In his defense, Socrates states that acknowledging daimonic activities and not acknowledging the existence of daimons, is the same as acknowledging music and not acknowledging the existence of musicians, which is impossible. He continues by saying that daimons are believed to be either gods or the sons of gods and if he belives in daimons, he also believes in gods. With this argument, Socrates showed that Meletus was contradicting himself and his words sounded like “Socrates is guilty of not acknowledging gods, but acknowledging gods”. I believe that this argument was strong and helpful for Socrates. He found a smart way to turn Meletus’s words against himself, therefore making him look foolish. It would have been harder for Socrates to defend himself if Meletus stated which specific gods Socrates didn’t believe in. A lot of lawyers today try to find flaws in logic or contradiction in peoples’ words, if they don’t have enough evidence. This strategy is helpful and often helps to fight against a