@@motyovszkimiklos7538 You realise ben didnt make this video surely? These were just points this channel picked up on and claimed to be rules he seems to follow in debates. He doesnt actually have this list in a frame and read it every night before bed 😂
Neutral?! Is it neutral to argue against the right of private property as the narrator does when he say socialist wouldn't see it that way? I barely got into this video and I was scratching my head to understand the narrator's contorsions. The presenter is anything but neutral. The narrator starts with the assumption that there is no gravity, no up, no down, and to make any assertion would be to state a bias. Fact and the truths they lay out are not bias. This is what I call untethered thought processes. If you untether all fact for from reality, then you can make any argument seem logical working in this created realm of fantasized reality.
Marisa Nya yeah cool, that had nothing to do with the thread at all. If you wanna stir up a debate then don’t do it on a random comment talking about the take that the poster had on Ben.
@@scottsyverson1607 Facts are not biased. Interpretations of facts are often biased. Your argument here shows that you fully buy into the snuck premise of private property and cannot see past your preconceived belief that "of course there's private property!" You completely missed the presenter's point - and in fact, demonstrated it quite well. There was no anti-Shapiro bias in that section and the presentation was, indeed, quite neutral.
@@mojewjewjew4420 I understand where you are coming from, but I think that it's more like "Nowadays it is thought that being offended wins them." People don't use the yelling tactic as much as bringing too much emotion to the table.
@@autumnishere420 That too but i feel its more in the west, from where i am for you "have" to be loud, aggressive and hypocrite works aswell. Sure you heard how you also cant have a reasonable conversation with parents because DiSrEsPeCt
Blust GT That’s where older people like myself have the advantage. Being past 50, we can always tell our opponents to slow down. It drives them nuts, and sometimes short circuits their brain, and gives extra time to think, of responses, counterpoints, etc. His fast talking, is also his weakness.
"Buying into an argument that you dont understand". This one statement is brilliant. If I don't understand, the higher road is to shut my mouth and open my ears. Many times there is no need to reply. It is ok when we don't engage. I recall the saying the smartest person in the room may be the one who says little and listens well.
@@sinfulxiv9607 I think he's talking about the Andrew Neil interview. The left says Ben was humiliated. The right says the interviewer was being unreasonable. Check it out for yourself.
1. catching a non-arguement 2. being offended doesn't prove anything 3. push a person to give examples 4. know your arguments inside and out 5. emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent
@@maskedmarvyl4774 No, it's a good debate tactic. If someone brings up an irrelevant point or appeals to authority, it's good to question why it matters to the debate.
@@jenniferl1908 narcissistic brain damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex does not allow for the high IQ or self-awareness, or intellectual capacity to sustain a debate. Narcissists can't even fathom a polarized argument because their lack of empathy fails to understand anyone else's perspective except their own. Ben does not gaslight or move goal posts which are the only tactics narcissistic brain damage knows. Narcissists are not loving fathers with a family who support them. Narcissists actually need to cause damage to others and to self to increase their dangerously low serotonin. Don't confuse high IQ with destructive narcissistic brain damage LOL Did you not read a single word about narcissism before projecting this disorder onto a celebrity?
@@crungus__ since anyone can be offended at anything, that isn't proving anything beyond a person finds something offensive. I could be offended by someone saying hello to me but that doesn't mean it is objectively offensive.
I feel that during arguments people focus more on “winning” than being correct and that’s a really bad way to figure out who’s right becuase you might be wrong and you’ll still come out on top and that’s actually counter productive
Maybe that's a good thing, sometimes, at least? I mean, the more you're trying to defend your point, the more things you come up with that no one could think of if they weren't as determined.
@@turbotrup96 So you're basically saying that you would sacrifice the chances of your argument being correct, so that you can increase your chances of winning it? Trying to win an argument knowing that you're fundamentally wrong is the most basic sign of being a morally wrong person.
@@ShubhThakkar I'm not talking about consciously making a complex argument with hidden holes in it hoping that the opposing thinker won't see them. I'm talking about both sides being so determined and adrenaline-driven that they would squeeze out the very best of their views and come up with new arguments thanks to which they'd shed a new light on the topic they're discussing that others would most likely miss because they would give up too soon. Because, in the end, agreeable people will not have an astute enough discourse when they agree with each other too soon and move on to another topic or end the debate.
@@turbotrup96 I think it's important to be rigorous, but you're confusing arguments with debate. Two people debating will never almost never agree with each other on a fundamental level, because debate dictates that two sides are opposing each other. Even if they end up agreeing on something, debates are usually time-boxed so how long they spend debating is usually determined by the format of the debate. Arguments can end pretty quickly, but an ideal argument aims for understanding one another over anything else.
@@SlickSkuddy if you wanna be good just read books nd listen to people use these tactics a lot and then do actual debates even if you lose its experience
@@sonicthehedgehog1109 No, he doesn't. He is just good at presenting arguments in a cohesive manner. But if you really dig into his arguments and the "facts" he states, you quickly notice they are usually full of logical fallacies (strawmanning being one of the key words here) and factual misrepresentation. Sometimes his "facts" are even drawn from scientifically dishonest sources. When it comes to the issue of black crime, he is especially dishonest and misrepresents the data/statistics badly, and in this particular case I am not even sure whether it's deliberate or not. So no, he usually does not have "facts" to back up his claims, he is just a mediocre debater picking his battles with even worse debaters.
@@thibaultl1956 I like Sam Harris, because he always strives to be very clear about his definitions and is actually interested in what his opposition has to say. I can't really say a lot more about American debaters because I am from Germany and I am not that exposed to the political sphere, but in Germany I like Richard David Precht (political philosopher), because he is very easy to follow and his line of argumentation almost always makes perfect sense, at least to me. That being said, I don't think that debate is actually a good way to exchange ideas. Debating is usually about overwhelming your opponent with rhetorical tricks and thereby convincing an audience with rhetorical strength rather than argumentative strength. (There is a book called "How to be right" by Arthur Schopenhauer, which is filled with rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies and how to use them to win debates. You can just have it lying next to you when watching Shapiro and check off boxes, it's scary).Also, people can have good ideas but be extremely bad at debating, maybe because they can't come up with good responses on the spot or just because they don't like the spontaneous nature of debates. Or maybe they can't remember all of their arguments or get lost in between them. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't defend their idea or that their idea is bad. The best political philosophy emerged from a much more controlled way of discourse, namely through the exchange of (sometimes public) letters, where the disputants have much more time to think about their response and try to tear apart their opponent's argument. This makes it a lot harder to act in bad faith or to apply logical fallacies and get away with it. The modern equivalent would be the exchange of ideas through CZcams videos. That's why I enjoy Amazing Atheist, ContraPoints, Shaun, TLDR etc much more than debate videos.
@@dudies3377 Yea i dont think you'd win the debate if someone just ran up and 'attacked' u by punching u in the face. I think tht just means you need to learn to duck 😂😂
Lovemercy You sound extremely obnoxious and biased. Both liberalism and conservatism are beliefs based on differing values and have their pros and cons. Saying that one side’s beliefs are inherently correct and the other side’s are irrelevant just means you’re too indoctrinated by your ideals to possibly engage in any meaningful discourse regarding the topic. Perhaps you should check yourself and try being a bit more open-minded
I have Invisalign so I stutter a lot now, is the best strategy to speak slowly but with confidence or fast with confidence and pretend I didn’t stutter?
Talking fast and not stuttering doesn't make your points correct. Sure, speaking with confidence is important, but it won't "win" the discussion alone.
that's because your parents are playing the "I DEMAND YOUR COMPLIANCE" card, That works until you are capable of winning a physical fight, Then they have to use Soft power, to back those words, That words until you have soft power as well or own your own living space, At which point negotiation becomes optional.
Allu: When one is trying to reason with a leftist, one can be certain they are not interested in learning from you, and you can also be certain there is nothing available to learn from their fact-free emotion-based regurgitated-talking-point rant which passes for an argument only in their own mind, so that’s how we get there. 🤣
@@darkspawn4980 You must place your mirror differently than I place mine. On the other side of my mirror is a dense, immovable wall. That is the left. On my side is life in all its glory. Which side are you on?
He’s really just a well trained lawyer. Go to law school and take negotiations. They teach you ways to poke holes, and guide others to your point and side.
Marisa Nya you really tried but that’s so untrue he just doesn’t say your side of the argument so you’re going to say he’s wrong, but if you FACT check he’s completely correct. You are just a leftist sheep
@Marisa Nya That's actually a bold faced lie, if you listened to anything he's said on the matter in the last 2-3 years, he's changed his stance on this. Nice try though.
@@sasukeisacat I tend to like people more when they agree with me too, tribalism is normal. But sometimes you've just gotta try and separate art from artist although sometimes I do struggle with that
Sparrow Uchiha I feel like COC is liberal, I know he said he didn’t vote for Trump (while by no means does that make you a liberal, I know many conservatives that didn’t, Shapiro is one of them) but I feel like he is left leaning. But I could be wrong. But he has been unbiased in my experiences with watching his videos.
Another technique Ben uses is rapid speech which forces debate opponents to stop and think about what he said. This makes your opponent look weak because they don't have time to formulate an instant response.
