The irony is that right after defeating Annie's argument, he then undermines his own thesis. Instead of letting the students group up and learn on their own, he then proceeds to do the opposite and teach them to think like him, just like Annie wanted. But, of course, that's the point. He doesn't have any actual stance, he just likes to argue.
@@jamainegardner4193 agreed, he’s just finished a question that a student asked and right after will have them break into groups. If he doesn’t answer that one question, they’ll all probably be too distracted to teach themselves
As stated in other episodes, he's narsarcistic (Autocorrect could not help me). He was asked a question which focused on himself and painted him in a good light. This enabled him to create a lecture on what he loves talking about most, himself.
'My value as a teacher is to teach you how to learn'. This is unironically really good teaching practise. Your goal as a teacher should always be to make yourself as redundant as possible to a class.
@@patrickmccormack3209 Note 'as possible'. Your job as a teacher is first and foremost is to prepare kids for a world without the presence of teachers. That's part of the reason why we send them off to study for exams independently. Your goal as a teacher is to equip students with the skills necessary to not need a teacher, to self-regulate and to be able to independently select material to broaden their own knowledge base
No one ever ends this clip with Annie outside of the door feeling accomplished because she made Jeff actually start teaching when he was trying not to.
I've been sitting on this for months wondering if I could pull it off, and tonight the opportunity presented itself when I was debating my brother and in the span of ten minutes I had brought him all the way around to arguing my original point back to me, and after he said it I responded "that's exactly how I feel, I'm glad we agree" and the look of confusion and then realization on his face when he realized what just happened was the most satisfying moment of victory I've felt in over a year
This is how I troll. It doesn't matter if you have to pretend to be a nazi kitten, if the result is that their triumphant "AHA!" moment has them proudly saying in their own words why you were originally right.
P ...are you offering lectures? Not sarcastically because I actually find the topic of confrontation, argument and discussion very interesting. Would love to hear people’s thoughts on it
I know people crap on RUclips commenters for the vitriol and bullshit that circulates but once in a while, you'll find something like this that makes you go "People are incredible and I want to learn everything about what they have to say!" :)
agreed, I mean the guy was able to take down Ivy League lawyers without even understanding the law, had he taught his students how to do that Greendale could have gotten a serious boost in credibility
@@juli8288 and in his "ideal dream" for season 7, he wants to become the dean and make all his friends teachers? Like this is the guy who took summer classes so he could graduate early, rioted against every teacher ever, always found ways to exploit the school, make up his own credits.
In case someone else had trouble following at that speed: Mr Winger, is that the best use of our time? I think the value of having you here... I think my value as a teacher is to teach you how to learn. I think you are telling us we should teach ourselfs. I don't think you are going to learn if i tell you how to think. I think if you tell us what you think than we'll learn that! I think you should break into groups but as you fail to learn that your theory is invalid.
While humorous, this is only accurate for people who are respectful. Try arguing with a die-hard fan of a game you hate. see how long the arguement goes on. They don't usually huff and leave the room in embarassment. When people have no respect for proper etiquette, an arguement quickly becomes one side making sure the other cannot speak and claiming victory by doing so.
To be fair, if you hate a game based solely on the opinion of a critic per se and never actually played any substantial amount of time, is your argument even valid? I mean, the-hard fan has reasons to be a die-hard fan.
The entire show is based around Jeff wanting to become a lawyer again while simultaneously leading his group and providing lessons to them. His character becoming passionate about teaching law is such a great conclusion
It’s crazy I saw this scene years ago and got completely different idea of what I thought the show was about then I saw it a few months ago and I was totally wrong.
I don’t even think he’s providing lessons. After a few dozen watches of the series, I honestly think Jeff is just being his usual manipulative self, trying to maintain the cohesion of the group because he’s lost without them. We interpret them as lessons/messages because that’s what sitcoms have programmed us to expect.
After seeing this scene it made me realize that I forgot Jeff was actually pretty damn smart and just how boring he probably felt doing education over again
Actually, rather than being smart, he's experienced... and he knows what he knows... Jeff built up a lot of experience and figured out a lot of things from his experiences. He has enough experience to make up for lack of intelligence.
A defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution tries to prove guilt. As defense, all you need to do is poke holes in the prosecutions story (unless you are fighting to determine a mens rea, or criminals motivation/state of mind, which either lessens or harshens the charge). There was a case where a woman was found dead with (i believe) over 300 bruises. The prosecution said that since she was found dead in her home, she lived with her boyfriend, and she had over (i believe) 300 bruises, it must have been her boyfriend. Defense started poking holes in the theory, saying that the autopsy showed a drug in her system that can induce seizures, an expert testified that those bruises are consistent with a seizure, and the boyfriend was let free.
Also the jury is big problem. Take a look at OJ, the amount of nonsense the production put out that ended up convincing a pretty much convinced group of people.
@@kristhovaldez8819 then again it's all just work and at the end of the day someone has to do it for it to have meaning so might as well have that person be good at it
To be fair he was using his talents to help bad people avoid going to prisons, while by the end he was providing a genuine service by teaching people in poorly funded education center that couldn't afford a highly paid teacher. He's doing good in the word where before he was doing bad. Ain't no shame in that.
I thought about this and others jeff's sentences like: "i understood that if you keep on talking long enough, you automatically win an argument". That's true, but I found out you have to make pauses too. If you go on and invest people with a torrent of words, they just loose interest. You need to involve them with "yes or no" question from time to time. Thanks, jeff
Jeff should have taught argumentation instead of law, he knows how to use sophism and speech to win(g) arguments, but he doesn't actually seem to know the theory of law
you mean debate? lawyers dont have to know law, they have books for that, what they need to know is presentation of facts, because ultimately, law is opinion, and in court, changing minds wins cases, not necessarily encyclopedic facts. oj simpson is a good example, he won because his lawyer was good at public opinion. most people still think oj was guilty, but that doesn't matter, because he wasnt charged. like when your brother hits you then you get in trouble. he wins because he portrays you as guilty, not because you are.
@@thalivenom4972 I'm going to disagree with you on the part that they "don't have to know law". Lawyers do in fact have to know law to have not only good but valid arguments. What do I mean by valid? Valid means that it can be accepted in a court because it's in accordance with the law; otherwise, the arguments would be ruled invalid, and all the effort put into it would be wasted. Knowing the process and the law is of utmost importance if you want to win a case. Still, kudos to you for understanding that interpretation can create very distinct, if not sometimes contrasting, results.
