Jump to content

Ben Shapiro


Your friend

Recommended Posts

Knight of Cydonia
On 8/25/2019 at 5:35 AM, Some guy said:

his argument style is completely logical and flawless

 

On the contrary, his arguments are full of logical fallacies and misleadings. Is his style effective? Sure, if overwhelming and flustering an unprepared college kid is considered "effective". And those are the majority of the people he debates. Coincidence, I think not. 

 

The thing about Ben Shapiro is that he has no interest in having an honest discussion. Heck, the first line in his book "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them" is "All that matters is victory." His mantra is "facts don't care about your feelings" yet he constantly cherry-picks and manipulates data, and blatantly rejects facts when they go against his beliefs (in other words, his feelings).

 

The Andrew Neil BBC interview, in which Ben Shapiro was completely, embarassingly "destroyed", was very telling. When someone is experienced and doesn't fall for his cheap tactics, actually reveals how unprepared and illogical he is, and looks past the surface level of what he says, he crumbles and fall apart. (Now, credit where credit is due, he did actually apologize and fully admit that he got destroyed by Neil.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

Is his style effective? Sure

He knows his market, and knows what he is good at. Most of his debate I've seen, were against deer in headlights college students with no means of challenging anything he says. This is exactly why he is so effective at what he does.

 

I mean, he follows the same tactics many in the news media do. When wanting to bring bad light to a type of person or subject matter, always interviewing one of the easiest to destroy in debate by the interviewer, thus cementing the image they wanted to convey.

 

Very rarely in these interviews, do you see an interviewer get destroyed.

 

The fact Shapiro effectively flips the script on so many interviewers who aren't prepared for his antics, is exactly why he is so popular among his followers.

 

I just don't understand why some hate him to the point of wanting to erase his existence. He's very good at what he does, and of course every step he takes is calculated, to make him look his best.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We should not nuke hurricanes."? WTF does that even mean? Is Hillary's neurosyphilis acting up again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia
35 minutes ago, Some guy said:

"We should not nuke hurricanes."? WTF does that even mean? Is Hillary's neurosyphilis acting up again?

She's referring to reports (originating from this article, I believe) alleging that Trump has suggested multiple times to nuke hurricanes. Trump has claimed it's "fake news", but there ya go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

She's referring to reports (originating from this article, I believe) alleging that Trump has suggested multiple times to nuke hurricanes. Trump has claimed it's "fake news", but there ya go.

Notice they cited a source for Trump tweeting that he never said to nuke hurricanes, but they provided no source to back up their claim that Trump said to nuke hurricanes in the first place. You'd think the latter would be more important than the former. I'm gonna apply Occam's razor here and say that yeah, it is fake news and a conspiracy theory. If you have to go to some obscure paper with incomplete citations to prove that Trump said something, he probably didn't say it. Just FYI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

 

8 minutes ago, Some guy said:

Notice they cited a source for Trump tweeting that he never said to nuke hurricanes, but they provided no source to back up their claim that Trump said to nuke hurricanes in the first place.

They referred to "sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments." The use of anonymous sources can be considered contraversial, but it's certainly common in journalism. So I wouldn't say there is "no source to back up their claim."

 

2 minutes ago, Some guy said:

If you have to go to some obscure paper with incomplete citations to prove that Trump said something, he probably didn't say it. Just FYI.

I can't tell if you're directing this at me, or you're using the general "you". If it's the former, I never said anything about whether or not I thought the original story was true. All I did was provide context for Hillary's tweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

 

They referred to "sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments." The use of anonymous sources can be considered contraversial, but it's certainly common in journalism. So I wouldn't say there is "no source to back up their claim."

So they expect us to believe that these people heard Trump say something in private, and instead of going to the New York Times or The Guardian like everyone else who has dirt on Trump, they went to this obscure paper that nobody reads and that I didn't even know existed until a few minutes ago when you linked to it? Sure, sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

Nice appeal to authority. But it doesn't square with the observable facts. Most notably: "They are High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and zero failed fact checks." As I said, they have provided no source for their central claim, and the idea that someone is using this site for anonymous whistleblowing seems unlikely given the context, so this is a moot point from the start. The premise used to justify giving the site a high rating is observably false in this case. Learn to think for yourself instead of having some website tell you what to think.