Hear faster. Problem solved. And just we're in the clear, I don't think you mean the gish galloping fallacy, where one throws as many objections in his speech time as possible that the audience thinks if the opponent failed to respond to all of them then one has won by default. You don't mean that objection, do you?
@@zerochaos1 Ironic! There is absolutely nothing wrong about presenting new arguments or angles from which you have to consider an issue at all! Otherwise, if all is scripted, then how different or professional really is any speaker, if they're doing nothing but regurgitating previously pointed out arguments? Amd for Zero, where is the wrong thing Ben is doing? Let me dissect (in the neutral sense, to just break down) your points. You're firstly assuming Ben's throwing fallacies and is fallen victim to cognitive biases a lot of the time, but his saving grace is how quickly he throws stuff at the opponent's wall and see what sticks. So firstly you're assuming he's using fallacies a lot of the time (which I'm not positively arguing against, but I seldom see him do those. You're more than welcome to point out where he did so.) It is only wrong logically to throw claims after claims that the opponent can't possibly address in the debate's time, and being segwayed into debunking and defending irrelevant points instead of addressing and debunking immediately relevant points to the debate's topic. Even then, overwhelming the audience with 10 issues when the debate can only handle 2 or 3 topics or subpoints at max, to me is a coward way of redherring and distracting the viewer's attention. And notice I specifically said "topics/isses" not "points", as I genuinely believe putting 15 arguments or points all immediately relevant to your case is absolutely fair game. I mean, it's a bit unfair given he can deliver 1.5-2 times the amount of info his opponent can, but is that a logical fallacy or a shameful tactic? I see it as much of a shameful tactic as someone knowing more than his opponent really. Speaking faster isn't that different from knowing a subject more deeply than your opponent if you think about it. Secondly, and where irony lies, you're yourself calling him names and for lack of a better word, poisoning the well on him. If the fallacy you were looking for was gish galloping, i.e., overwhelming the opponent with topics he can't address (like throwing accusations after the other that he can't recover from in the debate's time), then you yourself committed the unforgivable sin of using words in your favor. And before you call me a Ben-boi I'd like to inform you, I am an Arab myself, and regarding that thing going on I differ with DW and pretty much all of conservatives in this regard. So almost by definition I'd have to nitpick every flaw I can find of him and how twisted he is in his speeches. What I have is, gonna sound arrogant there, the intellectual courage to say he's right when he's right, and innocent of fallacies when he's innocent of those grave sins. I probably disagree with them on every single issue, albeit it slightly in most cases. But calling me a Ben fanboy ain't gonna cut it, especially given in his book I'm as antisemitic as one can possibly be. But when he's right, he's right.
That's literally one of his tactics, to talk so fast that his opponent can't even process what he's saying fast enough to come up with a measured response on time
@@ssh1487 Honestly though I'm sure his quick speaking completely confuses people... I mean I was watching a video of his where he took a political compass quiz and he was going *so fast* I had to check to make sure the video wasn't on 2x speed
F***ing pansies. He said so because that wasnt a valid point and he wanted him to elaborate. Doesn't surprise me someone who doesn't have logic doesn't understand this
To use TRICKS to try to avoid answering the questions is a sign you cannot answer the questions. My old man always said you cannot avoid answering the questions, just answer them. What i see now is no one is actually having a discussion, just deflecting from each other.
The most important of all these factors is RESEARCH! When you give yourself the tools (knowledge, wisdom, facts, research) you have an entire toolkit of ammo (builds confidence) to use your logic brain to slay.
Well ben shapiro doesnt actually bring facts to the table, he just cherry picks his information and says it fast. Just do the research and you will Quickly see how fraudulent most of his views are. He also normally debates uneducated students anyways and as quick as he meets someone like literally the self called ape Joe Rogan he gets challenged.
Bald Torment I think you could argue that’s a argument based on authority ( which isn’t necessarily good or bad ) which just means they don’t have a sound argument if that’s their only reason for you being wrong
I just saw another video that criticized his smirking as it meant he was making his opponent mad, that may be the case or not. I think when Ben smirks he is thinking checkmate ...
nope just stumpan the unaware... you can fight a ghost all day but only right actualy gets the attention of a welcomed invite like a silent meal of gratefull comfort ...or its as boreing as a wrestlen match with the tv shut off...
@Dave Liebers He is not quite clear about whether the term "their money" refers to a legal or a moral distinction. I would assume a moral one, in which case there is no clear, default reference by which this definition can be taken as a given, which is the premise he is trying to sneak in. Also, unless you actually want to claim that the distribution of resources which results from the _complete absence_ of any regulation whatsoever is the only proper one, you are going to have to acknowledge that there is in fact a legitimate argument about what it means to "earn" money and what the moral implications of a particular situation is, however inconvenient this may be to your tribalist, ideological sense of superiority.
Guy literally tried to make a point that he wants to fight racism but he cannot because his opponents won't explain what racism is. This isn't what debates are about. He just likes to talk fast and trick his opponents into confusion. Not making a valid point or promoting healthy dialogue. He is an insult to intelligence.
so say you destroy something of your enemy’s that is very epic to him and he gets mad did you win because he got pissed off for destroying his thing? or are you the one to blame for making him mad cus you destroyed something of his that wasn’t yours?
Maybe, but if it's before you've even had a chance to say anything of substance (like what happened to Ben on the BBC) then it's more like the person who got mad forfeited
@@__-dq9ev It's never about convincing others to believe your stance, right? It's just about who can boost their ego better at the expense of another person.
This video just shows that the point of all those debates is just who is better at outsmarting the opponent instead of let's have an argument and fact driven dialogue to get the truth.
Slimeustas Not really. People bad at arguing are often very good at making fallacy, albeit unintentionally. If you are not experienced enough, you will lose very fast.
1. Talk fast. Cuz if you talk slow, it gives your opponent time to think of a comeback. And if you talk fast. They can't process through on what to say. Edit: I didn't even know I got likes on this. And I forgot I had this comment...
@NPC Muh Media Counts, when you use the word "generally" it prohibits you from accusing them of using a fallacy. This is because they aren't making an argument.
@NPC Muh Media Counts You are missing my point. A logical statement, or "argument" would be, If A, B. Restated, If A, then B. That is an argument. The only way to negate the statement, If A, then possibly B, is to affirm the negation, If A, then not B. You assumed a causation fallacy when a causation statement wasn't made. In a strictly logical sense. So if you want to accuse them of a fallacy then you have to assert the opposite absolute. It's logic. I mean, seriously. Your error occurred when you assumed the first statement was a If-then statement. It wasn't. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Good day!
@NPC Muh Media Counts I can't decide if you are someone who understands the laws of logic and are just amusing yourself by abusing them or if you are just some random dude who watched a CZcams video about logic and now you feel like you can use logical fallacies as some blunt weapon to beat people into submission. Part of me wants to believe it's the former and there is intelligent life on the CZcams comments thread. Your attacks, while not logical fallacies, do give more weight to the original statement. When someone is reduced to insults, it generally means you're winning the argument. I guess I love feeding the trolls. :)
You know what would be a great addition to your videos, would be a direct link or links to Just Ben Shapiro's guide, or Jordan Peterson's guide, WITHOUT narration.
Debates are often won with 'technique', not facts. Many people that have 'good facts/data' lose arguments because they are not strong debaters. Some of the tactics described are commonly used in high school and college debate competitions. Ben Shapiro is a strong debater
@@rosekiller123 he uses the wrong facts though, if you actually fact check what he's saying he's still wrong most of the time. He just says things with such great technique that it's hard to argue against, even if you know the actual facts
@@jirkazalabak1514 because everyone at politicon has a restraining order against him because he be too good or he didn't see any real challenge (or maybe he was just busy, you never know, you're not him)
If you actually watched the video you'll see that he's a great grandstander and uses rhetoric effectively. Is he extremely good at presenting his points and flustering his opponents? Hell yeah, he is but how good you are at debate doesn't necessarily mean what you're arguing for is actually correct
@@sasukeisacat No, he was giving a speech and then having a panel with his cronies from Daily Wire I believe. So yes, he was at Politicon, and he was there the whole time. He got several challenges, including Kyle Kulinski, but for some reason "Mr. I will debate anyone" didn´t actually debate anyone. I will admit that he is impressive against college kids, but in that debate with Cenk last year, I really felt like he was just resorting to getting cheap laughs, which admittedly worked quite well. As far as the facts went though, it was Cenk almost all the way, and I am not a fan of TYT. I was genuinely surprised when I watched it. It turns out that when his opponents have done as much research as he has, he is a lot less impressive all of a sudden. At least that´s my experience from having seen a lot of his material.
I understand why he had to do it, but its still sad he has to continually say "I'm not saying I agree with Ben" or something of that nature because he knows the internet will turn it into him being right wing conservative just because he made a video on Ben Shapiro. Edit: I am brain dead from reading the comments under my own comment. Almost all of your comments have 0 to do with what I even said.
its also funny how people in their particular political surrounding often state at which side they stand before they even say anything so as not be attacked by their "allies" for an unpopular opinion
R Parker right that’s my point. He might dislike Ben Shapiro but still respects his debate skills. He keeps having to state that the video is not him agreeing with Ben bc so many people take the idea of complimenting ones skills as the same agreeing with the point of view.