@@willbow1304 lawyers have to know cases where what they want was projected. the arguments are all based on debate, and finding pathways to changing minds. the laws are good guidelines, but this is why sentences vary wildly.
So many people in the comments pointing out that he ended up teaching as if it isn't the very obvious focus of the scene. They gave it a pan out and music cue to illustrate that, that was the point. Congrats on paying attention to the half dozen blaring declarations of this scene.
I don't think you understand what that means. I am mocking people for patting themselves on the back over understanding something as it is designed to be understood. You wouldn't be proud for understanding that Moby Dick is a metaphor. I am being a condescending jackass, not a smart ass.
You congratulated me on something I didn't do. That makes no sense. You don't go to a homeless guy and congratulate them on being a lottery winner. Now I'm being a smart ass.
This is one of the moments that inspired me to become a teacher. Such an uplifting moment where Jeff's internally fighting the embarrassment of being one, but unintentionally wavers to the point of actually just teaching the students.
This was the first Community clip that i have watched ever. I was going to watch the show expecting something different. I ended up with this masterpiece we all know and love
@@beSoGamingwoh. Did we really have to go there. We are just simple youtubers trying to enjoy dis video. Please dont atack so hard friend thank you please. That reply made me cringe. So hard. Please forgive me
He is a good teacher. Rather than sticking to his plan, he pivots. The kids are asking questions and engaging rather than being passive (which is never gonna help them learn).
@@peterwright5311 You fail to see the point. He stayed to teach anyway, writing on the board and explaining regardless. That is a teachers job, not to have students 'teach themselves.' You're not payed to sit there and watch the students read a book and act like they're learning, you're payed to instruct, explain, and illustrate in a manner so as to help your students learn. This is a concept that seems to have been lost to time with the rise of the snowflake leftists.
@@peterwright5311 And illustrating. And making sure your students are retaining the information. You seem to be taking things quite out of context. You see, if the students aren't 'learning' then you're not teaching properly. If they cannot retain the information given to them (which, for the most part, isn't done so easily if you just tell them to read something they're not interested in) then you aren't doing your job as a teacher. What he is doing there in the video by the end of it is showing, illustrating, and explaining. Drawing a visual representation, while verbally explaining the concept in a way to get the idea through the students heads. In other words, You tell me. Would you remember the lesson better if I just told you 'You let them argue with themselves until you win.' Or would you remember it better if given examples, a more lengthy explanation, and perhaps even a drawn illustration for visual purposes? And then let's remember that not everyone is the same and many people learn differently. So it is best to hire a teacher that can do ALL of these things, rather than just one, so that you better teach a wider range of students properly.
@@rockysandman5489 Could be a number of them. It's a bit of a Circular Argument that he uses, as she wants him to teach the class and not break into groups and after confusing the issue with their rapid back and forth he's like 'Yes I wanted to break into groups and you disagreed with me so you are wrong' when the argument is actually about if they should break into groups. To be clear this is the path their argument took "Break into groups" -> "Is that the best use of our time? The value of having you here..." (Note, he cuts in at this point but so she's never actually able to state her full argument. Because she has never got her full premise out we have to assume what it is.) -> "My value is to teach you how to learn." (Note this is not actually his premise. His premise is that they should break into groups and this statement doesn't actually mean anything one way or the other as an argument for or against groups.) -> "You are telling us we should teach our selves." (She's still trying to argue against just breaking into groups) -> "You aren't going to learn if I tell you how to think." (Again, not really an argument about group learning. Just a way to get her to say her next line.) -> "If you tell us what you think, then we'll learn that" (Again she's trying to argue that he teach and not just do group learning.) -> "I think you should break into groups, but you failed to learn that so your argument is invalid" (Finally a comment regarding the actual argument of if they should break into groups or not and notice he's just using the premise as his argument.) Imagine if you and I were arguing about if most people liked chocolate chip cookies or not and my final winning argument was "I don't like chocolate chip cookies, and so what you just said was invalid"... but as you can see without all the clever masking that he used in the scene it just doesn't make sense as a winning argument. But with enough clever masking suddenly I've made you sound like someone trying to force everyone to eat chocolate chip cookies even if they don't like them when that was never your actual premise. Your actual premise may have been something as simple as "We'll have fewer leftovers if we buy chocolate chip cookies because most people like those."
The whole point of a logical fallacy is that it is a strong argument that falls apart the moment it is noticed, and leaves you open. Annie would have most certainly won if she had realized it. They are valid ways of arguing, especially if you are defending the wrong position.
@@djsyntic but isn't breaking a class into groups to self quiz a viable teaching tactic? If so then does that not mean he is correct? Also, just for context, I've never actually seen the show. I have only seen the clip.
@@djsyntic Jeff's final statement isn't just restating the premise, he does actually refute the validity of Annie's argument. Annie said before "if you tell us what you think (premise), then we'll learn that (conclusion)," and Jeff's reply is that when he did tell them what he thought (premise=true), Annie didn't learn it because she's arguing against what he thought (conclusion=false). Because he came up with a case in which the truth of Annie's premise didn't require the conclusion to be true as well, her argument was literally invalid by the rules of logic.
Hot damn, he literally lead her into a trap. The trap was when she said "I think if you tell us what *you think* then *we can learn that* " in which he retorts saying she indirectly contradicted herself, stating that *he " thought they* should break into groups but *she failed to learn that* ". Not anything much, but its some wordplay I think was crazy to look at.
Winger isn’t interested in the source material he’s being forced to teach, but the moment a subject that he specializes in is brought up, that’s when he starts teaching. Cause he’s not teaching what society has deemed important, but rather what he’s learned is important through his life experience.
I know at the end of the day it's just a silly sitcom, but I feel such a rush when Jeff starts legit teaching that I want him to actually grow as a person and live a "normal" life.
Yes, everyone, please keep explaining the irony of him actually teaching after he thinks that he won the argument. You're only several years late with that analysis.
Yes, he started teaching. But no Annie didn't win the argument. That's the truth about arguments. Winning/losing them doesn't change reality. They're just that. Arguments. Jeff has a good point here.
Ali Dangou yes, and yet she lost the argument. He doesn't seem to care if she's right. Just that she started an arguing and lost. He then moves on to telling how lawyers use this against people.