 

But more to the point is the fact that Hillary Clinton saw a blog post that made an outlandish claim and immediately believed it without question just because it was anti-Trump. That alone should disqualify her from being president, which I think was Ben Shapiro's point in that tweet. Regardless of whether or not the claim is true (we probably will never know one way or the other) Hillary is showing a complete lack of critical thinking skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

Ah I see you are missing the point.

 

the point is that Shapiro said since Clinton is against nuking hurricanes she would be a terrible president

Has Shapiro actually stated his position on nuking hurricanes? Do you know if he's actually in favor of doing such a thing, or are you just assuming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@daveb Explain the point to me then. Because Kisa specifically stated that Shapiro thinks Hillary Clinton being against nuking hurricanes means that she shouldn't be president, which kinda implies that Shapiro believes in nuking hurricanes himself. I simply asked her to point to proof that Shapiro believes this, and that he's criticizing her for not believing it, as opposed to what is far more likely the case, which is that he's criticizing her for making a nonsensical statement and for taking the bait whenever a blog post attacks Trump. So no, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. I think I'm spot-on. Since no one seems to be able to explain exactly how I'm missing the point, I think that statement is kinda empty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Some guy said:

. That alone should disqualify her from being president

Do you understand that Hillary Clinton is not running for president?   Surely you do.  She is a private citizen.  

 

18 minutes ago, Some guy said:

@daveb Explain the point to me then. Because Kisa specifically stated that Shapiro thinks Hillary Clinton being against nuking hurricanes means that she shouldn't be president, which kinda implies that Shapiro believes in nuking hurricanes himself. I simply asked her to point to proof that Shapiro believes this, and that he's criticizing her for not believing it, as opposed to what is far more likely the case, which is that he's criticizing her for making a nonsensical statement and for taking the bait whenever a blog post attacks Trump. So no, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. I think I'm spot-on. Since no one seems to be able to explain exactly how I'm missing the point, I think that statement is kinda empty.

That is the craziest roundabout cockamamie paragraph I've seen in a long time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sally Again, no one can actually explain what's wrong with my argument. Just saying "Your argument is stupid/crazy." without anything to back it up is not a good counter-argument. You people need to learn better debate skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Some guy said:

point

Did I say you were missing the point? I don't get the point of discussions like this one. Especially when it just goes round and round and people argue about things no one said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daveb said:

Did I say you were missing the point? I don't get the point of discussions like this one. Especially when it just goes round and round and people argue about things no one said.

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood you. But yeah, people like to argue, and it can be very addictive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Shapiro, as the Donald Trump of his field. Actually that would be an insult to Shapiro as he happens to be half decent at his job. 

 

He is all for show and entertainment. 

 

People need to realize this. With that in mind, he is very good at his job. 

 

He gets high views and ratings. 

 

Nobody can deny him this. Well some can try but proof is in the pudding. 

 

He may get roasted in return fire but that's beside the point. He got you tuning in and talking, which is why he is so successful. 

 

Hating him just because you disagree with his opinion makes no sense to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Hating him just because you disagree with his opinion makes no sense to me. 

It starts making sense when you realize that the sort of arguments he's making have a way of making it into public policy and the manifestos of mass shooters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing about hating him is the ideas he spews and popularizes. He isn't just someone who says "That's my opinion, feel free to disagree" but argues he's right and you're wrong and his is the best way. Him and people like him want their opinions to become law and fact, and I refuse to let some asshole who thinks he knows what's best for me control my government and my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reversing some letters and making him Shen Bapiro makes me chuckle.

 

Of the few bits of media I've watched on him, he seems to have a few grounded points on things, but I figure he's a tad biased in certain avenues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FindingTheta said:

It starts making sense when you realize that the sort of arguments he's making have a way of making it into public policy and the manifestos of mass shooters.

Call me crazy but I still don't figure that's a reason to hate anybody. If we suddenly removed old benny from existence and scrubbed all his work, mass shooters and dumb public policy would derive their agendas from somebody else. Law of nature. If there's a void, it'll be filled. Maybe not a carbon copy, but somebody else stepping up to the plate with a different name and face, but similiar ideals. Hating anybody has never made any logical sense no matter who they are. It serves almost no purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with him sometimes... I don't other times. He knows quite a bit to make him reasonable to listen to with specific subjects but he doesn't know it all (no one does) but he acts like it so when he is talking about something he knows little in... It shows very heavily and has made me facepalm a few times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 9:03 PM, FindingTheta said:

It starts making sense when you realize that the sort of arguments he's making have a way of making it into public policy and the manifestos of mass shooters.