He's a good debater, and when the subject is politics it's really hard to defeat his arguments. It's not that there's no defeater, but you really have to know the subject in and out to stand a chance.
"Winning" a Debate is NOT about conceding victory or defeat. It's about if both sides bring rational arguments with mutual respectful open minds to learn from them.
I might need to listen to this about 1,000 times more because I am terrible arguing with people I just want to find the facts throw them on your face and have the case close I struggle to understand tactics.
Most debates seem to occur more when people have different information on a subject rather than a difference of opinion. If you want to 'win' you typically have to know your facts and sources quite well and be able to predict theirs.
@@xitaris5981 Or having the same facts, but interpreting them in a stronger rhetorical way, you "win." That's the problem here. Tactics not fact....icts.
The "facts" ? haha No you want to find words to support whatever side you've chosen to be on. And you call it facts when it support your subjective views.
Expand ur vocabulary. And any time u think of a question u don’t know the answer to, google it and then expand on that google search. Information seeking and a wide range of vocabulary is a good place to start.
That's a hierarchical issue though, you and you legal guardian are not equal debate partners in all respects, since they are responsible for you and therefore have a degree of control over you. That said, it's still damn annoying and frustrating, my mom did that all the time.
@Well Drive but the problem is when you destroy your opponent, he'll feel defensive and vindictive instead of wanting to improve himself. This is why I don't like it when the left calls the right deplorable or stupid. Nothing good comes out of that. Instead, we should keep presenting the facts and showing that only rational and fact-based behavior can improve the society as a whole.
Uh... In his debate with Sam Harris he defended religion with whiny crackpot emotional arguments. And Sam Harris annihilated him. Religion is all about emotion And feelings, not facts or logic.
TheEzio1991 Ben is pushing an agenda that supports right wing rhetoric and can get very emotional. He also seems to hate context and can’t be trusted to be unbiased on topics discussing blacks and Arabs.
paul stanley just think about it like comparing that one horrific murder to a mass serial killer on the loose for years. It just doesn’t compare when you think of all of his debates. But yes, that debate he did was horrible and he should’ve known better.
I absolutely appreciate all the videos you share. This one in particular because it will possibly give me a chance to win at least a few debates between my son and I. I love him to death, but he is an incredible debater. I seem to fall victim to his skill and experience.
A question I wuld ask is what is your goal in debating with your son? Why do you want to "win" debates? What are your actual goals there? Unless it's someting you and your son do for fun and understand you are debating as a type of game, I don't think trying to learn tactics to "beat" your son at debate is likely to accomplish any goal I would associate with parenting.
sirtaylorsir He mostly brings up the Doctor thing to bring up experiences that he has had with her because that’s what they were talking about in the argument. Can you actually pay attention to the why he brings up the doctor thing than you would get it
@@arthurmolina638 , He's literally bringing the "Talk Fast," thing, that basically confirms it being a joke, as I doubt anyone actually uses that as a real criticism
I think the last time intelligent people with moral standards were actually invested in a public debate, was the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr on the theories of quantum mechanics. It was a classy way of debating, where each day they would meet up and present arguments from their respective opinions and studies. Then the other person would have a day to come up with a counter argument to disprove the theory of the other person, and it would continue like that until one side was unable to dispute the other person's theory. Now that is how you invest yourself in an objective argument. In modern day it's all about trying to silence the opposition as quickly as possible, because whoever spews the most words and silences the other side, they are deemed the winner. It's all about winning, not about actually learning. And not just learning about the other person's beliefs, but also learning why you might be right. Most people believe they are right, without actually knowing WHY they are right, because they try to refute other opinions before they even get to learn their own belief. You learn most about your own opinions when other people question them deeply and you start to doubt your opinions and have to do thorough research. That's how it was in the old days, but in modern media time is everything and if you can't present a counter immediately then you are refuted, so it's all about laying traps and using clever tactics to maneuver the debate into your favor. It's about winning the debate, not the truth.
@@derpeth2101 I have ran your statement through my mind several times but I have not yet discovered the connection. Are you claiming that feelings and religion are closely intertwined? Or that religion does not correlate facts? Or both?
Jordan Peterson would warn you about being "too agreeable", and you seem to be indicating that if during an "argument", the other side persuades you that your stance on a certain subject is wrong...that you would have a difficult time now arguing a "fallacious argument". That, to me, indicates you MIGHT have a high level of agreeableness to you...which may be something you may want to self-analyze and be wary of. I got into arguments/debates a lot in my youth and found myself agreeing I may be wrong...the other side took it as an indicator they had won or were winning. To prevent that happening, I concede a point in the beginning of such arguments and say something akin to, "I'll play devils advocate. I care neither one way or another." (which is mostly true, but not entirely), and then take my side. I do a lot of pointing at e other side's logical fallacies and mock, "zero points for that...try harder, be specific." It's part of the "game". But really, I don't just agree anymore, just because I'm write. Work on your style, presentation, logic (and SHUN logical fallacies). Each "argument" whether fallacious or not, is the chance to improve those things...and ESPECIALLY if you're wrong but you choose to stay cool under that pressure. Just my two cents...
In a better world, the other side would offer opposing views and facts to back them up, you could withdraw in order to do further research in order to draw your own conclusion, and you could meet again to further hone your argument. But today you get called names and handed a list of words, topics and facts that are off limits and we all wonder why culture is crashing
I agree, a lot of this is adversarial rather than cooperative, and there's too much of it in our modern world. Hardly anyone learns anything. It's like arguing ideas has become mere sport, and the point of it is just to score more goals (with the audience as referee).
It's so sad that arguments nowadays are about winning. Arguments should be a way to reach the TRUTH. Don't try to humiliate your opponent, but help them to develop and clarify their argument so you can both reach a good result.
it’s been apart of the ongoing trend of appeasing to audiences. Media outlets and popular social media figures have demonstrated the rewards of pandering to a certain crowd. Whether it’s late night show hosts talking about Trump or the absolute echo chamber that is this comment section all repeating the same thing in order to gain likes. Debates have devolved into a shouting contest where it’s about looking good rather than being correct like you said. Respect has been thrown out the window everyone now just a piece of that pie at this point (gratification).
ok let's remove the political system and law system as the fundaments of those fields are both built on lies or misconstruing a scenario to fit an agenda
@@Abdullah1997 WhAt, the main basis of several things that make up our society follow the trend of lying or misconstruing data, it's been common to do this with law and government, trump, for example, overlaps several of his statements, and Hillary defended a rapist in her career as a lawyer. these careers require lying and both include some sort of debate.
I can agree that humiliating the opponent isn't really the point of debate but in these examples, it's clear ben isn't trying to do this, he is trying to show his point of view and gives a reason for it, his hivemind fans applaud him for doing minuscule things, he doesn't destroy them, his fans say he destroys them.
He’s a lawyer, he studies debating, I’m a carpenter... I frame houses. He could probably pick apart anything I say, but it doesn’t make me wrong, or even him wrong. He just has a better skill. Watch him debate other skilled debaters. Watch his interview with Bill Maher , it’s great
The problem with Ben Shapiro is that he usually uses quite dishonest tactics like straw manning his opponents and if you actually bother to research the things he says it is quite obvious quite fast, that his points are actually wrong.
“If somebody personally attacks you then that means you’re actually winning the debate” amen 🙏
In fact , I agree with this !!!
and then he says in his "10 tips to debate lefties" video that you should attack your opponent's personality. He is a huge hypocrite
@@motyovszkimiklos7538 You realise ben didnt make this video surely? These were just points this channel picked up on and claimed to be rules he seems to follow in debates. He doesnt actually have this list in a frame and read it every night before bed 😂
Which is what Ben did to Andrew Neil 😂
Well, you may win a debate, but you may lose an election. Clinton...
This is the most impressively neutral take on Ben I’ve ever seen online. Good job.
I'm honestly not sure to me I kinda sounded like he was against ben. Anyone else?
@PoliticsPres possibly
Neutral?! Is it neutral to argue against the right of private property as the narrator does when he say socialist wouldn't see it that way? I barely got into this video and I was scratching my head to understand the narrator's contorsions. The presenter is anything but neutral. The narrator starts with the assumption that there is no gravity, no up, no down, and to make any assertion would be to state a bias. Fact and the truths they lay out are not bias. This is what I call untethered thought processes. If you untether all fact for from reality, then you can make any argument seem logical working in this created realm of fantasized reality.
Marisa Nya yeah cool, that had nothing to do with the thread at all. If you wanna stir up a debate then don’t do it on a random comment talking about the take that the poster had on Ben.
@@scottsyverson1607 Facts are not biased. Interpretations of facts are often biased. Your argument here shows that you fully buy into the snuck premise of private property and cannot see past your preconceived belief that "of course there's private property!" You completely missed the presenter's point - and in fact, demonstrated it quite well. There was no anti-Shapiro bias in that section and the presentation was, indeed, quite neutral.
I was taught as a small kid. “Raise your voice and you’ve lost the argument “.
You must be quite old then, nowdays you are taught that raising your voice wins them.
@@mojewjewjew4420 I understand where you are coming from, but I think that it's more like "Nowadays it is thought that being offended wins them." People don't use the yelling tactic as much as bringing too much emotion to the table.
@@autumnishere420 That too but i feel its more in the west, from where i am for you "have" to be loud, aggressive and hypocrite works aswell.