Ali Dangou again, she lost because she wanted him to lecture about the subject matter in the class, he teaches something completely unrelated to what they’re supposed to be learning because it interests him. She lost either way
Her claim that if he tells them what he thinks they'll learn that, but she didn't learn that because she didn't learn what he said when he actually told her what he thought. So her claim was proven invalid, just like Jeff says.
Yes, it does. He proved her argument invalid. "If someone tells me something I learn something" was wrong in her case. Sure, that doesn't mean it couldn't apply to someone else, but that's not even what the argument was about.
Man I wish we got to see more instances of Jeff actually teaching, he seemed really into it and what he was talking about was actually really interesting
After seeing this episode I was really excited for the season cause I was expecting to see more of Jeff teaching and the whole student teacher relationship. But none of that happened. It was a very disappointing season.
I absolutely loved the first few episodes of season 5. I thought the fourth episode (the one with PIerce's will) was one of the best episodes in the entire show. But it just went gradually downhill the second half of the season. Except MeowMeowBeens. I loved that one.
kingcrimson250 Yeah MeowMeowBeenz was amazing! And I agree on Pierce's Will, coincidentally also the last episode Donald Glover was in. It's such a sad show without him really.
I still defend S5 and will continue to. I love S5 it’s different but way better then S4 and was better then most of TV at the time honestly. I do agree it would’ve been nice to see more Professor Jeff I think it did ok. Tbf though it’s not like they could’ve spent way to much time don’t forget there was only 13 episodes.
Unfortunately not, most people in Among Us don't care about reason or logic, even if the impostor is obvious. In that game, the first person accused is usually getting ejected no matter what.
@@xxsideouz8953 hmmm lets say someone saw me vent all I have to do is show multiple people saw me go into this area without venting. Unfortunately I'm still getting votes lol
@@xxsideouz8953 Eh, well that's because if the person ends up being innocent, people can just call a meeting right after and eject the accuser. Unless they LITERALLY FORGOT ABOUT IT, which has happened to me plenty.
I'm guessing the way the lesson would go is that, as prosecutors draw a circle around the truth and decide that everything outside it is a lie, prosecutors can/will eventually argue themselves into disproving the truth as they've set it, which wins your argument for you. You'll see it in Jeff and Annie's argument in this scene -- Annie decided on the definition of "teaching" and his role as a teacher and her role as a student as she thinks should apply, and Jeff simply won by getting her to agree that, if that's how she defines the roles and the praxis of those roles, she's failed in her own role by failing to perform her role of student (in this case, by getting into groups). Therefore, if she has failed to be a student, how can she accuse him of failing to be a teacher if she will not be a student and allow him to teach?
@@navonmyhand7999 Thank you. As a follow up, the brilliance of this argument is that, actually, Jeff's "sit with the textbook in groups" method isn't the most engaging or effective method of teaching at all. Just because, even by Annie's own definition she has failed to be a good student doesn't mean that Jeff was at all a good teacher with a bad student, since the nature of Annie's conduct as a student doesn't actually cancel out the nature of Jeff's conduct. That is, just because Annie was a bad student doesn't mean Jeff wasn't also a bad teacher! Two parties can both hold blame, and just because one is wrong doesn't mean the other is right. Had Annie taken a moment to recognise this, she could have had the perfect counter. Instead, she allowed him to goad her into winning his argument for him.
I’ve always sucked at arguing so I tried to think about how I could not look like an idiot arguing. Then I started to start picking at others arguments and breaking their own ideas before even presenting mine. So, this makes 2 things happen. Either 1, I prove them wrong, or 2, If my own thought process was wrong I’d admit it and boom! I realize something I didn’t! That’s the whole point of arguing, to decide either one point or the other, and my new way to argue does that! An argument isn’t who’s right at this point, it’s devolved to whoever can convince the other, even if what they’re arguing for is wrong. But if you use the truth and only the truth when picking apart an argument that’s made off of bias, then both you and the person you’re arguing with will either see if their point is right or wrong. And you present your own argument (if you think that your own is right, this doesn’t work at convincing people of something that is wrong) then there’s no seams to pick at and lose the argument! And hey! It’s basically the same thing here!
No, she lost the war as well because she wasn't there to get the value of him teaching after losing the argument, which is what she was arguing about in the first place.
JxJxJxJx you idiot, he’s referring to how in this episode Annie wanted Jeff to end up teaching for real. This exchange they had ended up making Jeff teach the class and in the scene after, Jeff goes up to Annie telling her that he actually enjoys teaching
Forget not having a degree, you can see the reason jeff actually lasted as a lawyer for as long as he did: he’s so good at winning arguments the actual law wasn’t needed to be used most of the time, I assume he was found out when eventually someone caught him not knowing a basic law in court but if he did he’d basically be Harvey from suits
@@mistahmaskapone3577 i love how people still reply to year-old comments and the replies are as recent as a week old, shows how many people still watch these clips over and over again
This is such a great example of how beneath the surface there was some really clever writing going on in Community in the seasons Dan Harmon was in charge.
@@TheAudioCGMan notice how you were reduced to writing completely pointless reply for the sole purpose of self defence, revealing nothing but pure butt hurt on your part. At this point a laugh in your face and a condescending "sure dude" would make you lose whatever diginity you have left. A more adequate responce to this is just a shrug, or a question asking the person to elaborate their point.
This scene is pure gold... It's almost like a paradox biting its tail more and more often. It shows that logic alone can't guide to something meaningful unless you consider "actual, physical" things. Annie and Jeff argue about how to teach and both their theories, after they argue, are in a sense "demolished". Annie loses logically because she is tricked by logics, while Jeff loses because, despite his specious reasoning, at the end of the arguement he starts teaching, therefore contradicting what he proved. In a way, this is similar to the proof for God's existence used by many philosophers, such as Descartes. This theory was later criticized by Kant in the same way: there's a "leap" between the plane of logic to the plane of reality... Dan Harmon and his co-workers are exceptional writers indeed!
My usual technique for getting people to argue against themselves is to accuse them of being closed minded then asking them to prove they're not by telling me what it would take to prove them wrong. Then sit back and watch them construct their own arguments against themselves. Regardless, it's not about being right. It's about being accurate. If you are only concerned about accuracy, you'll never lose an argument because you'll automatically adopt the most accurate stance even if that means you have to change your mind. Unfortunately, in Law, it's not about what's accurate, or what's right, or what's legal ... it's about getting someone to agree with you.
I have replayed this countless times but still never understood this scene. I wish some kind soul with exceptional ability to explain could help me out here.
...annie lost when she stormed off, but jeff lost when the students unintentionally turned his own technique against him...
