How to win an argument (at the US Supreme Court, or anywhere) | Neal Katyal

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

十四年前，

Fourteen years ago,

I stood in the Supreme Court to argue my first case.

我站在最高法院裡， 為我接的第一個案子辯論。

And it wasn't just any case,

這個案件一點也不普通，

it was a case that experts called

它被專家稱為是

one of the most important cases the Supreme Court had ever heard.

最高法院審理過的最重要案件之一：

It considered whether Guantanamo was constitutional,

關塔那摩灣拘押中心是否合乎憲法，

and whether the Geneva Conventions applied to the war on terror.

以及日內瓦公約 是否適用於反恐戰爭。

It was just a handful of years after the horrific attacks

這個時間點是在九一一

恐怖攻擊的幾年之後。

of September 11.

The Supreme Court had seven Republican appointees

最高法院有七位法官 是共和黨任命的，

and two Democratic ones,

兩位是民主黨任命的，

and my client happened to be Osama bin Laden's driver.

我的客戶剛好是賓拉登的司機。

My opponent was the Solicitor General of the United States,

我的對手是美國聯邦檢察長，

America's top courtroom lawyer.

美國最頂尖的法庭律師。

He had argued 35 cases.

他為三十五件案件辯論過。

I wasn't even 35 years old.

我當時還沒三十五歲呢。

And to make matters worse,

更糟糕的是內戰後

the Senate, for the first time since the Civil War,

參議院首次通過法案

passed a bill to try and remove the case from the docket of the Supreme Court.

試圖自最高法院抹除這案件的紀錄。

Now the speaking coaches say

演說教練說，

I'm supposed to build tension and not tell you what happens.

我應該要堆疊緊張感， 不可以先破梗。

But the thing is, we won.

但重點是，我們贏了。

How?

怎麼贏的？

今天，我要談的是怎麼贏得辯論，

Today, I'm going to talk about how to win an argument,

at the Supreme Court or anywhere.

在最高法院或任何地方。

The conventional wisdom is that you speak with confidence.

傳統的看法是你要自信地發言。

That's how you persuade.

才能說服別人。

I think that's wrong.

我認為那是錯的。

I think confidence is the enemy of persuasion.

我認為信心是說服力的敵人。

Persuasion is about empathy,

說服力的重點是同理心，

about getting into people's heads.

是要想辦法進入別人的腦中。

That's what makes TED what it is.

這也是 TED 之所以是 TED 的原因。

It's why you're listening to this talk.

這就是為什麼你會聽這場演說。

You could have read it on the cold page,

你可以在冰冷的頁面上 閱讀它，但你沒有。

but you didn't.

Same thing with Supreme Court arguments --

最高法院的辯論也是如此——

we write written briefs with cold pages,

我們在冰冷的紙張上撰寫訴狀，

but we also have an oral argument.

但我們也用口頭辯論。

We don't just have a system in which the justices write questions

我們的司法體制 並不是由法官撰寫問題

and you write answers.

你來撰寫答案。

Why?

為什麼？

因為辯論的重點在互動。

Because argument is about interaction.

I want to take you behind the scenes to tell you what I did,

我要帶大家到幕後， 告訴各位當時我做了什麼，

and how these lessons are generalizable.

以及從中學到的 能如何用在一般情境中。

Not just for winning an argument in court,

不只在法庭上贏得辯論，

but for something far more profound.

而且更深邃。

Now obviously, it's going to involve practice,

很顯然需要練習，

but not just any practice will do.

但並非隨便練習就可以。

My first practice session for Guantanamo,

我為了關塔那摩灣案做的 第一個練習是飛去哈佛

I flew up to Harvard

and had all these legendary professors throwing questions at me.

請各個傳奇等級的教授丟問題給我。

And even though I had read everything, rehearsed a million times,

就算我什麼都讀了，排練了無數次，

I wasn't persuading anyone.

我還是說服不了任何人。

My arguments weren't resonating.

我的論證沒讓人起共鳴。

I was desperate.

我很絕望。

I had done everything possible,

能做的我都做了，

read every book, rehearsed a million times,

該讀的都讀了，排練了無數次，

and it wasn't going anywhere.

就是沒有進展。

So ultimately, I stumbled on this guy --

最終，我撞見了這個傢伙——

he was an acting coach, he wasn't even a lawyer.

他是教表演的教練，甚至不是律師，

He'd never set foot in the Supreme Court.

