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

我站在最高法院為我的第一個案子辯護。

And it wasn't just any case,

而且這不是普通的案子。

it was a case that experts called

這是一個被專家稱為

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

最高法院審理過的最重要的案件之一。

It considered whether Guantanamo was constitutional,

它審議了關塔那摩是否符合憲法。

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

那是在恐怖襲擊事件發生後的短短几年後

of September 11.

9月11日。

The Supreme Court had seven Republican appointees

最高法院有7名共和黨任命的法官。

and two Democratic ones,

和兩個民主黨的。

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

而我的客戶恰好是奧薩馬-本-拉登的司機。

My opponent was the Solicitor General of the United States,

我的對手是美國的副檢察長。

America's top courtroom lawyer.

美國頂級的法庭律師。

He had argued 35 cases.

他曾為35個案件辯護。

I wasn't even 35 years old.

我當時還不到35歲。

And to make matters worse,

更糟糕的是

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

參議院，這是南北戰爭以來第一次。

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

通過了一項法案，試圖將此案從最高法院的備查表中刪除。

Now the speaking coaches say

現在演講教練說

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

我應該製造緊張氣氛，而不是告訴你發生了什麼。

But the thing is, we won.

但問題是，我們贏了。

How?

怎麼說？

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

今天，我就來談談如何贏得一場爭論。

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.

傳統的智慧是，你說話要有信心。

That's how you persuade.

這就是你說服的方式。

I think that's wrong.

我認為這是不對的。

I think confidence is the enemy of persuasion.

我認為信心是說服力的敵人。

Persuasion is about empathy,

勸說是為了感同身受。

about getting into people's heads.

關於進入人們的頭腦。

That's what makes TED what it is.

這就是TED的魅力所在。

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

這就是為什麼你要聽這個講座。

You could have read it on the cold page,

你可以在冷頁上讀到它。

but you didn't.

但你沒有。

Same thing with Supreme Court arguments --

最高法院的辯論也是如此 -- --

we write written briefs with cold pages,

我們寫的書面簡報都是冷頁。

but we also have an oral argument.

但我們也有一個口頭辯論。

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

我們不只是有一個系統 在法官寫問題。

and you write answers.

你就寫答案。

Why?

為什麼？

Because argument is about interaction.

因為爭論是為了互動。

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

我想帶你到幕後，告訴你我做了什麼。

and how these lessons are generalizable.

以及這些經驗如何可以推廣。

Not just for winning an argument in court,

不僅僅是因為在法庭上贏得了辯論。

but for something far more profound.

但為了更深刻的東西。

Now obviously, it's going to involve practice,

現在很明顯，這要涉及到實踐。

but not just any practice will do.

但不是隨便練練就可以的。

My first practice session for Guantanamo,

我為關塔那摩的第一次練習課。

I flew up to Harvard

我飛到了哈佛

and had all these legendary professors throwing questions at me.

並讓這些傳說中的教授向我拋出問題。

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

儘管我已經讀過所有的書，排練過無數次。

I wasn't persuading anyone.

我不是在說服任何人。

My arguments weren't resonating.

我的論點沒有引起共鳴。

I was desperate.

我已經絕望了。

I had done everything possible,

我已經做了一切可能的事情。

read every book, rehearsed a million times,

每本書都讀過，排練過無數次。

and it wasn't going anywhere.

而且它不會去任何地方。

So ultimately, I stumbled on this guy --

所以最終，我偶然發現了這個傢伙 --

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

他是一個表演教練， 他甚至不是一個律師。

He'd never set foot in the Supreme Court.

他從來沒有踏入過最高法院。

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

有一天他來到我的辦公室 穿著一件飄逸的白襯衫。

and a bolo tie,

還有一條領帶

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

他看著我雙手合十的樣子說。

"Look, Neal, I can tell

"你看，尼爾，我可以告訴

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

你不認為這是要去工作。

but just humor me.

但只是幽默我。

Tell me your argument."

告訴我你的論點。"

So I grabbed my legal pad,

於是我拿起了法律筆記本。

and I started reading my argument.

我就開始讀我的論點。

He said, "What are you doing?"

他說："你在做什麼？"

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

我說："我告訴你我的論點。"

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

他說："你的論點是法律墊子？"

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

我說："不，但我的論據在法律墊上。"

He said, "Neal, look at me.

他說："尼爾，看著我。

Tell me your argument."

告訴我你的論點。"

And so I did.

我就這樣做了。

And instantly, I realized,

瞬間，我就意識到了。

my points were resonating.

我的觀點是共鳴。

I was connecting to another human being.

我在和另一個人聯繫。

And he could see the smile starting to form

而且他可以看到笑容開始形成

as I was saying my words,

當我在說我的話時。

and he said, "OK, Neal.

他說："好吧，尼爾。

Now do your argument holding my hand."

現在握著我的手做你的論證。"

And I said, "What?"

我說，"什麼？"

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

他說，"是啊，握住我的手。"

I was desperate, so I did it.