And annie will never know
Nice!
How did they do that?
@@jamespfitz he didn't want to teach, and he ended up teaching regardless
@@TimothyGod I assume you fell for it too then?
The irony is that right after defeating Annie's argument, he then undermines his own thesis. Instead of letting the students group up and learn on their own, he then proceeds to do the opposite and teach them to think like him, just like Annie wanted.
But, of course, that's the point. He doesn't have any actual stance, he just likes to argue.
Not even he likes to argue. He just got good at arguing so he can take the path of least resistance
From his perspective he's just conversing with them, not teaching.
You're an absolute salty nitwit.
@@jamainegardner4193 agreed, he’s just finished a question that a student asked and right after will have them break into groups. If he doesn’t answer that one question, they’ll all probably be too distracted to teach themselves
As stated in other episodes, he's narsarcistic (Autocorrect could not help me). He was asked a question which focused on himself and painted him in a good light. This enabled him to create a lecture on what he loves talking about most, himself.
I’m so upset they didn’t go deeper in this teacher arch imagine Jeff really becoming a amazing teacher
Better YET ... The New Dean hahahah
But he's happy, and isn't that the most important thing
@@omeletufomash probably in the movie
@@tomazou2010 Is he happy tho?
'My value as a teacher is to teach you how to learn'.
This is unironically really good teaching practise. Your goal as a teacher should always be to make yourself as redundant as possible to a class.
Redundant? Maybe a word more like secondary is better.
@@patrickmccormack3209 Note 'as possible'. Your job as a teacher is first and foremost is to prepare kids for a world without the presence of teachers. That's part of the reason why we send them off to study for exams independently. Your goal as a teacher is to equip students with the skills necessary to not need a teacher, to self-regulate and to be able to independently select material to broaden their own knowledge base
Should be. But you're really just paid to make sure they get good grades & not get sued by parents who think you're teaching them anything vulgar.
@@mr.e.8292 I think ancillary works better to describe a teacher's role
And most teachers can't teach that or anything else.
"Never argue with a stupid person. They will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience." -Mark Twain
Annie is not stupid.
i mean you're saying this as if expecting a law professor to teach you law is stupid.
@sluttyMapleSyrup deep
He used that trick well
I love this quote
Dammit I wish this scene would’ve continued I was actually engaged and wanting to learn
You were on 399 Likes, So I liked to make it 400. You're welcome.
@@redjohn44 You were on 0 likes, so I liked it to make it 1. You're welcome.
@@rochahouse4883 cheers bud. Luv ya
@@davidkim4653 You could just ask bro, no homo
No, wait....Don't stop
>●
>
I ●
No one ever ends this clip with Annie outside of the door feeling accomplished because she made Jeff actually start teaching when he was trying not to.
I've been sitting on this for months wondering if I could pull it off, and tonight the opportunity presented itself when I was debating my brother and in the span of ten minutes I had brought him all the way around to arguing my original point back to me, and after he said it I responded "that's exactly how I feel, I'm glad we agree" and the look of confusion and then realization on his face when he realized what just happened was the most satisfying moment of victory I've felt in over a year
Changing sides without knowing it is tight.
Replying back after 6 months is super easy, barely any convenience
can u walk me thru how you did that?
This is how I troll.
It doesn't matter if you have to pretend to be a nazi kitten, if the result is that their triumphant "AHA!" moment has them proudly saying in their own words why you were originally right.
I'm sure your ego got a big kick out of that. Congrats
I’d actually like to be there for the rest of this lesson, this sounds very interesting
P ...are you offering lectures? Not sarcastically because I actually find the topic of confrontation, argument and discussion very interesting. Would love to hear people’s thoughts on it
P any recommendations? It’s a topic I’d really like to get into
I know people crap on RUclips commenters for the vitriol and bullshit that circulates but once in a while, you'll find something like this that makes you go "People are incredible and I want to learn everything about what they have to say!" :)
@@pwnmeisterage What would you have said, had you been in her place?
@@pwnmeisterage I like people who think like you
It's a shame they didn't keep writing Jeff's teachings like this.
agreed, I mean the guy was able to take down Ivy League lawyers without even understanding the law, had he taught his students how to do that Greendale could have gotten a serious boost in credibility
It was a short season thanks to NBC not believing in the show. I think they would of explored it no doubt but they didn’t had the time to do it
@@juli8288 and in his "ideal dream" for season 7, he wants to become the dean and make all his friends teachers? Like this is the guy who took summer classes so he could graduate early, rioted against every teacher ever, always found ways to exploit the school, make up his own credits.
2,000th like
@@FalconFlyer75 what show is this??
In case someone else had trouble following at that speed:
Mr Winger, is that the best use of our time? I think the value of having you here...
I think my value as a teacher is to teach you how to learn.
I think you are telling us we should teach ourselfs.
I don't think you are going to learn if i tell you how to think.
I think if you tell us what you think than we'll learn that!
I think you should break into groups but as you fail to learn that your theory is invalid.
What a legend, thank you
As a person whose first language isn't English: Thanks
i appreciate what you did, in case, english is not my first language!
You're a angel. Tks
im surprised this didn't confuse more people rather than help, since you screwed up multiple sentences, especially the last one
While humorous, this is only accurate for people who are respectful.
Try arguing with a die-hard fan of a game you hate. see how long the arguement goes on. They don't usually huff and leave the room in embarassment. When people have no respect for proper etiquette, an arguement quickly becomes one side making sure the other cannot speak and claiming victory by doing so.
I know exactly that
To be fair, if you hate a game based solely on the opinion of a critic per se and never actually played any substantial amount of time, is your argument even valid?
I mean, the-hard fan has reasons to be a die-hard fan.
@@Geheimnis-c2e no, that's just blind bias, and is as logical as the n*zi regime. "we've had experience with them so we know best"
Haha, you can't lose if you don't give up.
Maybe you shouldn't be hating something as trivial as a game to begin with.
The entire show is based around Jeff wanting to become a lawyer again while simultaneously leading his group and providing lessons to them. His character becoming passionate about teaching law is such a great conclusion
What’s the show called ?
@@randomdude5011 Community
It’s crazy I saw this scene years ago and got completely different idea of what I thought the show was about then I saw it a few months ago and I was totally wrong.
Except, this episode is one of three episodes where Jeff is shown teaching, and by the next he no longer cares about teaching.
