听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:如何在辩论中获胜？，希望你会喜欢！

【演讲者及介绍】Neal Katyal

Neal Katyal是美国前副总检察长，目前在George Floyd谋杀案中担任特别检察官。

【演讲主题】如何在辩论中获胜（在美国最高法院，或任何地方）？How to win an argument (at the US Supreme Court, or anywhere)

【中英文字幕】翻译者Emma Cao 校对者Yolanda Zhang

Fourteen years ago, I stood in the Supreme Court to argue my first case. And it wasn't just any case, it was a case that experts called one of the most important cases the Supreme Court had ever heard. It considered whether Guantanamo was constitutional, and whether the Geneva Conventions applied to the war on terror. It was just a handful of years after the horrific attacks of September 11. The Supreme Court had seven Republican appointees and two Democratic ones, and my client happened to be Osama bin Laden's driver. My opponent was the Solicitor General of the United States, America's top courtroom lawyer. He had argued 35 cases. I wasn't even 35 years old. And to make matters worse, the Senate, for the first time since the Civil War, passed a bill to try and remove the case from the docket of the Supreme Court.

十四年前， 我在美国高等法院 辩护了我的第一个案件。 而这不是一个普通的案件， 这个案件被专家称为最高法院处理过的 最重要的案件之一。 它辩论了关塔那摩是否合法， 以及《日内瓦公约》 适不适用于反恐战争。 当时，911恐怖事件才刚过去几年。 美国最高法院指定了七名共和党陪审员以及两名民主党陪审员。 而我的客户恰好是乌萨马·本·拉登的司机。 站在我对立面的是美国的副检察长， 也是美国的一名顶级法庭律师。 他当时已辩护了35个案件， 而我当时都还没到35岁。 更糟糕的是， 自美国内战以来， 参议院首次通过了一项法案， 试图将此案从最高法院的议事日程中移除。

Now the speaking coaches say I'm supposed to build tension and not tell you what happens. But the thing is, we won. How? Today, I'm going to talk about how to win an argument, at the Supreme Court or anywhere.

这时，演讲导师通常会说， 我应该创造悬念， 不告诉大家后面发了生什么。 但结果是，我们赢了。 怎样做到的呢？ 今天，我会讨论怎样赢得一场辩论， 无论是在高等法院， 还是任何其他地方。

The conventional wisdom is that you speak with confidence. That's how you persuade. I think that's wrong. I think confidence is the enemy of persuasion. Persuasion is about empathy, about getting into people's heads. That's what makes TED what it is. It's why you're listening to this talk. You could have read it on the cold page, but you didn't. Same thing with Supreme Court arguments -- we write written briefs with cold pages, but we also have an oral argument. We don't just have a system in which the justices write questions and you write answers. Why? Because argument is about interaction.

对于如何赢得一场辩论， 通常的建议是，要自信地发言， 让自己听起来具有说服力。 我认为这是错的。 我认为，自信是说服力的敌人。 说服力跟同理心是息息相关的， 是关于进入人们的思维。 TED就是这样发展起来的。 这就是为什么你正在听这段演讲。 你本可以在一张冷冰冰的纸上读完这份演讲稿， 但你没有。 最高法院的辩论也是一样—— 我们把案件写在纸上， 但我们也有口头的辩论。 在我们的系统中， 不只是由法官提问， 而我们被动地去回答。 为什么？ 因为辩论的核心是互动。

I want to take you behind the scenes to tell you what I did, and how these lessons are generalizable. Not just for winning an argument in court, but for something far more profound. Now obviously, it's going to involve practice, but not just any practice will do. My first practice session for Guantanamo, I flew up to Harvard and had all these legendary professors throwing questions at me. And even though I had read everything, rehearsed a million times, I wasn't persuading anyone. My arguments weren't resonating.

我带让各位了解一下这件事的来龙去脉，告诉你们我做了什么， 以及如何将这些技巧运用到其他场合—— 不只是为了在法庭中赢得诉讼， 其背后还有更深远的意义。 当然，这是需要练习的， 但不是任何训练都能达到目的。 在应对关塔那摩案子的 第一次练习中， 我飞到了哈佛。 在那里，许多德高望重的教授把他们的问题都甩向我。 而虽然我已经通读了所有的资料，排练了无数次, 我依然没有能够说服任何人。 我的论点没有引起共鸣。

I was desperate. I had done everything possible, read every book, rehearsed a million times, and it wasn't going anywhere. So ultimately, I stumbled on this guy -- he was an acting coach, he wasn't even a lawyer. He'd never set foot in the Supreme Court. And he came into my office one day wearing a billowy white shirt and a bolo tie, and he looked at me with my folded arms and said, "Look, Neal, I can tell that you don't think this is going to work, but just humor me. Tell me your argument."