You can't blame mass shootings on him or his ideology. 

 

Mass shootings are a much deeper issue than one person spewing out his opinions. 

 

It would be like stating fast cars are the root cause of high speed crashes. Not recklessness. Many with fast cars, drive safely. 

 

It takes a pretty troubled mind, to want to take an innocent life. 

 

He is no more responsible for it than Trump. 

 

To see a spike in murders is one to accept that this was a country wide problem for a very long time that has gone ignored. 

 

People are giving people like this way too much credit. Like he invented hatred, bigotry or anger.

 

I just don't see what is dangerous about what he says. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a highly knowledgeable and well read individual. 

 

I hate when people try to refute ones existence or intelligence simply because they don't agree with them. 

 

My opinion is too bold? Well simple. Label me an idiot, bigot and so on and call it a day via challenging his opinion with one that should make more sense or refute his with more accurate facts. 

 

I see it like in high school. Many felt marijuana was safe and fully harmless. 

 

This is ignoring the smoke you were inhaling and the effects the drug had on your brain. 

 

So people would cherry pick facts to refute the other side. 

 

Reality was that there were side effects, and depending on your condition if the use was medicinal, that these would be outweighed by the benefits. 

 

But to ignore the side effects, because it doesn't support your opinion?

 

He has many highly logical points, which is why he is incredibly effective at getting people talking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Snow in the background

First of all, I am a socialist, so you can view my viewpoints as biased.

 

Secondly, let me express my opinion. I do not like his debate style. I believe that he deflects and then attacks, and I read other people's comments saying this, too. Furthermore, he uses emotions rather than reasons to get the public on his side and then makes his public feel good by trying to humiliate the other debaters, therefore those already hooked by Shapiro's arguments are made to believe that they are on the right side at the end of the debate. This only straightens their attachment to Shapiro, nonetheless.

 

He claims to know something about transgenderism and accuses trans people of being mentally ill, however this is not true! He ignores what science has say on this topic and in doing so he further enforces the stigma. Watch this video in which a teacher at Stanford University discusses the topic of transgenderism: 

 You would never hear this from Shapiro. Because this is the truth!

 

He also promotes the idea that people should be free to buy and own guns, but again he only promotes a limited view on this topic, that is, his perspective.

 

Moreover, when someone offers good counterarguments he tries to deflect or simply takes it personal and accuses the other speaker of being ill intended. Watch this, for example: 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People forget that this is entertainment. He isn't trying to change the world. 

 

He thus, is very good at what he does. He owns far more people, than those that own him. That's exactly the point. 

 

When you can make a left wing, or feminazi, or any demographic that is just as hated as he is look utterly moronic--you will get views. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe
2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

People forget that this is entertainment. He isn't trying to change the world. 

 

He thus, is very good at what he does. He owns far more people, than those that own him. That's exactly the point. 

 

When you can make a left wing, or feminazi, or any demographic that is just as hated as he is look utterly moronic--you will get views. 

So. He's no better than Hollywood, he just has a different spin that plays better?

 

Jefferson Davis, the president of the confederacy, once said "Never be humble  to the haughty or haughty to the humble." Now, even though a constant theme from his show is " We need to have dialogue and debate in this, the greatest republic to ever have graced the world."  Yet, just like Rush Limbaugh, so much of what he does is 'schtick'.

 

From what I've seen, when he has to get out of his comfort zone where he can just cut an opponent off, he doesn't always 'own' the 'utterly mornonic'. He has frequently had to recant some of the things he said, a point he also constantly makes on his show. But then, how often, when all we had were newspapers and letters to the editor, did some really stridently yellow journalists get caught at being 'haughty to the humble' and had to eat crow?

 

I'm sorry, but AM radio is a schlock vending paradise paid for by bread and circuses. As Edward R. Murrow said:

 

 

Quote

 

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful.


 

If his calling card is polemics, what does that say for his credibility or believability? Because Truth and Polemics are not normally travelling companions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...