Socrates wins

After finally getting myself to finish Book 1 at 7:00am, I've come to a decision that Socrates was definitely more convincing in his argument. Even in my half-awakened state, I could tell how Socrates' questions, which he claimed were use to clarify the definition of what justice and injustice, stumped Thrasymachus to the point where he not only was reluctant to reply (pg 17, 20, etc), but it also weakened Trasymachus' beginning argument that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger," each time Socrates was able to gain his agreement to the statements Socrates presented to him. To the audience, not just us the readers but their companions in the book as well, Socrates is more convincing because he exhibits his common sense and wisdom (phronesis) through his arguments. His questions for Thrasymachus follow after an explanation of his logical reasoning of how he came to a particular claim. Though he stated in the end of Book 1, “For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy.” I thought that his arguments said otherwise. From earlier statements it seemed that he was claiming that justice makes you stronger as a person, that it is a virtue, and that the just man is happy.
But you know what? It’s early. I’m not even sure if what I typed made sense, which it probably doesn’t. And I don’t know a thing about philosophy and this book only partly makes sense to me.