我很绝望。 我已经竭尽所能， 读了每一本书，排练了无数次， 却没有取得任何效果。 最终，我偶然遇到了一个家伙， 他并不是表演导师， 甚至都不是律师。 他从来没有踏进过最高法院的大门， 有一天，他来到我的办公室， 穿着一件飘逸的白上衣， 戴着条饰扣式领带。 他双臂交叉，看着我，说： “尼尔，我可以察觉到， 你觉得这不会有用， 不如就当给我讲个笑话好了。 告诉我你的论点。”

So I grabbed my legal pad, and I started reading my argument. He said, "What are you doing?" I said, "I'm telling you my argument." He said, "Your argument is a legal pad?" I said, "No, but my argument is on a legal pad." He said, "Neal, look at me. Tell me your argument." And so I did. And instantly, I realized, my points were resonating. I was connecting to another human being. And he could see the smile starting to form as I was saying my words, and he said, "OK, Neal. Now do your argument holding my hand." And I said, "What?" And he said, "Yeah, hold my hand." I was desperate, so I did it. And I realized, "Wow, that's connection. That's the power of how to persuade."

于是，我拿起我的笔记本， 开始读我的论点。 他说：“你在做什么？” 我说：“我在告诉你我的论点。” 他说：“你的论点是你的笔记本？” 我说：“不是，但是我的论点在笔记本上。” 他说：“尼尔，看着我， 告诉我你的论点。” 于是，我开始了论证。 而在那一瞬间，我发现， 我的论点引起了共鸣， 我正在与另一个人建立关系。 而他可以看到我在说话时， 脸上浮现的微笑， 然后，他说：“好的，尼尔。 现在，握着我的手， 再重复一次你的论点。” 我说：“什么？” 他说：“对，握着我的手。” 我决定死马当活马医， 于是握了住了他的手。 而我突然间感觉到： “哇，这就是人与人之间的关系。 这是说服力的力量。”

And it helped. But truthfully, I still got nervous as the argument date approached. And I knew that even though argument was about getting into someone else's shoes and empathizing, I needed to have a solid core first. So I did something outside of my comfort zone. I wore jewelry -- not just anything, but a bracelet that my father had worn his whole life, until he passed away, just a few months before the argument. I put on a tie that my mom had given me just for the occasion. And I took out my legal pad and wrote my children's names on it, because that's why I was doing this. For them, to leave the country better than I had found it.

这段经历的确帮助了我。 但说实话，在开庭日期渐渐临近时， 我还是有些紧张。 虽然我知道辩论是关于站在别人的角度， 并拥有同理心， 我还是先要有实在的核心内容。 所以，我做了件在我舒适区之外的事情。 我带上了一件首饰—— 这不只是件普通的首饰， 而是我父亲戴了一辈子的一块手镯， 而他在开庭日前的几个月去世了。 我带上了条领带， 是我母亲专门为了这个场合给我准备的。 我拿出了笔记本， 将我孩子的名字写在里面， 因为他们是我做这件事情的原因， 为了让他们可以生活在一个更好的美国。

I got to court, and I was calm. The bracelet, the tie, the children's names had all centered me. Like a rock climber extending beyond the precipice, if you have a solid hold, you can reach out.

我到了法庭，内心十分平静。 手镯、领带和孩子的名字给予了我无穷的力量。 仿佛一个越过悬崖的攀岩者， 如果有了稳定的支撑， 你就能够勇敢的前进。

And because argument is about persuasion, I knew I had to avoid emotion. Displays of emotion fail. It's kind of like writing an email in all bold and all caps. It persuades no one. It's then about you, the speaker, not about the listener or the receiver.

而因为辩论是关于说服力， 我知道我必须避免情绪激动。 展现出自己的真实情绪会导致失败， 就好比一封全部是黑体和大写的电子邮件， 不会说服任何人。 归根结底，这是关于你，演讲者， 而与听众或信息接收者无关。

Now look, in some settings, the solution is to be emotional. You're arguing with your parents, and you use emotion and it works. Why? Because your parents love you. But Supreme Court justices don't love you. They don't like to think of themselves as the type of people persuaded by emotion. And I reverse engineered that insight too, setting a trap for my opponent to provoke his emotional reaction, so I could be seen as the calm and steady voice of the law. And it worked.