未曾進過最高法院。

And he came into my office one day wearing a billowy white shirt

有一天，他進到我的辦公室， 穿著寬鬆的白襯衫，

and a bolo tie,

搭配波洛領帶結，

and he looked at me with my folded arms and said,

他看著盤著手的我，說：

"Look, Neal, I can tell

「聽著，尼爾，

that you don't think this is going to work,

我看得出來你認為這行不通，

但就配合我一下，告訴我你的論證。」

but just humor me.

Tell me your argument."

So I grabbed my legal pad,

我拿起我的橫線簿，

and I started reading my argument.

開始讀出我的論證。

He said, "What are you doing?"

他問：「你在幹嘛？」 我回答：「我在陳述我的論證。」

I said, "I'm telling you my argument."

He said, "Your argument is a legal pad?"

他說：「你的論證是一本橫線簿？」

I said, "No, but my argument is on a legal pad."

我說：「不是， 但我的論證寫在橫線簿上。 」

He said, "Neal, look at me.

他說：「尼爾，看著我。

Tell me your argument."

對我說你的論證。」

And so I did.

我照做了。

And instantly, I realized,

瞬間，我明白

my points were resonating.

我的論點引起共鳴。

I was connecting to another human being.

我在和另一個人連結。

And he could see the smile starting to form

他看得見

我在訴說的過程中開始微笑，

as I was saying my words,

and he said, "OK, Neal.

他說：「好，尼爾。

Now do your argument holding my hand."

現在握著我的手述說你的論證。」

And I said, "What?"

我說：「什麼？」

And he said, "Yeah, hold my hand."

他說：「是的，握著我的手。」

I was desperate, so I did it.

我走投無路，所以照做了。

And I realized, "Wow, that's connection.

我了解到：「哇，那就是連結。

That's the power of how to persuade."

那就是說服別人的力量。」

And it helped.

那幫了我。

But truthfully, I still got nervous as the argument date approached.

然而老實說，我仍然 隨著辯論日的逼近越來越緊張。

And I knew that even though argument

我知道，即使辯論的重點

was about getting into someone else's shoes

在於設身處地和發揮同理心，

and empathizing,

I needed to have a solid core first.

但我仍得先有穩固的核心基礎。

So I did something outside of my comfort zone.

所以我走出舒適圈，

I wore jewelry -- not just anything,

戴上飾品——不是隨便的飾品，

but a bracelet that my father had worn his whole life,

是我父親的，他一生都戴著，

until he passed away, just a few months before the argument.

直到他在辯論前幾個月過世。

I put on a tie

我打上領帶，

that my mom had given me just for the occasion.

是我母親送給我的， 讓我在這種場合用。

And I took out my legal pad and wrote my children's names on it,

我拿出橫線簿， 在上面寫上兒女的名字，

because that's why I was doing this.

因為那是我接這個案件的原因。

For them, to leave the country better than I had found it.

我要留給他們一個 比現在更好的國家。

I got to court, and I was calm.

我到了法庭，心情很平靜。

The bracelet, the tie, the children's names

手環、領帶、孩子的名字圍繞著我。

had all centered me.

Like a rock climber extending beyond the precipice,

就像攀岩者，向懸崖之外攀爬，

if you have a solid hold, you can reach out.

如果你有夠穩的支撐點， 你就能再往外伸出手。

And because argument is about persuasion,

因為辯論的重點在於說服，

I knew I had to avoid emotion.

我知道我得避免情緒。

Displays of emotion fail.

展現出情緒就失敗了。

It's kind of like writing an email in all bold and all caps.

那就像是用全粗體和全大寫 來寫電子郵件一樣。

It persuades no one.

無法說服任何人。

It's then about you, the speaker,

那時重點在於你，發言的人，

not about the listener or the receiver.

而不是聽者或接收者。

Now look, in some settings, the solution is to be emotional.

在某些情況下解決方案要情緒化。

You're arguing with your parents,

和父母爭論時用上情緒行得通。

and you use emotion and it works.

Why?

為什麼？因為父母愛你。

Because your parents love you.

But Supreme Court justices don't love you.

但最高法院法官不愛你。

They don't like to think of themselves

他們不願意自己被情緒左右。

as the type of people persuaded by emotion.

And I reverse engineered that insight too,

我也針對那樣的洞見做了逆向工程，

setting a trap for my opponent to provoke his emotional reaction,

針對我的對手設置陷阱， 挑起他的情緒反應，

so I could be seen as the calm and steady voice of the law.