I don’t even think he’s providing lessons. After a few dozen watches of the series, I honestly think Jeff is just being his usual manipulative self, trying to maintain the cohesion of the group because he’s lost without them. We interpret them as lessons/messages because that’s what sitcoms have programmed us to expect.
After seeing this scene it made me realize that I forgot Jeff was actually pretty damn smart and just how boring he probably felt doing education over again
"over again" he never did it in the first place
*bored (?)
Actually, rather than being smart, he's experienced... and he knows what he knows... Jeff built up a lot of experience and figured out a lot of things from his experiences. He has enough experience to make up for lack of intelligence.
If he were smart he wouldn't have taken a shortcut and falsified his documents to begin with.
What movie/show is this clip from and can anyone give a short description of that movie/show please?
I saw this scene for the first time years ago and it's so rewarding finally watching the show and getting to witness this moment all over again.
Squidward: people talk loud when they wanna sound smart
CORRECT
how to win an arguement?
speak superfast sounding mature without shouting.
Maybe that would work against an idiot.
Ben Shapiro has made a career out of that. It's legit.
@@perman07
You beat me to it
Defeated by the word "what?"
Mayank Thakur that's what good will hunting taught me
Annie are you OK ? Are you OK Annie ?
She's been hit by!
She's been struck by
A smooth criminal
tm tm turu doom doom, turu doom doom, turu doom doom doOm
Aaao!
I always thought jeff was a great character, but seeing him finally find a little joy in teaching made my heart SO happy
A defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution tries to prove guilt. As defense, all you need to do is poke holes in the prosecutions story (unless you are fighting to determine a mens rea, or criminals motivation/state of mind, which either lessens or harshens the charge). There was a case where a woman was found dead with (i believe) over 300 bruises. The prosecution said that since she was found dead in her home, she lived with her boyfriend, and she had over (i believe) 300 bruises, it must have been her boyfriend. Defense started poking holes in the theory, saying that the autopsy showed a drug in her system that can induce seizures, an expert testified that those bruises are consistent with a seizure, and the boyfriend was let free.
Also the jury is big problem. Take a look at OJ, the amount of nonsense the production put out that ended up convincing a pretty much convinced group of people.
Looks like suddenly this is in everyone's recommended huh? Same here.
gay tekken champion 1991 Yup!
gay tekken champion 1991 Odd..
Never question the RUclips algorithm.
There is no algorithm, just a dude at Google trying to show everyone his favorite videos
Caught me! xD
I love how talented of a lawyer Jeff really is, it's a shame he ended up a minimum wage teacher at the end
lawyers that talented are too dangerous to actually work as a lawyer. I would hate for him to end up having to defend a criminal
@@kristhovaldez8819 then again it's all just work and at the end of the day someone has to do it for it to have meaning so might as well have that person be good at it
Things I wish I never heard “it’s a shame he ended up as a teacher”
jeff had a happy ending, much happier than he was at the start of the show
To be fair he was using his talents to help bad people avoid going to prisons, while by the end he was providing a genuine service by teaching people in poorly funded education center that couldn't afford a highly paid teacher. He's doing good in the word where before he was doing bad. Ain't no shame in that.
I thought about this and others jeff's sentences like: "i understood that if you keep on talking long enough, you automatically win an argument". That's true, but I found out you have to make pauses too. If you go on and invest people with a torrent of words, they just loose interest. You need to involve them with "yes or no" question from time to time. Thanks, jeff
I like how in trying to get Jeff to actually teach and failing, Annie actually manages to get Jeff to teach
Jeff should have taught argumentation instead of law, he knows how to use sophism and speech to win(g) arguments, but he doesn't actually seem to know the theory of law
you mean debate? lawyers dont have to know law, they have books for that, what they need to know is presentation of facts, because ultimately, law is opinion, and in court, changing minds wins cases, not necessarily encyclopedic facts. oj simpson is a good example, he won because his lawyer was good at public opinion. most people still think oj was guilty, but that doesn't matter, because he wasnt charged. like when your brother hits you then you get in trouble. he wins because he portrays you as guilty, not because you are.
Sophistry is manipulation of speech, this was simply allowing somebody else to disprove themselves?
@@thalivenom4972 I'm going to disagree with you on the part that they "don't have to know law". Lawyers do in fact have to know law to have not only good but valid arguments. What do I mean by valid? Valid means that it can be accepted in a court because it's in accordance with the law; otherwise, the arguments would be ruled invalid, and all the effort put into it would be wasted. Knowing the process and the law is of utmost importance if you want to win a case. Still, kudos to you for understanding that interpretation can create very distinct, if not sometimes contrasting, results.
@@willbow1304 lawyers have to know cases where what they want was projected. the arguments are all based on debate, and finding pathways to changing minds. the laws are good guidelines, but this is why sentences vary wildly.
@@thalivenom4972 sure, jurisprudence is key, since it's the law being applied to the reality; it's concrete now.
So many people in the comments pointing out that he ended up teaching as if it isn't the very obvious focus of the scene. They gave it a pan out and music cue to illustrate that, that was the point. Congrats on paying attention to the half dozen blaring declarations of this scene.
Congrats on being a smart ass.
I don't think you understand what that means. I am mocking people for patting themselves on the back over understanding something as it is designed to be understood. You wouldn't be proud for understanding that Moby Dick is a metaphor. I am being a condescending jackass, not a smart ass.
Judg3m3nt Like I said, congrats.
You congratulated me on something I didn't do. That makes no sense. You don't go to a homeless guy and congratulate them on being a lottery winner. Now I'm being a smart ass.
Good for you.
Saying “no u” until they give up also works.
This video basically sums up how everything goes back in a circle both ironically and unintentionally ironic.
This is one of the moments that inspired me to become a teacher. Such an uplifting moment where Jeff's internally fighting the embarrassment of being one, but unintentionally wavers to the point of actually just teaching the students.
did you?
@@Tyty-qi2gu Somewhat. I've taught in classroom settings before but I'm not officially a teacher. Yet. Still working on that 😅
Whats the title of his movie/series?
@@kylebaguan5320 Community in case you still dont know
That’s wonderful! I Hope your quest to be a teacher is going well!
"you can win by not arguing?" classic skicap
A strange game, the only winning move is not to play.
@@Wertsir are you attempting to prevent thermal nuclear wall?
@@Wertsir yea aight budda
This was the first Community clip that i have watched ever. I was going to watch the show expecting something different. I ended up with this masterpiece we all know and love
"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
@foxfireman188-ls1kv Right idea, wrong line.