的确，在某些情况下， 保持情绪化是好的解决方案。 你如果和父母吵架， 适当表达情绪会比较有用。 为什么？ 因为你的父母是爱你的， 但是最高法院不爱你。 他们不喜欢认为自己是会被情绪影响到的人。 我也对这种理解进行了反向工程， 为我的对手设置陷阱， 来激起他们的情绪化反应， 所以我自己就可以被视为 平静、稳定的法律之声。 这个方法奏效了。

And I remember sitting in the courtroom to learn that we had won. That the Guantanamo tribunals were coming down. And I went out onto the courthouse steps and there was a media firestorm. Five hundred cameras, and they're all asking me, "What does the decision mean, what does it say?" Well, the decision was 185 pages long. I hadn't had time to read it, nobody had. But I knew what it meant.

我还清晰记得坐在法庭里， 得知我们赢得官司的那一刻。 关塔那摩官司要结束了。 我走上法院的台阶， 外面全是长枪短炮的媒体。 有500个相机对着我， 都在急切地询问： “这个判决意味着什么， 它传达了什么信息？” 那份判决书有185页长。 我没有足够的时间去读， 其他人也没有。 但我知道它意味着什么。

And here's what I said on the steps of the Court. "Here's what happened today. You have the lowest of the low -- this guy, who was accused of being bin Laden's driver, one of the most horrible men around. And he sued not just anyone, but the nation, indeed, the world's most powerful man, the president of the United States. And he brings it not in some rinky-dink traffic court, but in the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of the United States ... And he wins. That's something remarkable about this country. In many other countries, this driver would have been shot, just for bringing his case. And more of the point for me, his lawyer would have been shot. But that's what makes America different. What makes America special." Because of that decision, the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror, which meant the end of ghost prisons worldwide, the end of waterboarding worldwide and an end to those Guantanamo military tribunals. By methodically building the case, and getting into the justices' heads, we were able to quite literally change the world.

我站在法院的台阶上说： “这是今天发生的事情。 一个无论从哪个角度都处于极端劣势的人， 这个被指控为本·拉登， 这个世上最恶劣的一个人的司机—— 不单单是起诉了一个人， 而是起诉了世上最强大的人， 美国总统。 而且这一切并不是发生在一个普普通通的交通法庭， 而是在最高等法院， 美国的最高法院—— 而且他赢了。 这就是这个国家的伟大之处。 在很多其他国家， 这个司机会因为仅仅是提出诉讼就被枪杀。 对我来说更重要的是， 他的律师也会被枪杀。 但这就是美国的不同之处， 特殊之处。” 而因为这个判决， 日内瓦公约也开始适用于恐怖袭击， 这就意味着全世界的幽灵监狱的终结， 全世界水刑的终止， 以及关塔那摩湾军事法庭的关闭。 通过有条不紊地立案， 影响法官的思想， 我们确实改变了世界。

And again, I'm going to do that thing where I quash any sense of anticipation you have, and tell you what happened. Gordon lost. But he lost because of a simple reason. Because the Solicitor General, that top courtroom lawyer for the government, told the Supreme Court that the Japanese American internment was justified by military necessity. And that was so, even though his own staff had discovered that there was no need for the Japanese American interment and that the FBI and the intelligence community all believed that. And indeed, that it was motivated by racial prejudice. His staff begged the Solicitor General, "Tell the truth, don't suppress evidence." What did the Solicitor General do? Nothing. He went in and told the "military necessity" story. And so the Court upheld Gordon Hirabayashi's conviction. And the next year, upheld Fred Korematsu's interment.

这次我还是打算开门见山， 不留任何悬念， 结果就是， 高登输了。 但他输的理由很简单。 因为检察长， 政府的顶尖法庭律师， 告诉了最高法院， 囚禁日裔美国人有正当的理由： 军事必要性。 就这样， 虽然他自己的工作人员发现 日裔美国人囚禁是没有必要的， 而且 FBI 及情报圈 也都对此深信不疑。 的确，那背后的动机 就是种族歧视。 他的团队成员请求副检察长： “说出真相，不要隐瞒证据。” 结果副检察长做了什么？ 什么也没做。 他在法庭上复述了 “军事必要性”的故事。 因此，最高法院裁定， 对高登平林的原判决有效， 隔年，又裁定松丰三郎 （Fred Korematsu）的囚禁判决有效。

Now why was I thinking about that? Because nearly 70 years later, I got to hold the same office, Head of the Solicitor General's Office. And I got to set the record straight, explaining that the government had misrepresented the facts in the Japanese interment cases. And when I thought about the Supreme Court's travel ban opinion, I realized something. The Supreme Court, in that opinion, went out of its way to overrule the Korematsu case. Now, not only had the Justice Department said the Japanese interment was wrong, the Supreme Court said so too.

