The entire plot of 12 Angry Men is based off of the disagreement of two groups of men that have different beliefs on the circumstances of a certain situation. Each of these 12 men are locked in a room with each other as part of a jury. This jury is to decide the answer to one question that has been posed to him; is this accused, inner-city teenage boy guilty, or not? For some, this would seem like a fairly simple and straight-forward question. Lay out the facts, reasoning, and evidence, and come to a consensus based on nothing but unbiased, cold-hard facts. For these twelve men, this question is everything but simple. The group autonomously splits into two sides; one believing the suspect is guilty, with the other in favor of his innocence. The group involving the latter seems to be judging the boy fairly; taking unbiased considerations and assessing the situation based on nothing but what is proven to be true. The other group, however, seems to be judging the teen based on their bias, stereotypes, and own presumptions of what occurred. From a general perspective, this can seem like a mess; two groups of mixed-personality men that can't decide on the outcome of this issue, when their only job right now is to decide on the outcome of this issue. Don't let it get misinterpreted, this still is a very messy scenario, however, it has one positive thing going for it; the element of disagreement. In this TED Talk, spoken by Ms. Margaret Heffernan, she discusses some of the positive angles of disagreement, especially when it's related to the multiple stances that groups have on a sensitive subject. As an example, she used a young girl who disagreed with the science world when she proposed that x-ray's were a leading cause of cancers in children. This is one of the most beneficial cases of this, as it allowed the practice of giving pregnant women x-rays to be ceased, most likely saving thousands of lives. However, this is still a perfect example to connect to 12 Angry Men. There was a majority vote that the boy was guilty, based solely on the jurors' bias. All it took was one lone man to disagree and attempt to do what was right, which ended up saving the boy's life and possibly indicting the true killer. As Margaret Heffernan said, dare to disagree.