@foxfireman188-ls1kv "It's Bicycle Repairman!"
He should've just said 'no u'
ur mom gay
Easy there, bud, he was trying to win an argument. Not destroy her whole life.
@@beSoGamingwoh. Did we really have to go there. We are just simple youtubers trying to enjoy dis video. Please dont atack so hard friend thank you please.
That reply made me cringe. So hard. Please forgive me
L.A.G.G I’ve been saying that for YEARS
Today he would say "ok boomer"
Technically Annie won that because she wanted him to teach the class and now he is.. Annie is AWESOME and Jeff loves her!
Yep, she lost the battle but won the war.
You guys are wrinkling my brain!
If you're going to play that game, then he purposely proposed the breaking into groups because he wanted her to react in order to make a point.
Terriccota Pie knowing jeff thats not probable
yeah but they never ended up together so they both lost
Annie may have lost but she has completed her goal, he's teaching.
He is a good teacher. Rather than sticking to his plan, he pivots.
The kids are asking questions and engaging rather than being passive (which is never gonna help them learn).
Damn, everyone got this in their recommended a year ago.
-me, 2019
Same
We are in this together my friends
Same
Same
Am I the odd one out?
He actually wins because he points out that her position is self-refuting, not because of whatever he was going to say.
but then he actually lost, because Annie's goal was to get him to behave like a teacher.
@@Hedgemonkey5 He already was.
@@peterwright5311 You fail to see the point. He stayed to teach anyway, writing on the board and explaining regardless. That is a teachers job, not to have students 'teach themselves.' You're not payed to sit there and watch the students read a book and act like they're learning, you're payed to instruct, explain, and illustrate in a manner so as to help your students learn.
This is a concept that seems to have been lost to time with the rise of the snowflake leftists.
@@rednova2212 Uhuh, so teaching = talking from the front of the class. Boy you sure know a lot about teaching.
@@peterwright5311 And illustrating. And making sure your students are retaining the information. You seem to be taking things quite out of context. You see, if the students aren't 'learning' then you're not teaching properly. If they cannot retain the information given to them (which, for the most part, isn't done so easily if you just tell them to read something they're not interested in) then you aren't doing your job as a teacher. What he is doing there in the video by the end of it is showing, illustrating, and explaining. Drawing a visual representation, while verbally explaining the concept in a way to get the idea through the students heads.
In other words, You tell me. Would you remember the lesson better if I just told you 'You let them argue with themselves until you win.' Or would you remember it better if given examples, a more lengthy explanation, and perhaps even a drawn illustration for visual purposes?
And then let's remember that not everyone is the same and many people learn differently. So it is best to hire a teacher that can do ALL of these things, rather than just one, so that you better teach a wider range of students properly.
I haven't even seen this show before but I love this clip and come back to it every once and awhile.
Season 5
Episode 2
PS: To start to finish this video clip is really the whole scene
You'll be remembered and Thanked forever ♾️
Finally someone useful ! I appreciate you
Thanks man
So it just fucking leaves you?
He forgot to acknowledge the fact he used a logical fallacy to "beat" her
Which fallacy was it, I failed to notice it.
@@rockysandman5489 Could be a number of them.
It's a bit of a Circular Argument that he uses, as she wants him to teach the class and not break into groups and after confusing the issue with their rapid back and forth he's like 'Yes I wanted to break into groups and you disagreed with me so you are wrong' when the argument is actually about if they should break into groups.
To be clear this is the path their argument took "Break into groups" -> "Is that the best use of our time? The value of having you here..." (Note, he cuts in at this point but so she's never actually able to state her full argument. Because she has never got her full premise out we have to assume what it is.) -> "My value is to teach you how to learn." (Note this is not actually his premise. His premise is that they should break into groups and this statement doesn't actually mean anything one way or the other as an argument for or against groups.) -> "You are telling us we should teach our selves." (She's still trying to argue against just breaking into groups) -> "You aren't going to learn if I tell you how to think." (Again, not really an argument about group learning. Just a way to get her to say her next line.) -> "If you tell us what you think, then we'll learn that" (Again she's trying to argue that he teach and not just do group learning.) -> "I think you should break into groups, but you failed to learn that so your argument is invalid" (Finally a comment regarding the actual argument of if they should break into groups or not and notice he's just using the premise as his argument.)
Imagine if you and I were arguing about if most people liked chocolate chip cookies or not and my final winning argument was "I don't like chocolate chip cookies, and so what you just said was invalid"... but as you can see without all the clever masking that he used in the scene it just doesn't make sense as a winning argument. But with enough clever masking suddenly I've made you sound like someone trying to force everyone to eat chocolate chip cookies even if they don't like them when that was never your actual premise. Your actual premise may have been something as simple as "We'll have fewer leftovers if we buy chocolate chip cookies because most people like those."
The whole point of a logical fallacy is that it is a strong argument that falls apart the moment it is noticed, and leaves you open. Annie would have most certainly won if she had realized it.
They are valid ways of arguing, especially if you are defending the wrong position.
@@djsyntic but isn't breaking a class into groups to self quiz a viable teaching tactic? If so then does that not mean he is correct?
Also, just for context, I've never actually seen the show. I have only seen the clip.
@@djsyntic Jeff's final statement isn't just restating the premise, he does actually refute the validity of Annie's argument. Annie said before "if you tell us what you think (premise), then we'll learn that (conclusion)," and Jeff's reply is that when he did tell them what he thought (premise=true), Annie didn't learn it because she's arguing against what he thought (conclusion=false). Because he came up with a case in which the truth of Annie's premise didn't require the conclusion to be true as well, her argument was literally invalid by the rules of logic.
Hot damn, he literally lead her into a trap. The trap was when she said "I think if you tell us what *you think* then *we can learn that* " in which he retorts saying she indirectly contradicted herself, stating that *he " thought they* should break into groups but *she failed to learn that* ". Not anything much, but its some wordplay I think was crazy to look at.
Thats a textbook example of twisting someones words in their mouth. No point for his his side of the argument was done this day.
@@carodame9419 not true
I decided to watch this not because I wanna win an argument but its on my recommended and its less than a minute
When school actually teaches you something helpful in your life
Winger isn’t interested in the source material he’s being forced to teach, but the moment a subject that he specializes in is brought up, that’s when he starts teaching. Cause he’s not teaching what society has deemed important, but rather what he’s learned is important through his life experience.