Sure you heard how you also cant have a reasonable conversation with parents because DiSrEsPeCt
Tell BLM supporters that.
@@Beckiner67 or antifa but oh wait they are the same breed
Pushing for specifics is practically flawless. Fudgers will be immediately exposed.
True, but they get real mad haha
100%
“Simply being offended doesn’t prove anything”
Wise words in today’s times.
Such a controversial comment with no comments and only likes. I agree.
@@matthewguy1155 😭
Or in the words of Shapiro "Facts don't care about your feelings"
@@jonathanshawver4678 But honestly, that's some wisdom
Couldn't agree more
1) Talk fast
Blust GT
That’s where older people like myself have the advantage. Being past 50, we can always tell our opponents to slow down. It drives them nuts, and sometimes short circuits their brain, and gives extra time to think, of responses, counterpoints, etc. His fast talking, is also his weakness.
Blust GT oh yeah yeah
He has said he was a college debater. They learn to speak quickly to make point in 4 min on a huge array of complex topics.
that's a sign his mouth tryna keep up with his machine gun brain
@@muffledgiraffe4303 o lol I thought that it was because he doesn't want to get interrupted by someone and have to change the topic for their needs.
Caught my lawyer watching this right before court
Can I just let Ben be my lawyer😂
Why did this make me chuckle
Nothing wrong with brushing up
😂😂😂
Yeah hopefully your lawyer win the trial
"Buying into an argument that you dont understand". This one statement is brilliant. If I don't understand, the higher road is to shut my mouth and open my ears. Many times there is no need to reply. It is ok when we don't engage. I recall the saying the smartest person in the room may be the one who says little and listens well.
"Feelings don't care about facts."
-Shen Bapiro
I think it's "facts don't care about feelings"
@Harsh Kumar Don't answer that. A rhetorical question.
Is it shen bapiro , or Ben Shapiro ?!
But it's true thoug
Piero Minaya Rojas “You take 100% of the shots you don’t miss”
-Gayne Wretzky
@@cookieeater3000 r/whooosh
Legend has it he wins arguments against his wife...
Lol
Did you forget that she’s a doctor?
@@coleg5578 So she's good at dissecting his points?
@@Bextie hahaha lmao
Against his Jewish wife, who's a doctor? You must be referring to another wife...
Legend has it that he has infinite uno reverse cards
Anonymous person
I just wanna get rid of moderators. don't care how or what people's why is. guess infinite number 2 cards with different colors lol
@@ultraatari9298 no u
Anonymous person
Legend has it Ben was too afraid to debate Kyle kulinski.
I think of it the same way. +4 and Reverse!
K
Im unculted
Does the reverse car deflect back, or just change the orders that the players go
Talk fast so the opponent is still trying to figure out what you said so they lose sight of their response…
Shapiro style 100%
You hit the nail on the head. Candice do the same
@Trevor Brannon 🤣🤣🤣
no you lot just are not very bright. He's easy to understand if your values are grounded in logic.
Engage other people who think slower than you do, you will win.
You forgot the part where he says his wife is a doctor
Hahahaha!
*Hebrew Hammer lol
@@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485 it became a kind of a meme because he says it a lot, i guess. Ben "my wife is a doctor" Shapiro.
😂
@@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485 what the hell, isn't that private info?
"Simply being offended doesn't prove anything"
All twitter drama perfectly summed up
*ALL* Social Media (if not most) debates summed up haha!
Another favorite of my is Facts don't care about your feeling.
Also Reddit and Facebook
Twitter is a mental illness "platform".
And political tiktok
It’s honestly fun to listen to him debating. He’s very quick on his feet
Brennan Probasco
Ikr, I don’t even like listening to debates but he makes it interesting
Nicholas Millington
Link?
Another reason why he's so dominant.
Sinfulxiv
Nicholas Mullington doesn’t have a link
@@sinfulxiv9607 I think he's talking about the Andrew Neil interview. The left says Ben was humiliated. The right says the interviewer was being unreasonable. Check it out for yourself.
1. catching a non-arguement
2. being offended doesn't prove anything
3. push a person to give examples
4. know your arguments inside and out
5. emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent
WARNING: Be careful when using any of these tactics with a girl you are dating. lol
Are you saying Ben "Virginity is Cool" Shapiro isn't a good model for dating? Who would have thought!
@@IAmGeorgeLucas cool, but when are you making a good Star Wars movie again?
@@IAmGeorgeLucas no no no, that meme format is reserved for Joe "do you smoke weed" Rogan only.
That's because women don't debate/argue fair. They are emotionally driven.
Facts don't care about your feelings babe
Imagine two Ben Shapiro's debating against each other.
Omg
Absolute war.
The smugness would rip a hole in our universe
You should watch him with Steven Crowder
Baltzar Bonbeck it didn’t have to be about politics, it could be everything you know :))))))
"So?"
-Ben Shapiro
You misspelled Ben Shillpiro
Translation: "I can't answer your question honestly because I have no leg to stand on, so I'll just dismiss it, and act like I won the point".
So? He pointed out an obvious double standard and like piers Morgan you have no answer
@@maskedmarvyl4774 No, it's a good debate tactic. If someone brings up an irrelevant point or appeals to authority, it's good to question why it matters to the debate.
@@elgatofelix8917 Be original.
Don’t forget about Bens most important trait slow speech
Articulate in manner. I agree.
I think he talk to fast.
@@azscn8192 I was being sarcastic
Ben's most important trait is he a narcissist.
@@jenniferl1908 narcissistic brain damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex does not allow for the high IQ or self-awareness, or intellectual capacity to sustain a debate. Narcissists can't even fathom a polarized argument because their lack of empathy fails to understand anyone else's perspective except their own. Ben does not gaslight or move goal posts which are the only tactics narcissistic brain damage knows. Narcissists are not loving fathers with a family who support them. Narcissists actually need to cause damage to others and to self to increase their dangerously low serotonin. Don't confuse high IQ with destructive narcissistic brain damage LOL Did you not read a single word about narcissism before projecting this disorder onto a celebrity?
2:08 “Simply being offended doesn’t prove anything.” Oh hallelujah, thank you for saying that.
@@crungus__ since anyone can be offended at anything, that isn't proving anything beyond a person finds something offensive. I could be offended by someone saying hello to me but that doesn't mean it is objectively offensive.
@@benwatson5787 libtard destroyed
Ben Watson are you trying to convince someone who disagrees with you, the merit of your argument. Callousness has never worked.
@@adele19b3 I was agreeing with Cameron and disagreeing with Soviet, not quite sure what you mean.
@@benwatson5787 But what makes something objectively offensive? All offense is subjective and by that logic nothing should be offensive to anyone...
I feel that during arguments people focus more on “winning” than being correct and that’s a really bad way to figure out who’s right becuase you might be wrong and you’ll still come out on top and that’s actually counter productive
Maybe that's a good thing, sometimes, at least? I mean, the more you're trying to defend your point, the more things you come up with that no one could think of if they weren't as determined.
@@turbotrup96 So you're basically saying that you would sacrifice the chances of your argument being correct, so that you can increase your chances of winning it? Trying to win an argument knowing that you're fundamentally wrong is the most basic sign of being a morally wrong person.
@@ShubhThakkar I'm not talking about consciously making a complex argument with hidden holes in it hoping that the opposing thinker won't see them. I'm talking about both sides being so determined and adrenaline-driven that they would squeeze out the very best of their views and come up with new arguments thanks to which they'd shed a new light on the topic they're discussing that others would most likely miss because they would give up too soon.
Because, in the end, agreeable people will not have an astute enough discourse when they agree with each other too soon and move on to another topic or end the debate.
The issue with what is right or wrong is no all that clear. Nearly everything can be debated.
@@turbotrup96 I think it's important to be rigorous, but you're confusing arguments with debate. Two people debating will never almost never agree with each other on a fundamental level, because debate dictates that two sides are opposing each other. Even if they end up agreeing on something, debates are usually time-boxed so how long they spend debating is usually determined by the format of the debate. Arguments can end pretty quickly, but an ideal argument aims for understanding one another over anything else.
The main problem is that you only remember these premises when your in the shower 3 days later
YOU'RE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly 🤣
In practice I wanna assume the timeframe becomes shorter
@@SlickSkuddy if you wanna be good just read books nd listen to people use these tactics a lot and then do actual debates even if you lose its experience
@@dougo3592 why should someone need to win argument.
Why not have a conversation instead of "winning"
I appreciate that this video is non-biased on the actual issues being discussed.
8. Talk 4 times faster than your opponent.
Lol true
Lmao
dude i was gonna comment this, you beat me ):
talking faster makes your opponent shut up more
You can do that when u know what ur actually talking about
That's not a tactic that's genetics and upbringing lol
1) Choose Your Battles
2) Be prepared
3) Have facts backing up your argument
Shapiro never has #3.
@@MRocky323 yes he does! 🤣🤣🤣 What are you talking about???
@@sonicthehedgehog1109 No, he doesn't. He is just good at presenting arguments in a cohesive manner. But if you really dig into his arguments and the "facts" he states, you quickly notice they are usually full of logical fallacies (strawmanning being one of the key words here) and factual misrepresentation. Sometimes his "facts" are even drawn from scientifically dishonest sources. When it comes to the issue of black crime, he is especially dishonest and misrepresents the data/statistics badly, and in this particular case I am not even sure whether it's deliberate or not. So no, he usually does not have "facts" to back up his claims, he is just a mediocre debater picking his battles with even worse debaters.
