Yuma 4×4

Media and Communications

7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates

7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates


Ben shapiro is one of the most famous and skilled political debaters out there and even if you’re not into politics his arguments are fun to watch. In this video I want to explore why Ben is so talented in debates. Specifically, I’m gonna give you seven techniques that you can use no matter what side of an argument you represent, even if you’re on the wrong side Three caveats before we begin: First, I am NOT saying that Ben is right or wrong on any of these points. What I’m gonna discuss are some of the rhetorical devices he employs that can be persuasive even if they aren’t always logically foolproof. No matter where you fall in these issues, there’s a lot to be learned from Ben’s style of debate. Second, you probably don’t want to focus on debating in your interpersonal relationships because the goal of debate is quite different than the goal of most relationships. -or you’re debating somebody on a stage in which case your goal is basically to humiliate that person as badly as possible. And third, Ben obviously does quite a bit of research which is really tough to combat without figures of your own. -If you’re, if you’re richer you tend to be married longer on average people who are poor tend to get divorce Where did you get that, um, statistic? -Census Bureau Now, research is necessary but I’m more interested in the tactical side of the debate rather than the prep so I won’t go any further into it. Let’s begin then with Ben’s defensive debate tactics starting with catching non- arguments and that’s because not everything that sounds persuasive actually constitutes a valid argument. For instance, when you hear that nine out of ten fill-in-the-blanks believe something that doesn’t necessarily prove a point. That is an argument from authority and, though it might be compelling, more evidence is required to be deemed conclusive. So when people lean on authority in arguments, Ben knows to call them out on it, like in this example: We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons. That was Ronald Reagan. -Okay, so now I can disagree with Ronald Reagan. You keep front of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me -So? Another common debate tactic that maybe isn’t done on purpose and doesn’t constitute a valid argument is getting emotional, particularly when the other person gets upset or offended. Now when Piers Morgan did that, Ben wisely didn’t engage him because simply being offended doesn’t prove anything. How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there, how dare you. -I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers. Like I say, how dare you -Well, I mean, you can keep saying that but you’ve done it repeatedly. What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on the program. The late Christopher Hitchens put this same idea rather bluntly: If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say: well, I’m still waiting to hear what your point is. Now you don’t necessarily need to be that abrupt, but pointing out that a point needs something beyond simple emotion in order to make it valid can make other debaters flustered and from there you can segue into the third defensive tactic that we are covering in this video, which is pushing for specifics. People often hold very broad opinions, very strongly, without necessarily being able to articulate what they mean concretely, and of course this happens on all sides of the political spectrum. So when Ben is grappling with a very broad, spanning charge, he takes the necessary first step of pushing that other person to provide specific examples. -I know what the Republican beliefs are I mean, you’re a young guy, but you certainly remember two years back when their beliefs were completely the opposite of what they are now. -But which ones, which ones? -Free trade. This is absolutely critical do not get wrapped up in defending generalized statements even if you don’t like them, because if any sort of blanket label is asserted against your position or it’s large institutions that are being branded one way or another, if you try to defend against that single phrase you are already buying into an argument You don’t understand and that would be absurd So instead, push the other person to relate exactly what they mean specifically, like in this example: We’ve been talking about. When you say institutional racism, it’s too broad. You at least have to name me the institution. Which one is the racist one? Which institution is racist? Tell me what you –like — so we can fight it– seriously– so we can fight it together Just– I want to be on your side. I do. I want to fight racists. I think race again I think racism is — I think racist — racist behaviour is evil. I want to fight it with you, but I can’t fight it if you’re not if you’re not showing me what it is Similarly and lastly on the defensive side, Ben knows his arguments inside and out so he doesn’t get sucked into defending points that his argument doesn’t require. For instance, in this next clip Ben is talking about how Trump will say outrageous things, knowing that it sets the media ablaze and his point is that Trump knows what he’s doing and he does it on purpose in order to control the news cycle Now when Don Lemon responds saying the Trump shouldn’t be doing that, Ben doesn’t bother defending the morality of his actions. He’s only talking about the purpose of them. -says some things that are outrageous like people in the media aren’t patriotic, knowing that people in the media are immediately going to turn it up to 12 on the Richter scale. But Ben, don’t you think he should be truthful in his comments even if he’s even if he’s funny and if you give them any — shouldn’t he be truthful and he wasn’t. Of course and I think that this is where the media — here’s my advice to people in the media. Now recognizing that you can and should agree at points with the person that you’re debating seems obvious but it can be especially hard to do when people insult you a general rule of thumb is that if the other person winds up attacking you you were actually winning the debate. So Ben usually doesn’t get sucked into defending his own honor and he shows a great example of that here: Paul did a hit piece and in it writer Jane Coaston says you have hollow bravery, calls your campus speeches shadowboxing and if you wanted to be genuinely brave, you’d challenge quote: Some of the wrongheaded ideas held by your right-wing fans How do you respond to that? Number one: I’ve never really attributed bravery to myself I don’t think that it’s brave to walk on a campus and talk to kids, I