我为什么想到了这些呢？ 因为将近七十年后， 我的职位变成了 副检察长办公室主任。 而我得以有机会把记录改正了， 解释了政府在 日本人囚禁的案件中 错误地诠释了整个事件。 当我想到最高法院的 旅行禁令意见时， 我发现了一件事。 在那份意见书中，最高法院 特意推翻了松丰的结论。 现在，不仅是司法部认为 日本人囚禁是错的， 最高法院对此也持同样的态度。

That's a crucial lesson about arguments -- timing. All of you, when you're arguing, have that important lever to play. When do you make your argument? You don't just need the right argument, you need the right argument at the right moment. When is it that your audience -- a spouse, a boss, a child -- is going to be most receptive?

这是一个关于辩论 很重要的一课——时机。 各位在辩论时 要善用这项工具。 你要何时提出论证？ 你不仅需要对的论点， 你也需要在对的时机 提出对的论证。 你的观众—— 可能是配偶、老板、 孩子—— 何时最愿意接纳你的观点？

Now look, sometimes, it's totally out of your control. Delay has costs that are too extensive. And so you've got to go in and fight and you very well may, like me, get the timing wrong. That's what we thought in the travel ban. And you see, the Supreme Court wasn't ready, so early in President Trump's term, to overrule his signature initiative, just as it wasn't ready to overrule FDR's Japanese American interment. And sometimes, you just have to take the risk. But it is so painful when you lose. And patience is really hard.

有时，这完全不是你能控制的。 而延迟的代价太高了。 所以你得直接上战场打仗， 你很可能就会想我一样， 没抓到对的时机。 我们认为旅行禁令的案例 就是如此。 要知道， 最高法院还没准备好， 要在特朗普任期之初 推翻他的招牌倡议， 就像当初还没准备好推翻 罗斯福的日裔美国人囚禁令。 有时，你只能去冒险。 但失败的结果也让人难以承受， 保持耐心也绝非易事。

But that reminds me of the second lesson. Even if vindication comes later, I realized how important the fight now is, because it inspires, because it educates.

但这让我想起了第二堂课。 即使以后才能平反， 我也知道立刻挺身而战 有多么重要， 因为它有鼓舞、教育的作用。

I remember reading a column by Ann Coulter about the Muslim ban. Here's what she said. "Arguing against Trump was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn't get one of them to argue we should end our country through mass-immigration?" And that's when emotion, which is so anathema to a good argument, was important to me. It took emotion outside the courtroom to get me back in.

安·库尔特（Ann Coulter）写过一篇 关于穆斯林禁令的专栏文章。 文章中，她是这样说的： “和特朗普争辩的 是第一代美国人， 尼尔·凯泰尔。 有相当多第十代的美国仇恨者。 你无法让他们任何一人去争辩， 我们应该通过大量移民 来让我们的国家灭亡。” 也正是在这个时候， 作为辩论大敌的情绪， 对我来说也开始变得重要了， 是将情绪拒之门外， 让我重新回到了法庭。

When I read Coulter's words, I was angry. I rebel against the idea that being a first-generation American would disqualify me. I rebel against the idea that mass immigration would end this country, instead of recognizing that as literally the rock on which this country was built.

读到库尔特的文字时，我很生气。 我很反对这个说法： 身为第一代美国人， 我没有资格为这个国家发声。 我也反对这个说法： 大量移民 会让这个国家灭亡， 而不承认移民其实 是美国立国的基础。

When I read Coulter, I thought about so many things in my past. I thought about my dad, who arrived here with eight dollars from India, and didn't know whether to use the colored bathroom or the white one. I thought about his first job offer, at a slaughter house. Not a great job for a Hindu. I thought about how, when we moved to a new neighborhood in Chicago with one other Indian family, that family had a cross burned on its lawn. Because the racists aren't very good at distinguishing between African Americans and Hindus. And I thought about all the hate mail I got during Guantanamo, for being a Muslim lover. Again, the racists aren't very good with distinctions between Hindus and Muslims, either.