UserJWR Alright so who’s you favorite debater? I’m honestly curious...
@@thibaultl1956 I like Sam Harris, because he always strives to be very clear about his definitions and is actually interested in what his opposition has to say. I can't really say a lot more about American debaters because I am from Germany and I am not that exposed to the political sphere, but in Germany I like Richard David Precht (political philosopher), because he is very easy to follow and his line of argumentation almost always makes perfect sense, at least to me.
That being said, I don't think that debate is actually a good way to exchange ideas. Debating is usually about overwhelming your opponent with rhetorical tricks and thereby convincing an audience with rhetorical strength rather than argumentative strength. (There is a book called "How to be right" by Arthur Schopenhauer, which is filled with rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies and how to use them to win debates. You can just have it lying next to you when watching Shapiro and check off boxes, it's scary).Also, people can have good ideas but be extremely bad at debating, maybe because they can't come up with good responses on the spot or just because they don't like the spontaneous nature of debates. Or maybe they can't remember all of their arguments or get lost in between them. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't defend their idea or that their idea is bad.
The best political philosophy emerged from a much more controlled way of discourse, namely through the exchange of (sometimes public) letters, where the disputants have much more time to think about their response and try to tear apart their opponent's argument. This makes it a lot harder to act in bad faith or to apply logical fallacies and get away with it. The modern equivalent would be the exchange of ideas through CZcams videos. That's why I enjoy Amazing Atheist, ContraPoints, Shaun, TLDR etc much more than debate videos.
"If the other person ends up attacking you, you are actually winning the debate"
I like that
Not actually true most of the time. Really just depends on the type of “attack.”
@@dudies3377 Yea i dont think you'd win the debate if someone just ran up and 'attacked' u by punching u in the face. I think tht just means you need to learn to duck 😂😂
@@dudies3377 "winning the debate" not "winning the boxing match"
Takumi If you sincerely thought I was referring to physical attacks, I feel sorry for you.
Lovemercy You sound extremely obnoxious and biased. Both liberalism and conservatism are beliefs based on differing values and have their pros and cons. Saying that one side’s beliefs are inherently correct and the other side’s are irrelevant just means you’re too indoctrinated by your ideals to possibly engage in any meaningful discourse regarding the topic. Perhaps you should check yourself and try being a bit more open-minded
You have explained why debates are nothing more than entertainment
Nuts
A GAME OF VERBAL FENCING.
He talks so fast and doesn't stutter, and taks with confidence
that's his secret
I have Invisalign so I stutter a lot now, is the best strategy to speak slowly but with confidence or fast with confidence and pretend I didn’t stutter?
@@blobblue6833 probably speaking slowly
@@blobblue6833 Does Invisalign makes one stutter ? Then i don't know if i should get one.
Talking fast and not stuttering doesn't make your points correct. Sure, speaking with confidence is important, but it won't "win" the discussion alone.
@@jackl.1759 exactly!!
You could argue just like Ben but you’re parents would still pull the “talking back” card
deadass😭
that's because your parents are playing the "I DEMAND YOUR COMPLIANCE" card, That works until you are capable of winning a physical fight, Then they have to use Soft power, to back those words, That words until you have soft power as well or own your own living space, At which point negotiation becomes optional.
parents see a logical ,reasonable an valid argument = DISRESPECTFUL
Tibs Sage that’s teachers all the way
I am your mother!
Nowadays everyone argues to win and not to learn.
Allu: When one is trying to reason with a leftist, one can be certain they are not interested in learning from you, and you can also be certain there is nothing available to learn from their fact-free emotion-based regurgitated-talking-point rant which passes for an argument only in their own mind, so that’s how we get there. 🤣
@@HQBergeron Agreed all they do is throw hissy fitt about things they don't understand.
@@HQBergeron the right side is the mirror image of the left. You look exactly like each other but your both on different sides of the mirror
@@darkspawn4980 You must place your mirror differently than I place mine. On the other side of my mirror is a dense, immovable wall. That is the left. On my side is life in all its glory. Which side are you on?
@@HQBergeron the trapped side, but if you place another mirror facing yours I'll be free
Instructions unclear, lost argument with parents to "Because I said so" and am now grounded indefinitely
Piers was on the “how dare you” before Greta
@@donkeylord3517 It's still uncool
@Golden Eagle "that seems mildly inappropriate for a political debate" 🤣
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS my sandcastle that I spent all day making
how original
You deserve it after all you made it of sand
Next time go with concrete
NEXT MEME
ur making this up, ben shapiro isnt real
Then stop making your sandcastle out of fake news sand :P. Whole natural sand is the way to go xD
As children we learn to use emotions to get what we want...like crying. Some people never grow out of it to one extent or the other.
Geez I remembered when my brother was like that
They cried as kids and they get offended as adults 😆
But it works for ben, cant win em all I guess
😭
They are called democrats... the ones that only cry to get their way
Being right helps a lot!
explains why Ben needs tricks
@@reneelibby4885 name bens tricks. lol
Nah it doesn't
He’s really just a well trained lawyer. Go to law school and take negotiations. They teach you ways to poke holes, and guide others to your point and side.
You mean insist on evidence v opinion and be well prepared? That is all this is
Marisa Nya you really tried but that’s so untrue he just doesn’t say your side of the argument so you’re going to say he’s wrong, but if you FACT check he’s completely correct. You are just a leftist sheep
@Marisa Nya That's actually a bold faced lie, if you listened to anything he's said on the matter in the last 2-3 years, he's changed his stance on this. Nice try though.
Hmm sounds like a shallow insult to dismiss what he’s actually saying.
Id argue he was probably in debate club in high school. If I had any idea Debating was as much fun as other ...bating Id of joined the Debate class.
"Where did you get those statistics?"
"Census Bureau."
😂had me dying
"Where does it _say_ The Boy Scouts of America is just for boys?"
"In the name."
A bit better response than "google it!" 😂😂😂
He was damn ready
And the way he just backed off. That was quite an "Oh $#!t" moment for him.
Reuben Kim the guy was probably thinking he would stump him lol
I like how you do this objectively, and don't endorse or refute him.
It kinda upsets me . 😂
I mean it's really professional and I like that but it starts to make me think he's on the opposing side of me .
@@sasukeisacat I tend to like people more when they agree with me too, tribalism is normal. But sometimes you've just gotta try and separate art from artist although sometimes I do struggle with that
Sparrow Uchiha I feel like COC is liberal, I know he said he didn’t vote for Trump (while by no means does that make you a liberal, I know many conservatives that didn’t, Shapiro is one of them) but I feel like he is left leaning. But I could be wrong. But he has been unbiased in my experiences with watching his videos.
Benjamin Chen what don’t you feel him being left leaning or him being unbiased?
@@sasukeisacat republicans watch his videos too he cant alienate them
Two Ben Shapiro's debating each other would result in overload and a complete explosion.
"Implosion"
Imagine Ben playing as an impostor in Among us.
Ben Ten if they had a leader board he would be #1
he would win every game
Oh, God
so hypothetically for the sake of argument, let's say i was the impostor
Nah, he’s pretty sus
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS MY PARENTS MARRIAGE by SIGNING DIVORCE PAPERS
Connor Riggs NOW THAT IS EPIC
are you implying Ben is your dad?
Another libtard rekt
OoOoOooOOooOooOoOof
Very epic
Ben Shapiro SAVAGELY DESTROYS the sandcastle that I took 2 hours to build
With FACTS and LOGIC
Okay, this is epic
*Ben shaprio yelling at a sand castle in the face*
Then don't be a child. Stop building sandcastles!!
@Leisure LOL thank you for that
Another technique Ben uses is rapid speech which forces debate opponents to stop and think about what he said. This makes your opponent look weak because they don't have time to formulate an instant response.
Hear faster. Problem solved.
And just we're in the clear, I don't think you mean the gish galloping fallacy, where one throws as many objections in his speech time as possible that the audience thinks if the opponent failed to respond to all of them then one has won by default.
You don't mean that objection, do you?
As a fellow fast-talker who listens to podcasts (including Shapiro's) at x1.5 speed, all I can say is git gud
He uses rapid speech to mask the logic errors and weakness in his own arguments. He is very immature and insulting. He is arrogant and prideful.
@@zerochaos1 Git gud, scrub
@@zerochaos1 Ironic! There is absolutely nothing wrong about presenting new arguments or angles from which you have to consider an issue at all! Otherwise, if all is scripted, then how different or professional really is any speaker, if they're doing nothing but regurgitating previously pointed out arguments?
Amd for Zero, where is the wrong thing Ben is doing? Let me dissect (in the neutral sense, to just break down) your points. You're firstly assuming Ben's throwing fallacies and is fallen victim to cognitive biases a lot of the time, but his saving grace is how quickly he throws stuff at the opponent's wall and see what sticks. So firstly you're assuming he's using fallacies a lot of the time (which I'm not positively arguing against, but I seldom see him do those. You're more than welcome to point out where he did so.)