think it’s brave to be a member of the military. I think it’s brave to be a cop I think it’s great to be a firefighter. I don’t think it’s brave for me to walk with a security team at my side onto a stage. If I thought that I was gonna get shot and murdered, then I probably wouldn’t do it. So I don’t consider myself part of that group anyway Then wisely doesn’t bother defending his own bravery and instead sticks to the points that he knows are strongest to his argument and that takes us to Ben’s Offensive Strategies. One of the big ways that I see him stump his opponents is through the use of snuck premises. Essentially, you introduce the exact point of contention as a given and that’s through the clever use of language. Now, this isn’t to pick on Ben because we all do this from time to time. So first off, see if you can find the snuck premise in this next case: -from planned parenthood. As you may have noticed, I’m mostly against abortion. If you wanna go to Planned Parenthood and get a contraceptive, go for it. I don’t care. I do care when you start killing babies. This is a problem for me. Again, a snug premise introduces a contended point as a given. So what counts as a snug premise shifts with each position of each person involved in a debate now in the context of the abortion debate: pro-choice versus pro-life, what is the snug premise that Ben just said? Here it would be the words: “kill babies”. This entire debate hinges on the personhood of the baby/fetus and using the word baby implies personhood. So with that word, Ben is able to sneak in a premise that most of his opponents would probably disagree with but he does it in a way that they don’t notice, so they are stuck, coming to the same conclusion that he does. Here’s another example, this time in a debate over the morality of socialism communism and other economic models: -income inequality in the United States is also quite high, right? There are people who are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and then there’s the the local checker at your grocery store. But if the local checker your grocery store is getting richer then it seems to me they have nothing particularly to complain about in how the economy is operating. They don’t have a right to Jeff Bezos’ money They don’t have a right to Bill Gates’ money any more than Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos has a right to their money. What is the snuck premise in this case? It would be the idea that it is their money. A socialist or a communist might see the money that an owner of the means of production has, aka another rich person, as being stolen, so it wouldn’t be their money in the minds of a socialist or a communist. But when Ben assumes the idea that it is their money, he makes a point that again his opponents might find disagreeable but they won’t really know where to poke the hole, because they adopted his premise as soon as he said it. Now in my experience, most debates are won or lost on snuck premises. In concealing the steps we take to arrive at our conclusions, we can get there without the other person knowing exactly how they disagree with us, but still being stuck. So if you want to win cheaply, without having your ideas challenged, this is an excellent tactic, that is, how you can win a debate even if you’re wrong. But to the degree that you can catch yourself, you’re usually better off avoiding this and it’s usually more insightful and better for the relationship to bolster the opposition side, as we discuss in our video on Jordan Peterson, which I will link to below. Again, not to pick on Ben, just pointing this out as an example. I’m going to leave this for now and move to another effective rhetorical tool that I see from Ben. It’s moving from the abstract to the concrete, and it looks like this: I think that focusing on poverty is a good thing to do. I think focusing on income inequality is not a good thing to do because there’s no correlation between income inequality and relative rates of poverty, right, there’s tremendous income inequality in a lot of places on Planet Earth, in fact in all places on Planet Earth. If you go to Sudan, there’s gonna be a rich warlord there and then there are gonna people living on six dollars a year. This works because the specific example seems to prove the broader point that preceded it, even though a single example cannot prove a rule. It is useful shorthand for persuasion and explanation. I do this all the time with the examples that I give you in these videos- it’s very very common. And when you add an element of humor to the specific piece that you are saying it makes it even more persuasive because people can be so wrapped up in laughing, that they don’t necessarily evaluate if they disagree with the point that you made. -The people who are currently acting in a criminal fashion in the drug war aren’t going to be out acting as model citizens, as a general rule. A lot of those people are going to be committing other crimes because this has been the history of the United States: when you make a substance illegal, the people who are criminals were criminals before and they’re criminals after. Al Capone was not going to turn into a banker after prohibition ended. And the final piece for this video, at least, is that you want to emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent. What evidence would you need? Now we previously saw Ben do this with regards to institutional racism in a previous clip: -racist behavior is evil. I want to fight it with you But I can’t fight it if you’re not if you’re not showing me what it is. Here he is talking about Trump’s impeachment and the Muller investigations: [Applause] Dude, I’m happy to wait for the Muller indictments if they come down and they target Trump. I’m happy to see him impeached but I need to see evidence. Where’s the evidence? just throw it in the trash. And if he throws it in the trash or quashes the Mueller investigation then yes impeachment should be on the table. Thank you Ben. When done in good faith, this is a really admirable way to build consensus and settle a debate, but since I said that this video was gonna have elements of how to win even if you’re wrong, this can also be used as a smokescreen to make your opponent lose sight of a more effective way to win an argument and instead focus on giving you the evidence that you asked for. By the way I am NOT saying that that is what Ben is doing here. I’m just saying that when you outline the conditions of what it would take for you to reverse your position, it can work as a diversionary tactic. So, there you have it, seven reasons that Ben Shapiro is so difficult to best in the debate and seven ways that you can win even if you’re wrong.