I know at the end of the day it's just a silly sitcom, but I feel such a rush when Jeff starts legit teaching that I want him to actually grow as a person and live a "normal" life.
Yes, everyone, please keep explaining the irony of him actually teaching after he thinks that he won the argument. You're only several years late with that analysis.
How to win an argument
Step 1: Grab gun
Step 2: .......
That moment when the entire class is actively paying attention and taking notes lol
Yes, he started teaching. But no Annie didn't win the argument. That's the truth about arguments. Winning/losing them doesn't change reality. They're just that. Arguments. Jeff has a good point here.
Ali Dangou *_It's finally something that he wanted to teach_*
Ali Dangou yes, and yet she lost the argument. He doesn't seem to care if she's right. Just that she started an arguing and lost. He then moves on to telling how lawyers use this against people.
Ali Dangou again, she lost because she wanted him to lecture about the subject matter in the class, he teaches something completely unrelated to what they’re supposed to be learning because it interests him. She lost either way
Her claim that if he tells them what he thinks they'll learn that, but she didn't learn that because she didn't learn what he said when he actually told her what he thought. So her claim was proven invalid, just like Jeff says.
Yes, it does. He proved her argument invalid. "If someone tells me something I learn something" was wrong in her case. Sure, that doesn't mean it couldn't apply to someone else, but that's not even what the argument was about.
“This video is showed me how to win any arguement, i love this guy”
-Sun Tzu
This explains SO much about, well, a certain group of people I won’t name names.
(Cough) everyone
Man I wish we got to see more instances of Jeff actually teaching, he seemed really into it and what he was talking about was actually really interesting
After seeing this episode I was really excited for the season cause I was expecting to see more of Jeff teaching and the whole student teacher relationship. But none of that happened. It was a very disappointing season.
The Jrr watch A.P. Bio, it's essentially Jeff in the reluctant teacher dynamic you described
Trinate Martinez hmm, I do love me some Glenn Howerton. I'll have to check it out, thanks!
I absolutely loved the first few episodes of season 5. I thought the fourth episode (the one with PIerce's will) was one of the best episodes in the entire show. But it just went gradually downhill the second half of the season. Except MeowMeowBeens. I loved that one.
kingcrimson250 Yeah MeowMeowBeenz was amazing! And I agree on Pierce's Will, coincidentally also the last episode Donald Glover was in. It's such a sad show without him really.
I still defend S5 and will continue to. I love S5 it’s different but way better then S4 and was better then most of TV at the time honestly. I do agree it would’ve been nice to see more Professor Jeff I think it did ok. Tbf though it’s not like they could’ve spent way to much time don’t forget there was only 13 episodes.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
I’m actually heavily interested to learn the rest of this class
Guys i dont think this is gonna help us in among us
Unfortunately not, most people in Among Us don't care about reason or logic, even if the impostor is obvious. In that game, the first person accused is usually getting ejected no matter what.
@@xxsideouz8953 hmmm lets say someone saw me vent all I have to do is show multiple people saw me go into this area without venting.
Unfortunately I'm still getting votes lol
@@xxsideouz8953 Eh, well that's because if the person ends up being innocent, people can just call a meeting right after and eject the accuser. Unless they LITERALLY FORGOT ABOUT IT, which has happened to me plenty.
Oh stfu that game sucks ass.
@@Sid_Vicious-hu6yn only the player does.
I just recently rewatched this episode, as I am once again going through all the seasons. This is honestly one of my favourite Jeff moments.
Which one is this I’ve forgot
@@debitsuisse7232 I don't remember exactly, but I am pretty sure this is from Season 5, I think either episode 1 or 2.
@@lazylank I believe it's episode 2
What show is it? Never seen it before. :)
@@originalvideos1306 I think it was just some dumb show called "Glee" or something.
He was actually a pretty good teacher, that's how going to school should be
Kinda wish we got more of Jeff being a teacher.
Lawyered! Oh wait, wrong series.
Jeff would destroy Marshall. Marshall is too soft.
He's the Big Fudge. He don't lose.
Please imagine a lawyer sitcom with Jeff and Marshall OMG it would want to see that in action
Totally !
corvetteguy91 How about Jeff Winger vs Saul Goodman?
And...AND?! I have my notebook out for this video! Don't go blueball-point penning me!
Dude, you're everywhere
You're my hero!
I'm guessing the way the lesson would go is that, as prosecutors draw a circle around the truth and decide that everything outside it is a lie, prosecutors can/will eventually argue themselves into disproving the truth as they've set it, which wins your argument for you. You'll see it in Jeff and Annie's argument in this scene -- Annie decided on the definition of "teaching" and his role as a teacher and her role as a student as she thinks should apply, and Jeff simply won by getting her to agree that, if that's how she defines the roles and the praxis of those roles, she's failed in her own role by failing to perform her role of student (in this case, by getting into groups). Therefore, if she has failed to be a student, how can she accuse him of failing to be a teacher if she will not be a student and allow him to teach?
@@rachelfox8108 great encapsulation of his stance and strategy during this scene
@@navonmyhand7999 Thank you. As a follow up, the brilliance of this argument is that, actually, Jeff's "sit with the textbook in groups" method isn't the most engaging or effective method of teaching at all. Just because, even by Annie's own definition she has failed to be a good student doesn't mean that Jeff was at all a good teacher with a bad student, since the nature of Annie's conduct as a student doesn't actually cancel out the nature of Jeff's conduct. That is, just because Annie was a bad student doesn't mean Jeff wasn't also a bad teacher! Two parties can both hold blame, and just because one is wrong doesn't mean the other is right. Had Annie taken a moment to recognise this, she could have had the perfect counter. Instead, she allowed him to goad her into winning his argument for him.
I’ve always sucked at arguing so I tried to think about how I could not look like an idiot arguing. Then I started to start picking at others arguments and breaking their own ideas before even presenting mine. So, this makes 2 things happen. Either 1, I prove them wrong, or 2, If my own thought process was wrong I’d admit it and boom! I realize something I didn’t! That’s the whole point of arguing, to decide either one point or the other, and my new way to argue does that! An argument isn’t who’s right at this point, it’s devolved to whoever can convince the other, even if what they’re arguing for is wrong. But if you use the truth and only the truth when picking apart an argument that’s made off of bias, then both you and the person you’re arguing with will either see if their point is right or wrong. And you present your own argument (if you think that your own is right, this doesn’t work at convincing people of something that is wrong) then there’s no seams to pick at and lose the argument!