It is only wrong logically to throw claims after claims that the opponent can't possibly address in the debate's time, and being segwayed into debunking and defending irrelevant points instead of addressing and debunking immediately relevant points to the debate's topic. Even then, overwhelming the audience with 10 issues when the debate can only handle 2 or 3 topics or subpoints at max, to me is a coward way of redherring and distracting the viewer's attention. And notice I specifically said "topics/isses" not "points", as I genuinely believe putting 15 arguments or points all immediately relevant to your case is absolutely fair game. I mean, it's a bit unfair given he can deliver 1.5-2 times the amount of info his opponent can, but is that a logical fallacy or a shameful tactic? I see it as much of a shameful tactic as someone knowing more than his opponent really. Speaking faster isn't that different from knowing a subject more deeply than your opponent if you think about it.
Secondly, and where irony lies, you're yourself calling him names and for lack of a better word, poisoning the well on him. If the fallacy you were looking for was gish galloping, i.e., overwhelming the opponent with topics he can't address (like throwing accusations after the other that he can't recover from in the debate's time), then you yourself committed the unforgivable sin of using words in your favor.
And before you call me a Ben-boi I'd like to inform you, I am an Arab myself, and regarding that thing going on I differ with DW and pretty much all of conservatives in this regard. So almost by definition I'd have to nitpick every flaw I can find of him and how twisted he is in his speeches. What I have is, gonna sound arrogant there, the intellectual courage to say he's right when he's right, and innocent of fallacies when he's innocent of those grave sins.
I probably disagree with them on every single issue, albeit it slightly in most cases. But calling me a Ben fanboy ain't gonna cut it, especially given in his book I'm as antisemitic as one can possibly be.
But when he's right, he's right.
I'm actually more impressed with the people that understand what Ben's saying without subtitles
That's literally one of his tactics, to talk so fast that his opponent can't even process what he's saying fast enough to come up with a measured response on time
@@ssh1487 Honestly though I'm sure his quick speaking completely confuses people... I mean I was watching a video of his where he took a political compass quiz and he was going *so fast* I had to check to make sure the video wasn't on 2x speed
I watch his videos on x2, I don't know what you're conplaining about. But when I watch other videos on x2 they seem normal...
What can I say I’m a rare breed
Keko Rules Oh my goodness, yep, that one as well! Really, always 😂
The shampoo bottles in my shower are gonna be so impressed.
😂😂😂
don’t understand your joke
@@itquankazi as in having arguments with your self in the showe
Lmao
I already destroyed one in the argument, now I'll be able to do the same thing to the other ones before.
When he said “So?” to piers morgan HAHAHHAHA i laughed
Margot emmy Mc Mc that’s cool
when i read "HAHAHHAHA i laughed" LOOOL i laughed out out out loud
So?
F***ing pansies. He said so because that wasnt a valid point and he wanted him to elaborate. Doesn't surprise me someone who doesn't have logic doesn't understand this
Your comment was good but you could of stated it differently
To use TRICKS to try to avoid answering the questions is a sign you cannot answer the questions. My old man always said you cannot avoid answering the questions, just answer them. What i see now is no one is actually having a discussion, just deflecting from each other.
slappin at air call it patty cake ...
The most important of all these factors is RESEARCH! When you give yourself the tools (knowledge, wisdom, facts, research) you have an entire toolkit of ammo (builds confidence) to use your logic brain to slay.
Exactly. The facts are the main part, the skills help to break through the other one's stubbornness.
Well ben shapiro doesnt actually bring facts to the table, he just cherry picks his information and says it fast. Just do the research and you will Quickly see how fraudulent most of his views are. He also normally debates uneducated students anyways and as quick as he meets someone like literally the self called ape Joe Rogan he gets challenged.
Just be careful; there's a lot of disinformation out there.
@@gears265 You can't just "learn" to be wise. True wisdom is through experience.
Logics doesn't always aline with common sense; )
Who else never notices Ben Shapiros Kippah cause it blends with his hair so well?
I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT TILL I READ THIS COMMENT
Ivana A. I know right! He definitely chose a good colour.
He makes it look good lol
@@ivanaa.1968 wow lmao🤣🤣🤣🤣
hats never made anyone smarter or dumber so nope didnt matter
I totally didn't watch this so I can win a debate with my parents
Lol,don't try his tactics(it will piss them off,but you'll sound smarter)
@@mobslayer211 They hated him because they told them the truth.
They might hit you with the "because I said so"
Bald Torment I think you could argue that’s a argument based on authority ( which isn’t necessarily good or bad ) which just means they don’t have a sound argument if that’s their only reason for you being wrong
@@blakedavis2447 "I told you so" counters even the greatest arguments
Being a skilled debater does not make anyone morally superior.
or even good (for the country)
You know it’s all over when Ben smirks
I just saw another video that criticized his smirking as it meant he was making his opponent mad, that may be the case or not.
I think when Ben smirks he is thinking checkmate ...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Smirks. In other words reveals himself to be a smug self serving bully.
@Cody - Ikigai He can only beat college randos lmfao
@@argargargpirate Incorrect. He’s debated news outlets and congress people
Reason number 8: his wife is a doctor.
What's your point?
@@saral19 you have much to learn.
this actually got me to smirk at my phone😂
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
Imagine Ben Shapiro as your lawyer in court.
Ben Shapiro Becomes Lawyer, Judge Is Arrested For Murder
I would lose every case D,:
@@PGOuma : *Watches the video*
Also you: Imma pretend I didn't see that
@FuckOuttaHere Only if the jury are a bunch of stoned college kids with no confidence
@@hueyfreeman1983 by confidence, do you mean, always feeling the comforting support of the herd? Lol stay "woke", sheeple.
Russel Brand once told Ben that he’s very good at winning debates without being right. That’s always stuck with me.
Who's the arbiter of what's is right? Russel Brand?
nope just stumpan the unaware... you can fight a ghost all day but only right actualy gets the attention of a welcomed invite like a silent meal of gratefull comfort ...or its as boreing as a wrestlen match with the tv shut off...
8) If you are out of ideas and hopelessly pinned, don't forget the classic, "Your pp small"
Or your mom gah
Ol’ reliable
Cant Best that!
@Mutated Pearl that can ne countered with"your family tree LGBT
Or the overwhelmingly victorious « no u »
**Watches video**
**turns into lawyer**
Well done..
Where's my cut?
Ahaha
@Dave Liebers He is not quite clear about whether the term "their money" refers to a legal or a moral distinction. I would assume a moral one, in which case there is no clear, default reference by which this definition can be taken as a given, which is the premise he is trying to sneak in.
Also, unless you actually want to claim that the distribution of resources which results from the _complete absence_ of any regulation whatsoever is the only proper one, you are going to have to acknowledge that there is in fact a legitimate argument about what it means to "earn" money and what the moral implications of a particular situation is, however inconvenient this may be to your tribalist, ideological sense of superiority.
Guy literally tried to make a point that he wants to fight racism but he cannot because his opponents won't explain what racism is. This isn't what debates are about. He just likes to talk fast and trick his opponents into confusion. Not making a valid point or promoting healthy dialogue. He is an insult to intelligence.
@Dave Liebers Do you think you can destroy libtards like Ben Shapiro does? Because I can't.
I find that when the enemy loses his temper, I've won.
so say you destroy something of your enemy’s that is very epic to him and he gets mad did you win because he got pissed off for destroying his thing? or are you the one to blame for making him mad cus you destroyed something of his that wasn’t yours?
@@bruggbruh that is what a debate is i.e. destroy your opponents.
@@bruggbruh That's the point of a debate. You destroy what your opponent defends
Maybe, but if it's before you've even had a chance to say anything of substance (like what happened to Ben on the BBC) then it's more like the person who got mad forfeited
@@__-dq9ev It's never about convincing others to believe your stance, right? It's just about who can boost their ego better at the expense of another person.
This video just shows that the point of all those debates is just who is better at outsmarting the opponent instead of let's have an argument and fact driven dialogue to get the truth.
I’m scared of getting on a plane with Ben Shapiro, he’d destroy that left wing.
@Jordan Robshaw 😂😂
@Jordan Robshaw hell yeah man😂damn that reply is fire🔥
@@ravindupabasara3016 The plane would be on fire.
@@GaySatanicClowns yeah🤣
Comment appreciated :)
Unlike Jorge Ramos. He let his opponents talk first and doesn’t interrupt them. And thats a tactic he uses to trap his opponents...
California Brotherhood He also interrupts alot though
Have you seen his bbc interview..??
Why try to defeat your opponent when you can let them defeat themselves?
@@Pluxei only when he found them out it's fun to watch
EXCELLENT observation.
(hidden bonus reason): argue against people bad at arguing
The Stig no haha
@@businessmandan I mean if one side is better than the other at arguing then yeah that side has a higher chance of success.
Slimeustas Not really. People bad at arguing are often very good at making fallacy, albeit unintentionally. If you are not experienced enough, you will lose very fast.
@@sirbedivere5670 Ben is good at concocting a fallacy, which is another hidden reason.
@@justas423 No it's about an experiencd debater debating inexperienced college kids.
Ben is a master-debater and a cunning linguist.
…Against college kids.
@@EsoTarikZyou missed the double entendre. Twice. So I guess you doubled the double entendre. Are you a college kid by the way?