读到库尔特的文章时， 我想到好多过去的事。 我想到我父亲， 他从印度来到这里时， 身上只有八美金， 而且不知道应该使用 有色人种还是白人的的厕所。 我想到他的第一份工作 是在屠宰场。 对印度人来说 这可不是什么好工作。 我想到当我们与 另一个印度家庭 搬到芝加哥一个新的居民区时， 那家人的草皮上 被烙上了十字架。 因为种族主义者不太能分辨 非裔美国人和印度人的差别。 我想到在关塔那摩 案件审理期间， 我收到的所有仇恨信件， 说我偏爱穆斯林。 同样的，种族主义者也不太能 分辨非裔、印度人 和穆斯林的差别。

Ann Coulter thought that being the child of an immigrant was a weakness. She was profoundly, profoundly wrong. It is my strength, because I knew what America was supposed to stand for. I knew that in America, me, a child of a man who came here with eight dollars in his pocket, could stand in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of a detested foreigner, like Osama bin Laden's driver, and win.

安·库尔特认为， 身为移民的孩子是一种劣势。 她简直大错特错了。 这反而是我的优势， 因为我知道美国 本应代表的是什么。 我知道，在美国， 我，身为来到美国时口袋里只有 八块美金的人所生的孩子， 能够站在美国最高法院里， 代表一位被憎恶的外国人， 比如本·拉登的司机， 并胜诉。

And it made me realize, even though I may have lost the case, I was right about the Muslim ban too. No matter what the court decided, they couldn't change the fact that immigrants do strengthen this country. Indeed, in many ways, immigrants love this country the most. When I read Ann Coulter's words, I thought about the glorious words of our Constitution. The First Amendment. Congress shall make no law establishing religion. I thought about our national creed, "E plurbis unum," "out of many come one."

这让我了解到， 虽然我输了穆斯林禁令案， 但我的论点依然是对的。 无论法庭裁决如何， 都无法改变 移民让这个国家更强大的事实。 而且，在许多层面上， 移民反而是最热爱这个国家的人。 当我读到了安·库尔特的文章， 我想到了宪法中的那神圣的文字。 第一修正案。 国会不得针对宗教来制定法律。 我想到了我们国家的格言， “E plurbis unum”， “合众为一”。

Most of all, I realized, the only way you can truly lose an argument is by giving up. So I joined the lawsuit by the US Congress challenging President Trump's addition of a citizenship question to the census. A decision with huge implications. It was a really hard case. Most thought we would lose. But the thing is, we won. Five votes to four. The Supreme Court basically said President Trump and his cabinet's secretary had lied.

最重要的是，我了解到， 真正能让你输掉一场辩论的， 只有放弃。 于是，我参加了美国国会的诉讼， 挑战特朗普总统在人口普查中 增加了公民身份问题。 这个判决有意义深远。 是一个难度相当高的案件。 大部分人都认为我们会输。 但是我们赢了—— 五票对四票。 最高法院只是说， 特朗普总统和 他的内阁的秘书说了谎。

And now I've gotten back up and rejoined the fight, and I hope each of you, in your own ways, does so too. I'm getting back up because I'm a believer that good arguments do win out in the end. The arc of justice is long, and bends, often, slowly, but it bends so long as we bend it. And I've realized the question is not how to win every argument. It's how to get back up when you do lose. Because in the long run, good arguments will win out. If you make a good argument, it has the power to outlive you, to stretch beyond your core, to reach those future minds.

现在，我已重整旗鼓， 重新加入战局， 我希望各位也都能 用自己的方式这么做。 我重新站了起来， 因为我相信， 好的论证终究会胜出。 正义的弧线很长， 而通常弯曲得非常缓慢， 但只要我们想让它改变轨迹， 它就会改变轨迹。 我也同样认识到，问题并不是 要如何赢得每一场辩论， 而是在输掉之后， 如何重整旗鼓。 因为，长远来看， 好的论证总会胜出。 如果你有好的论证， 它存世的时间有可能比你还长， 延伸到你的核心价值之外， 触碰到未来人的思想。

And that's why all of this is so important. I'm not telling you how to win arguments for the sake of winning arguments. This isn't a game. I'm telling you this because even if you don't win right now, if you make a good argument, history will prove you right.

这就是为什么 这一切如此重要。 我告诉各位如何赢得辩论， 并不是要为了让你们赢得辩论。 这不是场比赛。 我要告诉各位这些， 是因为就算你现在无法取胜， 如果你有好的论证， 历史迟早也会证明你是对的。

I think back to that acting coach all the time. And I've come to realize that the hand I was holding was the hand of justice. That outstretched hand will come for you. It's your decision to push it away or to keep holding it.

我常常会回想起那位表演教练。 我渐渐发现， 我握住的那只手，是正义的手。 那只伸出的手会来找你。 由你来决定是要把它推开， 还是继续握紧它。

Thank you so much for listening.

非常感谢大家的聆听。