And hey! It’s basically the same thing here!
Such a great Show and such a sad ending for it I loved Community
What's the name of the program i would like to watch it
she lost the battle but won the war
No, she lost the war as well because she wasn't there to get the value of him teaching after losing the argument, which is what she was arguing about in the first place.
@@bigfan1041 youre Wrong
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess Not an argument.
JxJxJxJx you idiot, he’s referring to how in this episode Annie wanted Jeff to end up teaching for real. This exchange they had ended up making Jeff teach the class and in the scene after, Jeff goes up to Annie telling her that he actually enjoys teaching
@@Lyoko104 you're so Incompetent and immature about others arguments.
I really wanted to hear the whole lesson 😢
so take his class then
unfuzzy two years too late bud
Eyeland Ninja posted a great comment in this comments section that continues and explains what Jeff was saying, along with an example in the replies.
@@PerovNigma wish you had copy and pasted it, there are 1,8k comments here
@@burntblueberrywaffles
So do I, I can't find it...
This is legit one of my favorite scenes in this entire series
Forget not having a degree, you can see the reason jeff actually lasted as a lawyer for as long as he did:
he’s so good at winning arguments the actual law wasn’t needed to be used most of the time,
I assume he was found out when eventually someone caught him not knowing a basic law in court but if he did he’d basically be Harvey from suits
He was caught because his rival Alan snitched on him.
@@mistahmaskapone3577 i love how people still reply to year-old comments and the replies are as recent as a week old, shows how many people still watch these clips over and over again
@@nickyiscrazy Its the Algorithm
That's the law for you. Its not about who is right. Its about who can argue better.
This is such a great example of how beneath the surface there was some really clever writing going on in Community in the seasons Dan Harmon was in charge.
Damn i wish this was longer, I was really getting engaged with his lesson. This class is like modern day trolling 101.
Plot twist: He lost , cause all she wants was to have him teaching people about trust and lies.
This video sure has sparked a lot of arguments.
This was in my recommended and I ended up watching the whole show. It's a very good show.
cool. cool cool cool.
Did you watched all 6 seasons and the movie?
which episode was this?
@@keefedoesstuff3623 If you have to ask your streets behind.
@@ethanbowman4748 thats 2 months ago I finished watching everything 4 hours after I said that
This scene taught me more than any of my classes
And it’s not even the whole thing
Annie seemed to take that one pretty hard.
I wonder if she's OK. If she's OK. If she's OK, Annie.
I love how when he starts to write on the board *EVERYONE* starts taking notes
I would love to see this as an entire episode.
Ultimate argument ender:
"Well that's just like your opinion, man.".
I see this sentence a lot when someone lost an argument to an expert, because their only argument was gut feeling
@@TheAudioCGMan Well that's just like your opinion, man
@Meizar Farizky I know but what can I do? I can just watch gods mills grind slowly. yes that's my opinion duh
@@TheAudioCGMan notice how you were reduced to writing completely pointless reply for the sole purpose of self defence, revealing nothing but pure butt hurt on your part. At this point a laugh in your face and a condescending "sure dude" would make you lose whatever diginity you have left.
A more adequate responce to this is just a shrug, or a question asking the person to elaborate their point.
@@NJ-wb1cz you think that maybe, but I write all things to have fun
And he’s suddenly teaching them how to think.
She should have then said. "I don't need to agree with something in order to learn it."
He just got Reverse Carded into teaching
Its the circle of truth!
not only can you not handle it it also guards against sea bears!
Xaal Carlson Animations!
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I like the cut of your jib.
Whos That Guy? It's a SpongeBob reference
I am Killin' it
Ah! That explains it. Cheers
Yea but you have no defense against the sea rhinoceros, they can penetrate the truth
No matter. The water bears will survive the bears of the sea.
Let them yeet themselves
-Sun Tzu
This scene is pure gold... It's almost like a paradox biting its tail more and more often. It shows that logic alone can't guide to something meaningful unless you consider "actual, physical" things. Annie and Jeff argue about how to teach and both their theories, after they argue, are in a sense "demolished". Annie loses logically because she is tricked by logics, while Jeff loses because, despite his specious reasoning, at the end of the arguement he starts teaching, therefore contradicting what he proved. In a way, this is similar to the proof for God's existence used by many philosophers, such as Descartes. This theory was later criticized by Kant in the same way: there's a "leap" between the plane of logic to the plane of reality... Dan Harmon and his co-workers are exceptional writers indeed!
Funny how Jeff won the argument but he ends up teaching the classroom so he proved Anne point
I’ve had 77 teachers from kindergarten to senior year in high school and only 4 have made me WANT to listen like this
amen for those teachers honestly
btw I'm not religious just a saying of appreciation to me x]
On the Internet, many will blanket-deny any contradiction they ran into, rather than implicitly admitting defeat.
My usual technique for getting people to argue against themselves is to accuse them of being closed minded then asking them to prove they're not by telling me what it would take to prove them wrong. Then sit back and watch them construct their own arguments against themselves. Regardless, it's not about being right. It's about being accurate. If you are only concerned about accuracy, you'll never lose an argument because you'll automatically adopt the most accurate stance even if that means you have to change your mind. Unfortunately, in Law, it's not about what's accurate, or what's right, or what's legal ... it's about getting someone to agree with you.
Annie saying "Mr. Winger" is the pinnacle of the show
I love this scene so much. I honestly think it's my favourite of the whole series, I don't know why.
Right after the girl stormed off "WELCOME TO THE INTERNET!" Played in my head. Lol
I wish we had seen more of Jeff actually teaching. Every now and again he'd actually be a really good teacher but only when he doesn't notice.
I believe Cartman explained best “screw you guys I’m going home”
Now i just hear dan harmon
Alex G. Not really. Why? It's just after seeing Dan Harmon talk in interviews his characters sound like him to me.
Alex G. I wish
The second he started drawing a circle I was like, "Yep, classic Dan Harmon."
Alex G.
PTHD.
Post Traumatic Harmon Disorder.
I have replayed this countless times but still never understood this scene. I wish some kind soul with exceptional ability to explain could help me out here.
I was on a debate team. Arguing is something I love to do whether I get paid or not
This could be litterally useful to learn in school like during an english course. That probably be neat.
When you try to avoid teaching and then end up teaching them valuable information that no other teacher would've taught them
Honestly the best lessons I’ve had come from those kinds of tangents
And now I have another movie to watch.