And you're a wordsmith 😃
@@Candolad If you define a word smith as being writer with writing credentials...then yes. Indeed I am. Although my spelling is lacking.
He's a LIAR who supports the terrorist state of Israel. Enough said.
Ben Shapiro: the only man that can pull off a stutter
Havkey you just have to do it superhumanly fast
Obama man.
No he’s not the only man who can but he’s one of the best
Troy Oliver yes he is
Tim pool.
1. Talk fast. Cuz if you talk slow, it gives your opponent time to think of a comeback. And if you talk fast. They can't process through on what to say.
Edit: I didn't even know I got likes on this.
And I forgot I had this comment...
Comes with intelligence.
then the opponent is in the shower and thinks about the argument he/she finally came up with a responsive argument but it’s too late
99% of latinas/black wifes do this
@@Ghost-cw9vz lol
Your edit had 0 purpose lol reported
5:05: If the other person ends up attacking you (verbally) then you are winning the debate. Generally.
@NPC Muh Media Counts, when you use the word "generally" it prohibits you from accusing them of using a fallacy. This is because they aren't making an argument.
@NPC Muh Media Counts You are missing my point. A logical statement, or "argument" would be, If A, B. Restated, If A, then B. That is an argument. The only way to negate the statement, If A, then possibly B, is to affirm the negation, If A, then not B.
You assumed a causation fallacy when a causation statement wasn't made. In a strictly logical sense. So if you want to accuse them of a fallacy then you have to assert the opposite absolute. It's logic. I mean, seriously. Your error occurred when you assumed the first statement was a If-then statement. It wasn't. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Good day!
2 wannabe ben shapiros under this comment section...
@NPC Muh Media Counts No.. It's not.. If I'm a chump it's because I feed the troll.
@NPC Muh Media Counts I can't decide if you are someone who understands the laws of logic and are just amusing yourself by abusing them or if you are just some random dude who watched a CZcams video about logic and now you feel like you can use logical fallacies as some blunt weapon to beat people into submission. Part of me wants to believe it's the former and there is intelligent life on the CZcams comments thread. Your attacks, while not logical fallacies, do give more weight to the original statement. When someone is reduced to insults, it generally means you're winning the argument.
I guess I love feeding the trolls. :)
You know what would be a great addition to your videos, would be a direct link or links to Just Ben Shapiro's guide, or Jordan Peterson's guide, WITHOUT narration.
Debates are often won with 'technique', not facts. Many people that have 'good facts/data' lose arguments because they are not strong debaters. Some of the tactics described are commonly used in high school and college debate competitions. Ben Shapiro is a strong debater
hey pls d ont say the masterbater my moms next to me she saaiid shed put me for a doption if i do swear again!!!?:!! 🤬🤯😳😭😭😭😎
Thing is Ben uses facts so you’re point? His fact checking is what makes him viable not just his technique in a debate.
@@rosekiller123 Point clearly defined in the video: he could not do what he does so consistently without facts.
@@AtticusStount
Ben is smart but when faced with an opponent who actually knows the subject matter, he has lost the argument.
@@rosekiller123 he uses the wrong facts though, if you actually fact check what he's saying he's still wrong most of the time. He just says things with such great technique that it's hard to argue against, even if you know the actual facts
Ben has mastered the debate blitzkrieg
Leopold II ironic (Palpatine)
Yeah basically.
I see what you did there
@@chaseoliver3978 Infiltrate, engage in subversive activities, win.
Ben is using massed tank formations with close air aupport?
Ben shuts down bad arguments so fast they don’t really know how to respond. Game - Set - and Match.
And yet, he refused to have any debates at this year´s Politicon. Gee, I wonder why.
@@jirkazalabak1514 because everyone at politicon has a restraining order against him because he be too good or he didn't see any real challenge (or maybe he was just busy, you never know, you're not him)
If you actually watched the video you'll see that he's a great grandstander and uses rhetoric effectively. Is he extremely good at presenting his points and flustering his opponents? Hell yeah, he is but how good you are at debate doesn't necessarily mean what you're arguing for is actually correct
Ben Shapiro is a hack. He backs up bad ideas with good arguments and data that sounds convincing but is usually disproven or shaky at best
@@sasukeisacat No, he was giving a speech and then having a panel with his cronies from Daily Wire I believe. So yes, he was at Politicon, and he was there the whole time. He got several challenges, including Kyle Kulinski, but for some reason "Mr. I will debate anyone" didn´t actually debate anyone. I will admit that he is impressive against college kids, but in that debate with Cenk last year, I really felt like he was just resorting to getting cheap laughs, which admittedly worked quite well. As far as the facts went though, it was Cenk almost all the way, and I am not a fan of TYT. I was genuinely surprised when I watched it. It turns out that when his opponents have done as much research as he has, he is a lot less impressive all of a sudden. At least that´s my experience from having seen a lot of his material.
His real skill he knows the opponents side better than they do.
👌🍌ing Ben Shapiro is crazy
“My doctor is a a wife”
-Ben Shrapnel
Bruh dat boi sed
@Natasel At least not outside of the bed.
Kolamoose
666 likes pls don’t like
Bro I had to do a double take to realize that something was wrong I'm done with myself
8. Have a wife who's a doctor
9. have a doctor who is a wife.
11. Obtain a doctor wife
An expired grapefruit 12. Marry woman with a doctorate
13. Be the husband of a doctor
14. Always mention youre wife's a doctor
I understand why he had to do it, but its still sad he has to continually say "I'm not saying I agree with Ben" or something of that nature because he knows the internet will turn it into him being right wing conservative just because he made a video on Ben Shapiro.
Edit: I am brain dead from reading the comments under my own comment. Almost all of your comments have 0 to do with what I even said.
its also funny how people in their particular political surrounding often state at which side they stand before they even say anything so as not be attacked by their "allies" for an unpopular opinion
R Parker right that’s my point. He might dislike Ben Shapiro but still respects his debate skills. He keeps having to state that the video is not him agreeing with Ben bc so many people take the idea of complimenting ones skills as the same agreeing with the point of view.
People are so scared to be trolled by SJW Marxists....
Most Americans are conservatives tho
Ethereal even if this was true, it wouldn’t matter. Super far leftists, not average democrats, cancel anyone who doesn’t fully agree with their POV.
He's a good debater, and when the subject is politics it's really hard to defeat his arguments. It's not that there's no defeater, but you really have to know the subject in and out to stand a chance.
Before watching a Ben Shapiro debate:
*Weird flex, but ok*
After watching a Ben Shapiro debate:
*Peculiar boast, but alas*
Thou hast done mutilation on thy grape
Peculiar flaunt, yet agreeable nonetheless
Best comment
most glorious critique
This right here , yeah right here
*Facts don't care about your feelings*
Jon Gee :/
Salutes
Saw this meme today 😂
*Feelings don't care about your facts*
Most republicans argue from feelings.
"Winning" a Debate is NOT about conceding victory or defeat. It's about if both sides bring rational arguments with mutual respectful open minds to learn from them.
Now this is something I can get behind with
Yeah!
Whin ben shapiro never does. Just gotcha commentaty.
Thankyou for this....that's what we need to aim for...a person claiming to win is not open minded to learn the perspective of the other side
Thank you! Finally someone rational!👏👏👏
I might need to listen to this about 1,000 times more because I am terrible arguing with people I just want to find the facts throw them on your face and have the case close I struggle to understand tactics.
Me too but if you are ambushed by multiple people in an argument, definitely use this video as your guide to put them all in a trap.
Most debates seem to occur more when people have different information on a subject rather than a difference of opinion. If you want to 'win' you typically have to know your facts and sources quite well and be able to predict theirs.
@@xitaris5981 Or having the same facts, but interpreting them in a stronger rhetorical way, you "win." That's the problem here. Tactics not fact....icts.
The "facts" ?
haha
No you want to find words to support whatever side you've chosen to be on. And you call it facts when it support your subjective views.
Expand ur vocabulary. And any time u think of a question u don’t know the answer to, google it and then expand on that google search. Information seeking and a wide range of vocabulary is a good place to start.
Me after watching this video
Me making a fair and logical point to my mom
Mom: no, just no, go to bed
Also mom: you dare oppose me mortal
Also mom: NO I SAID STOP TALKING BACK STOP ARGUING YOU'RE THE CHILD, I'M THE ADULT, I'M ALWAYS RIGHT, GO TO BED FOR THE 100TH TIME!!!
My mom on science: it's wrong because I said so
Just did that lol.
That's a hierarchical issue though, you and you legal guardian are not equal debate partners in all respects, since they are responsible for you and therefore have a degree of control over you.
That said, it's still damn annoying and frustrating, my mom did that all the time.
I always thought the highest form of debate was to discover what is true. The lesser form is to destroy your opponent.
@Well Drive but the problem is when you destroy your opponent, he'll feel defensive and vindictive instead of wanting to improve himself. This is why I don't like it when the left calls the right deplorable or stupid. Nothing good comes out of that. Instead, we should keep presenting the facts and showing that only rational and fact-based behavior can improve the society as a whole.
It's very clear from his quippy argumentative tactics that he's not here for the truth.
Stephanie Connor dishing out facts and removing emotion from the debate is far closer to the truth than most of his opponents ever get to
Uh... In his debate with Sam Harris he defended religion with whiny crackpot emotional arguments. And Sam Harris annihilated him. Religion is all about emotion And feelings, not facts or logic.