讓我顯得是法律中 冷靜、穩定的聲音。

And it worked.

這招有效。

And I remember sitting in the courtroom to learn that we had won.

我還記得坐在法庭裡 得知我們贏了的那一刻。

That the Guantanamo tribunals were coming down.

關塔那摩灣的軍事法庭要關閉了。

And I went out onto the courthouse steps and there was a media firestorm.

我走到法院外的階梯上， 媒體蜂湧圍上來。

Five hundred cameras, and they're all asking me,

五百台攝影機，大家都在問我： 「決議有什麼意義？說了什麼？」

"What does the decision mean, what does it say?"

決議有一百八十五頁那麼長。

Well, the decision was 185 pages long.

I hadn't had time to read it, nobody had.

我還沒有時間讀完，沒有人讀完了。

But I knew what it meant.

但我知道它的意義。

And here's what I said on the steps of the Court.

在法庭的階梯上，我這麼說：

"Here's what happened today.

「今天的情形如下。

You have the lowest of the low --

有個最低微的人——

this guy, who was accused of being bin Laden's driver,

這傢伙被控為賓拉登開車，

one of the most horrible men around.

賓拉登是世上最壞的人之一。

And he sued not just anyone,

他控告的對象可不是泛泛之輩，

but the nation, indeed, the world's most powerful man,

沒錯，控告的是我國和世上 權力最大的人——美國總統。

the president of the United States.

And he brings it not in some rinky-dink traffic court,

他沒把這案子帶到 某個老舊的交通法庭，

but in the highest court of the land,

而是地表最高的法院——

the Supreme Court of the United States ...

美國最高法院……

And he wins.

他贏了。

That's something remarkable about this country.

這就是美國了不起的地方。

In many other countries,

在許多其他國家，

this driver would have been shot,

這名司機光是提出訴訟， 就會遭到槍斃。

just for bringing his case.

And more of the point for me, his lawyer would have been shot.

對我來說更重要的是 他的律師也會被槍斃。

But that's what makes America different.

但美國不同之處就在這裡。

What makes America special."

這是美國特別的地方。」

Because of that decision,

因為那個決議，

the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror,

日內瓦公約將恐怖攻擊納入適用範圍，

which meant the end of ghost prisons worldwide,

那就表示要關閉全世界的幽靈監獄、

the end of waterboarding worldwide

禁止全世界的水刑，

and an end to those Guantanamo military tribunals.

和撤除關塔那摩灣的軍事法庭。

By methodically building the case,

我們有方法地推動這個案件，

and getting into the justices' heads,

影響法官的想法，

we were able to quite literally change the world.

結果真的改變了世界。

Sounds easy, right?

聽起來很容易，是吧？

You can practice a lot,

你可以多練習，

avoid displays of emotion,

避免展現情緒，

and you, too, can win any argument.

你一樣也可以在任何爭論中獲勝。

I'm sorry to say, it's not that simple,

很抱歉，沒那麼容易，

my strategies aren't foolproof,

我的策略並非萬無一失，

and while I've won more Supreme Court cases

雖然我贏得的最高法院官司 幾乎比任何人都多，

than most anyone,

I've also lost a lot too.

我也輸掉很多。

Indeed, after Donald Trump was elected,

的確，在川普當選之後，

I was, constitutionally speaking, terrified.

就憲法面來說，我嚇壞了。

Please understand, this is not about Left versus Right,

請注意，這並非左派 對右派之類的選邊站。

or anything like that.

I'm not here to talk about that.

我不是要來談這個。

But just a week in to the new president's term,

但新總統才上任一週，

you might remember those scenes at the airports.

各位可能記得在機場的那些景象。

President Trump had campaigned on a pledge, saying, quote,

我引述川普總統的競選誓言：

"I, Donald J. Trump am calling for a complete and total shutdown

「我，唐納·J·川普要完全禁止

of all Muslim immigration to the United States."

所有穆斯林移民到美國。」

And he also said, quote, "I think Islam hates us."

引述他的另一句話： 「我認為伊斯蘭痛恨我們。」

And he made good on that promise,

他的確信守了那個誓言，

banning immigration from seven countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

禁止了七個國家移民到美國，

壓倒性地是穆斯林人口眾多的國家。

My legal team and others went into court right away and sued,

我的法律團隊和其他團隊 立刻控上法庭，

and got that first travel ban struck down.

