assumptions. Firstly, the knife could be taken by another after the boy dropped it, the woman who 'saw it happen' across the street has doctor-prescribed long-distance vision loss (so she's short-sighted) and literally everything about the event makes no sense. The boy didn't have anything to do with it.

If you say his alibi is fake based on no one saying they saw him there why will you trust a woman with severe short-sightedness to be able to look across her street and identify who did a murder?! She had apparently been woken up from sleep by the screams, so why would she have immediately worn her glasses to look across the street? I think, as did the Jury in the end, that her pride didn't let her admit she has too flawed a range of eyesight to see who did the murder.

Another thing that's strange is that a scream was heard by the murder but a train was also running right by the house at that time. A witness cannot hear three screams or the boy's reply to them, let alone an angry argument, if a train is blasting right beside the house at full speed.

That's it, that's all I have to say. I will let Pro try to discredit it and then slam this home with sources in the next Round.

The old man couldn't hear things he describes above the decibels of a train that runs on a railway right next to the apartment block. He probably heard something like a scream etc, and his brain put 2 and 2 together. He should be officially tested for alzheimer's before we trust his memory, let alone capacity to hear and trustworthiness.
Round 2
Published:
I’d implore my opponent to source his points so I can CTRL-F to locate his claim
 
The Knife
 
He Lost the Knife
 
"There was so much wrong with the prosecution's assumptions. Firstly, the knife could be taken by another after the boy dropped it"
 
P.S-I have opted to underline my opponents statements. If some text is bolded and has quotes it’s a quote from the movie.
 
Now, this is quite a wild assumption I'd say. My opponent proposed that the knife the boy claimed to drop was found by another and used in the murder(which is quite convenient considering the knife used to kill the boy's father was left in his chest, so he'd need a way to explain why he no longer had the knife), but any way, it is quite unlikely that another person stole the boy's knife that he dropped and used that knife to stab the owners father. Remember, the boy has a motive to kill his father while a random guy who found the knife presumably doesn't. The motive being the father punching the boy on the night of the murder.
 
 

 The Woman's Testimony
 
The Woman's Eye Sight
 
“the woman who 'saw it happen' across the street has doctor-prescribed long-distance vision loss”
 
It is never established in the movies dialogue that the woman wore glasses, it was merely an inference made by juror #9 because he saw 2 deep impressions on her nose, that he thought would only result from eye glasses. But the woman even testified with her glasses off, why would she go to court as an eye witness to a murder and not wear her glasses presuming she's short sighted as you claim. Also, even at night the prosecution proved you could look through an el train and see what was happening on the other side.(Source)
 
“If you say his alibi is fake based on no one saying they saw him there why will you trust a woman with severe short-sightedness to be able to look across her street and identify who did a murder”
 
As mentioned before, she wasn’t short sighted.
 
The woman has known the boy all of his life, I'd say it's fair to say she could 1, recognize his voice and 2, recognize his face.(Source)
 
“She had apparently been woken up from sleep by the screams, so why would she have immediately worn her glasses to look across the street”
 
The movies states the following--”Here's a woman who's lying in bed. She can't sleep. She's dyin' with the heat. She looks out the window, and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12.10 on the nose. Everything fits.”
 
So she was well awake and most likely looked outside casually and saw the murder, I frankly am not convinced the woman wears glasses, she didn’t even wear
them in court as an eye witness, where she may have to look at diagrams or photos.(Source)
 

 The Man’s Testimony
 
But the Man Couldn’t Have heard the killing.
 
The man was a floor below the boy and his father, we’re talking about an elevated train a good distance away, the man is in his room not outside, there are walls separating the man and the el tracks which would muffle the noise pollution. I don’t get why he couldn’t have heard the boy say, “I’m gunna kill ya” when he
immediately after heared a thud like a body hitting the floor. He even saw the same boy running down the stairs after killing.(Source)
 
Conclusion
  • The man could’ve easily heard the conversation, and saw the boy.
  • The knife was certainly not picked up after it was dropped.
  • The woman wasn’t short sighted.






Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
I await a response.


























Published:
Pro is lying.
Added:
Based on the quizlet, that boy seems rather guilty.
I may watch the movie to get a better idea, though.
#3
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
COOL, you've seen the movie, that is so cool.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Trent0405
I know this in depth, you are wrong trust me.
Contender
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro did the superior job defending his argument. The times of the man hearing the stabbing are in line with the times the women stated she saw the killing and the coroners death report. The time alignment was touched on by Con in his 1 rebuttal. Pro accurately points out that it makes no sense for a woman who normally wears glasses in court not to wear them the day she's in court as well. Con doesn't respond to further arguments in rounds 2 and 3 therefor forfeiting the debate.