TheEzio1991 Ben is pushing an agenda that supports right wing rhetoric and can get very emotional. He also seems to hate context and can’t be trusted to be unbiased on topics discussing blacks and Arabs.
Ben Shapiro Destroys the Left Wing
Everyone else on the plane: =O
Andrew Neil destroyed him in uk
LOL
paul stanley just think about it like comparing that one horrific murder to a mass serial killer on the loose for years. It just doesn’t compare when you think of all of his debates. But yes, that debate he did was horrible and he should’ve known better.
@@goncman smh you didn't get the joke lol , lighten up have some fun ! Party at my house, free disease for everyone who shows up !
that genuinly had me laughing
I absolutely appreciate all the videos you share. This one in particular because it will possibly give me a chance to win at least a few debates between my son and I. I love him to death, but he is an incredible debater. I seem to fall victim to his skill and experience.
@Owen Reid Too funny! Yes, or try to school each other for the "next time s".
A question I wuld ask is what is your goal in debating with your son? Why do you want to "win" debates? What are your actual goals there? Unless it's someting you and your son do for fun and understand you are debating as a type of game, I don't think trying to learn tactics to "beat" your son at debate is likely to accomplish any goal I would associate with parenting.
You got this, Mrs. Shapiro!
So, the point of a "debate," in your view, is not to learn or hear other ideas, but to *win.* And that is exactly how this guy views it.
Yoo that's hilarious 😂😂
I bet he practises the debates in his shower.
Do you not 😂
@@edparker1143 ikr
Arta Khalvati wait people don’t do that?
The shower practices with him
I know I do
"Just beacuse you're offended, it doesn't mean you're right" - ricky gervais
Ben shapiro is invincible. His wife is a doctor, so he can instantly heal.
Thank you for the laugh.
Good joke
Familiar with the term iatrogenic effect?
Aye bruh, you think talking fast=being right?
@@amongusimposter8929 talking fast shows that their logic is easy to use because it is reasonable
If you can defend yourself vocally, physically, and mentally - You will be a force to be reckoned with.
Speaking of experience.
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS a sandcastle I spent ALL DAY building
haha he's that kind of guy
@@everythingsfine3064 He literally said he would destroy all sand castles in the pewdiepie video
@@kylemagaro231 FACTS
1. Talk fast
2. Say that your wife is a doctor
sirtaylorsir He mostly brings up the Doctor thing to bring up experiences that he has had with her because that’s what they were talking about in the argument. Can you actually pay attention to the why he brings up the doctor thing than you would get it
Colby Ballos That’s not proving a point, that’s just mean
@@arthurmolina638 why are you taking my comment seriously? I was obviously joking..
sirtaylorsir
How is that obvious?
You bring those things that many people have used to criticize him
@@arthurmolina638 , He's literally bringing the "Talk Fast," thing, that basically confirms it being a joke, as I doubt anyone actually uses that as a real criticism
I think the last time intelligent people with moral standards were actually invested in a public debate, was the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr on the theories of quantum mechanics. It was a classy way of debating, where each day they would meet up and present arguments from their respective opinions and studies. Then the other person would have a day to come up with a counter argument to disprove the theory of the other person, and it would continue like that until one side was unable to dispute the other person's theory. Now that is how you invest yourself in an objective argument.
In modern day it's all about trying to silence the opposition as quickly as possible, because whoever spews the most words and silences the other side, they are deemed the winner. It's all about winning, not about actually learning. And not just learning about the other person's beliefs, but also learning why you might be right. Most people believe they are right, without actually knowing WHY they are right, because they try to refute other opinions before they even get to learn their own belief. You learn most about your own opinions when other people question them deeply and you start to doubt your opinions and have to do thorough research. That's how it was in the old days, but in modern media time is everything and if you can't present a counter immediately then you are refuted, so it's all about laying traps and using clever tactics to maneuver the debate into your favor. It's about winning the debate, not the truth.
"Say it again and I'll knock your teeth out you queer!"
William F Buckley to Gore Vidal
“Wrong.” - D. J. Trump
Cool :))
Daniel Kemnitz Well said
Distimmer
When my neighbor resorted to stabbing me multiple times, it was only then I knew I won the verbal argument
You don't have to agree with him to admit he's got a hell of a mouth on him and the guile to back it up.
That's what the guy said in the movie Deliverance
@@jimkhata6847 never seen it is it a good movie?
Deliverance is a good movie, especially if you like sodomy by hill people.
If he only debates college students.
Say what you disagree with then. Doubt you can. Blind ignorance
I don’t agree with everything Ben says but he makes some hella points and kills everyone in arguments. And he also did meme review
NEXT MEME
That last one was the only thing he did right.
Merry no he’s done like 1000% more than that
Some hella points wow! You must have been eating in your hurry texting
he's so memeable
Ben: “ ...facts don’t care about your feelings.”
And yet, he somehow keeps circling around to social issues, not policy issues, and social issues that are the the losing side.
until the facts hurt his feelings 😂
Isn’t he religious lmao
Except when he faces Andrew Neil.😉
@@derpeth2101 I have ran your statement through my mind several times but I have not yet discovered the connection. Are you claiming that feelings and religion are closely intertwined? Or that religion does not correlate facts? Or both?
Winning even if you're wrong seems like a pretty conflicted goal.
It's not a problem for an amoral person.
Number 8; host meme review with Pewdiepie
Kali that’s number 9 8 is his wife’s a doctor
He did cx
Bonus meme
👏next👏meme
OR with T-series.
He was the best debater long before he did meme review (which was like 2 minutes ago)
What a time to be alive
The problem with this is that if I'm wrong, and my argument is fallacious, I don't WANT to win. I want to change my mind so I can be right.
You're thinking like a progressive, that's not how conservative politics works
Jordan Peterson would warn you about being "too agreeable", and you seem to be indicating that if during an "argument", the other side persuades you that your stance on a certain subject is wrong...that you would have a difficult time now arguing a "fallacious argument". That, to me, indicates you MIGHT have a high level of agreeableness to you...which may be something you may want to self-analyze and be wary of. I got into arguments/debates a lot in my youth and found myself agreeing I may be wrong...the other side took it as an indicator they had won or were winning. To prevent that happening, I concede a point in the beginning of such arguments and say something akin to, "I'll play devils advocate. I care neither one way or another." (which is mostly true, but not entirely), and then take my side. I do a lot of pointing at e other side's logical fallacies and mock, "zero points for that...try harder, be specific." It's part of the "game". But really, I don't just agree anymore, just because I'm write. Work on your style, presentation, logic (and SHUN logical fallacies). Each "argument" whether fallacious or not, is the chance to improve those things...and ESPECIALLY if you're wrong but you choose to stay cool under that pressure. Just my two cents...
In a better world, the other side would offer opposing views and facts to back them up, you could withdraw in order to do further research in order to draw your own conclusion, and you could meet again to further hone your argument. But today you get called names and handed a list of words, topics and facts that are off limits and we all wonder why culture is crashing
I agree, a lot of this is adversarial rather than cooperative, and there's too much of it in our modern world. Hardly anyone learns anything. It's like arguing ideas has become mere sport, and the point of it is just to score more goals (with the audience as referee).
@@jamiek645 It's quite the opposite actually. Progressives go with the fee fee's over facts.
It's so sad that arguments nowadays are about winning. Arguments should be a way to reach the TRUTH. Don't try to humiliate your opponent, but help them to develop and clarify their argument so you can both reach a good result.
it’s been apart of the ongoing trend of appeasing to audiences. Media outlets and popular social media figures have demonstrated the rewards of pandering to a certain crowd. Whether it’s late night show hosts talking about Trump or the absolute echo chamber that is this comment section all repeating the same thing in order to gain likes. Debates have devolved into a shouting contest where it’s about looking good rather than being correct like you said. Respect has been thrown out the window everyone now just a piece of that pie at this point (gratification).
ok let's remove the political system and law system as the fundaments of those fields are both built on lies or misconstruing a scenario to fit an agenda
Ixactl - what ?!
@@Abdullah1997 WhAt, the main basis of several things that make up our society follow the trend of lying or misconstruing data, it's been common to do this with law and government, trump, for example, overlaps several of his statements, and Hillary defended a rapist in her career as a lawyer. these careers require lying and both include some sort of debate.
I can agree that humiliating the opponent isn't really the point of debate but in these examples, it's clear ben isn't trying to do this, he is trying to show his point of view and gives a reason for it, his hivemind fans applaud him for doing minuscule things, he doesn't destroy them, his fans say he destroys them.
He’s a lawyer, he studies debating, I’m a carpenter... I frame houses. He could probably pick apart anything I say, but it doesn’t make me wrong, or even him wrong. He just has a better skill.
Watch him debate other skilled debaters. Watch his interview with Bill Maher , it’s great
Vincent Esposito Amen bro!
The problem with Ben Shapiro is that he usually uses quite dishonest tactics like straw manning his opponents and if you actually bother to research the things he says it is quite obvious quite fast, that his points are actually wrong.
Watch his interview with Andrew Neil from the BBC....and Andrew Neil is a conservative.
@@Lea-ep1bi Lol, please.
@@tycardwell2991
Is there something about the truth that you find "Lol"?