擊退了第一個旅行禁令。

Trump revised it.

川普修改了。

We went into court again and got that struck down.

我們再次上法庭，再次擊退它。

He revised it again,

他又再次修正，

and changed it, adding North Korea,

做了改變，納入北韓，

because we all know,

因為我們都知道

the United States had a tremendous immigration problem with North Korea.

美國有很嚴重的北韓移民問題。

But it did enable his lawyers to go to the Supreme Court and say,

但，這麼做讓他的律師 能夠到最高法院上，說：

"See, this isn't discriminating against Muslims,

「看，我們並非歧視穆斯林，

it includes these other people too."

對象也有非穆斯林在內。」

Now I thought we had the killer answer to that.

我以為我們有必殺的答案。

I won't bore you with the details,

細節就不在這裡說了，

but the thing is, we lost.

但重點是，我們輸了。

Five votes to four.

五票對四票。

And I was devastated.

我深深受挫，

I was worried my powers of persuasion had waned.

擔心我的說服力衰退了。

And then, two things happened.

接著，發生了兩件事。

The first was,

第一，

I noticed a part of the Supreme Court's travel ban opinion

我注意到最高法院 對於旅行禁令的意見

that discussed the Japanese American interment.

部分討論到對日裔美國人的囚禁。

That was a horrific moment in our history,

那是我們歷史上很可怕的一段，

in which over 100,000 Japanese Americans had been interned in camps.

有超過十萬名日裔美國人

被關在拘留營中。

My favorite person to challenge this scheme

挑戰這項陰謀的人當中， 我最欣賞的就是高登平林，

was Gordon Hirabayashi,

a University of Washington student.

他是華盛頓大學的學生。

He turned himself in to the FBI,

他向聯邦調查局（FBI）自首，

who said, "Look, you're a first-time offender,

FBI 說：「你是初犯，你可以回家了。」

you can go home."

And Gordon said,

戈登說：「不，

"No, I'm a Quaker, I have to resist unjust laws,"

我是貴格會教徒， 我必須對抗不公平的法律。」

and so they arrested him and he was convicted.

所以，他們逮捕了他，他也被定罪。

Gordon's case made it to the Supreme Court.

戈登的案子上到了最高法院，

And again, I'm going to do that thing

這次我仍不打算讓各位期待，

where I quash any sense of anticipation you have,

and tell you what happened.

要直接破梗。

Gordon lost.

戈登輸了。

But he lost because of a simple reason.

但他輸的理由很簡單。

Because the Solicitor General,

因為檢察長，

that top courtroom lawyer for the government,

政府的頂尖法庭律師，

told the Supreme Court

告訴最高法院，

that the Japanese American internment was justified by military necessity.

囚禁日裔美國人有正當的理由：

軍事必要性。

And that was so,

就這樣，

even though his own staff had discovered

儘管他自己的幕僚發現

that there was no need for the Japanese American interment

沒有必要囚禁日裔美國人，

and that the FBI and the intelligence community

且 FBI 及情報圈都相信。

all believed that.

And indeed, that it was motivated by racial prejudice.

的確，那背後的動機就是種族歧視。

His staff begged the Solicitor General,

他的幕僚請求檢察長：

"Tell the truth, don't suppress evidence."

「說出真相，不要埋掉證據。」

What did the Solicitor General do?

結果檢察長做了什麼？

Nothing.

什麼都沒做。

He went in and told the "military necessity" story.

他進入法庭，說了 「軍事必要性」的故事。

And so the Court upheld Gordon Hirabayashi's conviction.

因此最高法院裁定 戈登平林的原判決有效。

And the next year, upheld Fred Korematsu's interment.

隔年，又裁定 是松豐三郎的囚禁判決有效。

Now why was I thinking about that?

我為什麼想到這些？

Because nearly 70 years later,

因為近七十年後，

I got to hold the same office,

我的辦公室

Head of the Solicitor General's Office.

正是檢察長的辦公室。

And I got to set the record straight,

而且我得以陳述真相，

explaining that the government had misrepresented the facts

解釋政府在囚禁日本人的案件中 錯誤地詮釋事實。

in the Japanese interment cases.

And when I thought about the Supreme Court's travel ban opinion,

當我想到最高法院的 旅行禁令意見時，

I realized something.

我明白一件事。

The Supreme Court, in that opinion,

最高法院在那意見中

went out of its way to overrule the Korematsu case.