100 thoughts on “7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates

  1. I hope someday soon this guy and everyone of his talmudic relatives are trapped in a fuckin gas chamber,Talmudic christkiller

  2. But abortion IS killing babies… so it's not a snuck premise. The factory owner obviously built the factory with their own money. "seeing" someone else's money as you own doesn't make them a thief. Again no snuck premise. So that part of your video is completely irrational.

  3. Unless you debate an old English news guy, then it all falls apart and you start sniveling and run away. Another fake hero of the right.

  4. Snuck premise in #7, when he contrasted Al Capone with Bankers, he's ALSO implying that Bankers are generally moral/honest

    Thennnn why does the banking system control our money supply and deal in anonymous off-shore financial services?

    Perhaps this wasn't intentional, but comparisons & contrasts are inherently reciprocal and thus when choosing a metaphor, choose it wisely as your audience can interpret it in either direction.

  5. The democratic serpent left is the same serpent line who enslaved the black race. Everyone who supports the serpent left is owned and controlled by demons.

  6. here we go, 4d checkers.
    the 30 some, year old kid, who's marginally more clever than his audience. Uses hitler like epithets, interestingly enough. whats that on his head?

  7. "not always logically foolproof"?? Not logical to anyone who actually thinks. And his so-called statistics are cherry picked and distorted, so it is not hard to do. makes him a bad arguer, but, unfortunately persuasive but only to the rather gullible.

  8. He’s probably naturally very intelligent in that he has a very high or even genius IQ, and he’s also a freaking lawyer, so he’s trained to debate. And if he’s on the correct side of politics, then defending his beliefs should be easier than if he was on the wrong side.