我很絕望，所以我做了。

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

我意識到，"哇，這就是連接。

That's the power of how to persuade."

這就是如何說服人的力量。"

And it helped.

而且有幫助。

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

但說實話，隨著爭論日期的臨近，我還是很緊張。

And I knew that even though argument

我知道，即使爭論

was about getting into someone else's shoes

是關於進入別人的鞋子

and empathizing,

和感同身受。

I needed to have a solid core first.

我需要先有一個堅實的核心。

So I did something outside of my comfort zone.

所以我做了一些超出我舒適區的事情。

I wore jewelry -- not just anything,

我戴著珠寶--不是隨便什麼都戴。

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

但這是我父親戴了一輩子的手鐲。

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

直到他去世，就在爭論前幾個月。

I put on a tie

我打了一條領帶

that my mom had given me just for the occasion.

我媽媽給我的 只是為了這個場合。

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

我就拿出法律墊，在上面寫上孩子們的名字。

because that's why I was doing this.

因為這就是為什麼我在做這個。

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

對他們來說，離開這個國家比我發現的更好。

I got to court, and I was calm.

我到了法庭，我很平靜。

The bracelet, the tie, the children's names

手鐲，領帶，孩子們的名字。

had all centered me.

已經全部以我為中心。

Like a rock climber extending beyond the precipice,

像攀巖者延伸到懸崖之外。

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

如果你有一個堅實的支撐，你可以伸出。

And because argument is about persuasion,

而且因為爭論是為了說服人。

I knew I had to avoid emotion.

我知道我必須避免感情用事。

Displays of emotion fail.

情感的展示是失敗的。

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

這有點像寫一封郵件，用的都是粗體字，大寫的。

It persuades no one.

它沒有說服任何人。

It's then about you, the speaker,

然後是關於你，演講者。

not about the listener or the receiver.

不是關於聽眾或接收者。

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

現在看，在某些場合，解決的辦法是感情用事。

You're arguing with your parents,

你在和你的父母爭論。

and you use emotion and it works.

而你用情感，它的工作。

Why?

為什麼？

Because your parents love you.

因為你的父母愛你。

But Supreme Court justices don't love you.

但最高法院的法官們並不愛你。

They don't like to think of themselves

他們不喜歡自以為是

as the type of people persuaded by emotion.

作為被情感說服的那類人。

And I reverse engineered that insight too,

而我也逆向設計了這種見解。

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

為我的對手設下陷阱，挑起他的情緒反應。

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

所以我可以被看作是法律的冷靜和穩定的聲音。

And it worked.

而且它的工作。

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

我還記得坐在法庭上得知我們贏了。

That the Guantanamo tribunals were coming down.

關塔那摩法庭要倒了。

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

我走到了法院的臺階上，媒體一片譁然。

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

五百臺攝影機，他們都在問我。

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

"這個決定是什麼意思，說明了什麼？"

Well, the decision was 185 pages long.

判決書長達185頁。

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

我還沒來得及看，沒人看。

But I knew what it meant.

但我知道這意味著什麼。

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

這是我在法院的臺階上說的話。

"Here's what happened today.

"今天發生的事情是這樣的。

You have the lowest of the low --

你有最低級的...

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

這個傢伙，誰被指控是本拉登的司機。

one of the most horrible men around.

最可怕的男人之一。

And he sued not just anyone,

而且他起訴的不是任何人。

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

但國家，確實是世界上最強大的人。

the president of the United States.

美國總統。

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

而且他不是在什麼破爛的交通法庭上提出來的。

but in the highest court of the land,

但在國家的最高法庭上。

the Supreme Court of the United States ...

美國最高法院.。

And he wins.

而他贏了。

That's something remarkable about this country.

這就是這個國家的非凡之處。

In many other countries,

在許多其他國家。

this driver would have been shot,

這個司機會被槍殺。

just for bringing his case.

只是因為把他的案件。

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

而對我來說，更重要的是，他的律師會被槍殺。

But that's what makes America different.

但這就是美國的不同之處。

What makes America special."

是什麼讓美國變得特別。"

Because of that decision,

因為這個決定。

the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror,

《日內瓦公約》適用於反恐戰爭；

which meant the end of ghost prisons worldwide,

這意味著全世界鬼獄的終結。

the end of waterboarding worldwide

全球水刑的結束

and an end to those Guantanamo military tribunals.

並結束那些關塔那摩軍事法庭。

By methodically building the case,

通過有條不紊的建案。

and getting into the justices' heads,

並進入大法官們的頭腦。

we were able to quite literally change the world.

我們能夠相當字面上改變世界。

Sounds easy, right?

聽起來很簡單，對吧？

You can practice a lot,

你可以多多練習。

avoid displays of emotion,

避免情緒的表現。

and you, too, can win any argument.