非常努力地推翻「是松訴合眾國案」。

Now, not only had the Justice Department said

如今不僅司法部說

the Japanese interment was wrong,

囚禁日本人是錯的，

the Supreme Court said so too.

最高法院也這麼說。

That's a crucial lesson about arguments -- timing.

那是關於辯論的重要一課——時機。

All of you, when you're arguing, have that important lever to play.

各位在辯論時要善用這項工具。

When do you make your argument?

你要何時提出論證？

You don't just need the right argument,

你不只需要對的論點，

you need the right argument at the right moment.

你需要在對的時機做對的論證。

When is it that your audience -- a spouse, a boss, a child --

你的聽眾——或許是配偶、老闆、

孩子——何時最願意聽？

is going to be most receptive?

Now look, sometimes, it's totally out of your control.

有時，這完全不是你能控制的。

Delay has costs that are too extensive.

延遲的代價太高，

And so you've got to go in and fight

所以你得直接上戰場打仗。

and you very well may, like me, get the timing wrong.

你很可能就會和我一樣， 沒抓對時機。

That's what we thought in the travel ban.

我們認為旅行禁令就是如此。

And you see,

是這樣的，最高法院還沒準備好

the Supreme Court wasn't ready, so early in President Trump's term,

要在川普任期之初

to overrule his signature initiative,

就推翻他的招牌倡議，

just as it wasn't ready to overrule FDR's Japanese American interment.

就像當初還沒準備好推翻

羅斯福對日裔美國人的囚禁。

And sometimes, you just have to take the risk.

有時，你就是得冒險。

But it is so painful when you lose.

但輸掉官司真的很痛苦，

And patience is really hard.

保有耐心也很不容易。

But that reminds me of the second lesson.

但那讓我想起了第二課。

Even if vindication comes later,

就算「證明無罪」來得遲，

I realized how important the fight now is,

我也知道現在挺身而戰有多麼重要，

because it inspires, because it educates.

因為它有鼓舞、教育的作用。

I remember reading a column by Ann Coulter about the Muslim ban.

我還記得讀過右翼政評家 安·庫爾特寫的一篇關於

穆斯林禁令的專欄文章。

Here's what she said.

她這麼說：

"Arguing against Trump was first-generation American,

「反對川普的是第一代美國人

Neal Katyal.

尼爾·凱泰爾。

There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters.

仇恨美國的第十代人多得是。

You couldn't get one of them to argue we should end our country

難道裡頭找不到一個來辯論

我們應該透過大規模的移民 來顛覆美國嗎？」

through mass-immigration?"

And that's when emotion,

好論點裡的情緒是如此令人反感，

which is so anathema to a good argument,

這對我如此地重要。

was important to me.

It took emotion outside the courtroom to get me back in.

是法庭外的情緒讓我回到法庭內。

When I read Coulter's words, I was angry.

讀到庫爾特的文字時，我很生氣。

I rebel against the idea

我很抗拒這個想法：

that being a first-generation American would disqualify me.

身為第一代美國人讓我沒資格。

I rebel against the idea that mass immigration

我也抗拒這個想法：

大量移民會讓美國滅亡，

would end this country,

instead of recognizing that as literally the rock on which this country was built.

而不承認其實 移民是美國立國的基石。

When I read Coulter,

在讀庫爾特的文章時 我想到好多往事。

I thought about so many things in my past.

I thought about my dad,

我想到我父親，

who arrived here with eight dollars from India,

他從印度來到這裡時 身上只有八美金，

and didn't know whether to use the colored bathroom or the white one.

不知道該使用 有色人種的廁所或白人的。

I thought about his first job offer, at a slaughter house.

我想到他的第一份工作是在屠宰場。

Not a great job for a Hindu.

對崇尚素食的印度教徒來說 不是個好工作。

I thought about how, when we moved to a new neighborhood in Chicago

我想到當我們與另一個印度家庭

搬到芝加哥的新街坊時，

with one other Indian family,

that family had a cross burned on its lawn.

有人在那家人的草坪上燒十字架。

Because the racists aren't very good

因為種族主義者不太能分辨 非裔美國人和印度人的差別。

at distinguishing between African Americans and Hindus.

And I thought about all the hate mail I got

我想到在關塔那摩灣案期間 所收到的仇恨信件，

during Guantanamo,

for being a Muslim lover.