而你，也可以贏得任何爭論。

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

很抱歉，事情沒那麼簡單。

my strategies aren't foolproof,

我的策略不是萬能的

and while I've won more Supreme Court cases

雖然我贏得了更多的最高法院案件

than most anyone,

比大多數人都要好。

I've also lost a lot too.

我也失去了很多。

Indeed, after Donald Trump was elected,

事實上，唐納德-特朗普當選後。

I was, constitutionally speaking, terrified.

從憲法上講，我被嚇壞了。

Please understand, this is not about Left versus Right,

請理解，這不是左與右的問題。

or anything like that.

或類似的東西。

I'm not here to talk about that.

我不是來談這個的。

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

但就在新總統上任一週後。

you might remember those scenes at the airports.

你可能還記得在機場的那些場景。

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

特朗普總統曾在競選時承諾，說，引。

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

"我，唐納德-J-特朗普呼籲全面徹底關閉

of all Muslim immigration to the United States."

穆斯林移民佔美國所有穆斯林移民的比例"。

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

他還說："我認為伊斯蘭教討厭我們。"

And he made good on that promise,

而他也兌現了這個承諾。

banning immigration from seven countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

禁止來自穆斯林人口占絕大多數的七個國家的移民；

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

我的律師團隊和其他人馬上去法院起訴。

and got that first travel ban struck down.

並讓第一個旅行禁令被駁回。

Trump revised it.

特朗普修改了它。

We went into court again and got that struck down.

我們又上了法庭，把這句話駁回了。

He revised it again,

他又修改了一遍。

and changed it, adding North Korea,

並將其更改，增加了北韓。

because we all know,

因為我們都知道。

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

美國與北朝鮮有巨大的移民問題。

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

但這確實使他的律師能夠到最高法院說。

"See, this isn't discriminating against Muslims,

"看，這不是歧視穆斯林。

it includes these other people too."

它也包括這些其他的人。"

Now I thought we had the killer answer to that.

現在我想我們已經有了殺手鐗。

I won't bore you with the details,

我不會用細節來煩你。

but the thing is, we lost.

但問題是，我們輸了。

Five votes to four.

五票對四票。

And I was devastated.

而我也是一蹶不振。

I was worried my powers of persuasion had waned.

我擔心我的說服力減弱了。

And then, two things happened.

然後，發生了兩件事。

The first was,

第一個是：

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

我注意到最高法院旅行禁令的部分意見

that discussed the Japanese American interment.

討論日裔美國人安葬問題的。

That was a horrific moment in our history,

那是我們歷史上一個可怕的時刻。

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

其中有超過10萬名日裔美國人被關押在集中營裡。

My favorite person to challenge this scheme

我最喜歡挑戰這個計劃的人

was Gordon Hirabayashi,

是平林高登。

a University of Washington student.

是華盛頓大學的學生。

He turned himself in to the FBI,

他向聯邦調查局自首了

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

誰說，"你看，你是初犯，。

you can go home."

你可以回家了。"

And Gordon said,

而戈登說。

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

"不，我是貴格會的人，我必須抵制不公正的法律"。

and so they arrested him and he was convicted.

所以他們逮捕了他，他被定罪。

Gordon's case made it to the Supreme Court.

戈登的案子上了最高法院。

And again, I'm going to do that thing

再一次，我要去做那件事

where I quash any sense of anticipation you have,

在那裡我熄滅了你的任何期待感。

and tell you what happened.

並告訴你發生了什麼。

Gordon lost.

戈登輸了。

But he lost because of a simple reason.

但他輸的原因很簡單。

Because the Solicitor General,

因為副檢察長。

that top courtroom lawyer for the government,

那位政府的頂級法庭律師

told the Supreme Court

告訴最高法院

that the Japanese American internment was justified by military necessity.

拘留日裔美國人是出於軍事上的需要。

And that was so,

而這是如此。

even though his own staff had discovered

儘管他自己的員工已經發現

that there was no need for the Japanese American interment

認為沒有必要收容日裔美國人。

and that the FBI and the intelligence community

以及聯邦調查局和情報界

all believed that.

都相信這一點。

And indeed, that it was motivated by racial prejudice.

事實上，它是出於種族偏見。

His staff begged the Solicitor General,

他的工作人員向副檢察長求情。

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

"說實話，不要壓制證據。"

What did the Solicitor General do?

副檢察長做了什麼？

Nothing.

什麼都沒有。

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

他進去講了 "軍需 "的故事。

And so the Court upheld Gordon Hirabayashi's conviction.

於是，法院維持了對平林公子的定罪。

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

並於次年，維持弗雷德-科雷松的安葬。

Now why was I thinking about that?

現在我為什麼要想這些？

Because nearly 70 years later,

因為近70年後。

I got to hold the same office,

我也要擔任同樣的職務。

Head of the Solicitor General's Office.

總檢察長辦公室主任。

And I got to set the record straight,

我得把話說清楚

explaining that the government had misrepresented the facts

解釋政府歪曲了事實。

in the Japanese interment cases.