說我偏愛穆斯林。

Again, the racists aren't very good

同樣的，種族主義者也不太能 分辨印度人和穆斯林的差別。

with distinctions between Hindus and Muslims, either.

Ann Coulter thought that being the child of an immigrant was a weakness.

安·庫爾特認為 身為移民者之子是弱點。

She was profoundly, profoundly wrong.

她大錯特錯。

It is my strength,

那是我的力量，

because I knew what America was supposed to stand for.

因為我知道美國本應代表什麼。

I knew that in America,

我知道在美國，

me, a child of a man who came here with eight dollars in his pocket,

來到美國時口袋裡只有 八塊美金的人所生的孩子

could stand in the Supreme Court of the United States

能夠站在美國最高法院裡，

on behalf of a detested foreigner,

代表一位被憎惡的外國人，

like Osama bin Laden's driver,

比如賓拉登的司機，

and win.

且能贏。

And it made me realize,

那讓我了解到，

even though I may have lost the case,

雖然我輸了，但我對 穆斯林禁令的論點是正確的。

I was right about the Muslim ban too.

No matter what the court decided,

不論法庭的裁決如何，都無法改變

they couldn't change the fact

移民壯大這個國家的事實；

that immigrants do strengthen this country.

Indeed, in many ways, immigrants love this country the most.

在許多層面上，移民 的的確確是最愛這個國家的人。

When I read Ann Coulter's words,

讀安·庫爾特的文章時，

I thought about the glorious words of our Constitution.

我想到我國憲法中的輝煌文字。

The First Amendment.

第一修正案：

Congress shall make no law establishing religion.

國會不得針對宗教制定法律。

I thought about our national creed,

我想到我國的格言：

"E plurbis unum,"

「E plurbis unum」，

"out of many come one."

即「合眾為一」。

Most of all, I realized,

最重要的是我了解到

the only way you can truly lose an argument

只有放棄才真正輸掉辯論。

is by giving up.

So I joined the lawsuit by the US Congress

所以我加入了美國國會

challenging President Trump's addition of a citizenship question to the census.

挑戰川普總統

在人口普查中納入 「是不是公民」這一題的訴訟。

A decision with huge implications.

這個決定有著很深的意涵。

It was a really hard case.

這個案子很難搞。

Most thought we would lose.

大部分人認為我們會輸。

But the thing is, we won.

但重點是我們贏了。

Five votes to four.

五票對四票。

The Supreme Court basically said

基本上，最高法院說，

President Trump and his cabinet's secretary had lied.

川普總統和他的閣員的秘書說了謊。

And now I've gotten back up and rejoined the fight,

我已經爬起來重新加入戰局，

and I hope each of you, in your own ways, does so too.

我希望各位也都能 用自己的方式這麼做。

I'm getting back up

我重新站起來，

because I'm a believer that good arguments do win out in the end.

因為我相信好的論證終會勝出。

The arc of justice is long,

正義的弧線很長，

and bends, often, slowly,

且通常彎得非常緩慢，

but it bends so long as we bend it.

但只要我們去彎它，它就會彎。

And I've realized the question is not how to win every argument.

我了解到，問題不在於 如何贏得每一場辯論，

It's how to get back up when you do lose.

而在於輸掉之後如何重整旗鼓。

Because in the long run,

因為長期來看，

good arguments will win out.

好的論證會勝出。

If you make a good argument,

如果你做出好的論證，

it has the power to outlive you,

它可能會存在得比你更久遠，

to stretch beyond your core,

延伸到你的核心之外，

to reach those future minds.

觸及未來之人的胸懷。

And that's why all of this is so important.

這就是為什麼這一切如此地重要。

I'm not telling you how to win arguments for the sake of winning arguments.

我教各位如何辯論獲勝 並不是要為了贏得辯論。

This isn't a game.

這不是賽局。

I'm telling you this because even if you don't win right now,

我告訴各位這些， 是因為即便現在贏不了，

if you make a good argument, history will prove you right.

如果你做出好的論證， 歷史也會證明你是對的。

I think back to that acting coach all the time.

我常會想起那位教表演的教練。

And I've come to realize

我漸漸了解，

that the hand I was holding was the hand of justice.

我握住的那隻手，

是正義的手。

That outstretched hand will come for you.

那隻伸出來的手會來找你。

It's your decision to push it away

由你決定要推開它，

or to keep holding it.

還是持續握緊它。

Thank you so much for listening.

非常謝謝聆聽。