  9. Seven reasons Ben Shapiro is sh1t in a debate?
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil
    Andrew Neil.

    Run away and cry Ben.

  10. Essentially, it's about being solid in research/knowing a solid base of facts, LISTENING VERY VERY VERY WELL (which is in fact an art and science that must be practiced) then being completely authentic. "Facts" can appear to 'shift' according to the individual perceiving them, however, the individual being pure about the facts will debate extremely effectively.

  11. Ben Shapiro, like Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, talks fast and non-stop to prevent counter arguments and when the opponent starts to make a good point, they interrupt and talk even faster and spurt out more BS in the hopes of preventing the opponent from covering all points.

    This is why people like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Charlie Kirk won't advance in their careers and will stick to giving college seminars and posting lousy videos on Youtube.

  12. This is sheer entertainment, not to be taken seriously. The editor and Ben both said that the purpose of a debate is to "destroy and humiliate" the other person. How mature.

    An argument on the other hand adheres to the truth seeking principle . You tell me which one you think is more important. More logical arguments, less theatrical debates. Thank you.

  13. Everything you need to know to win a debate/argument is in "Graham's 7 Levels of Disagreement hierarchy". Every concept is mentioned in this video.

  14. One error in your video. Personhood was not Ben’s major premise. His premise was that a human life was being destroyed, which it is. If he said fetus, it would not have changed the argument. Nor was he referring to any kind of baby, such as a baby bird, sea horse, corn (heh). He was referring to a small, dependent, vulnerable human, i.e. a baby.

  15. …because you say so is the only way I can think of. Faith, it licenses you to believe how and whatever you choose at the expense of reality. Truth being The Truth only because you want it to be. All religions are cults. Its how the remark about kool aid drinking was invented.

  16. debate is supposed to be about presenting ideas and persuading others to your point of view. shapiro treats it as a game. he has a good memory, talks quickly, jumps all over the place and throws out a barrage of fact, fake and general bs too fast to fact check. he doesn't enlighten, rather he confuses. combined with his unpleasant voice and generally snarky attitude, these "qualities" leave his fanboys impressed but as ignorant as before and his opponents walk away despising shapiro and his followers, one for his intellectual dishonesty and the others for their stupidity. hell of a way to "win".

  17. There's one debate the Ben Shapiro would lose.
    And that is if he would debate me about the fact that his Nations Messiah was Jesus Christ

  18. How can "killing babies" be a snuck argument? The only sneaking I see is by those who introduce personhood as 1) something independent of being human and 2) something if missing gives liberty to kill. Both of these notions deserve all the push back they get. Those are ideas dependent on sneaking and uncritical thought. "Killing babies" does not sneakily humanize the unborn. It accurately humanizes them.

  19. This guy really has no idea what he's talking about. "Snuck premise"? You mean the facts as you see them? It's also called your opinion, or the position you're defending?

  20. regarding snuck premises: socialism is not an 'economical model' but a collectivist ideology that has killed dozens of millions in the 20th century. so calling it an 'economical model' is a euphemism at best.

  21. he's not famous, he is an intellectual REPROBATE.. he hates Jesus Christ, hates the gospel, hates Gods truth.. and then wants to frame the left as the key enemy while his Jewish demons go unanswered? NICE TRY but it won't work.. we are waking up to this devils mouthism, he's just another talking head

  22. BBC host: asks simple question.
    Been Shapiro: I can't do this, I LITERALLY can't even.
    Conservatives: Hahaha he showed that snowflake, I'll tell you hwat!

  23. Best way to win a debate: have your co-workers provide information for you on a list for you to read from in an argument.

  24. He's dominant in debates because he debates the intellectual bottom of the barrel, teenage socialists who don't even know what they're talking about.

  25. I like how you outline some of the socialist views during the "snuck premise" section. Now they seem even more reprehensible.

  26. Of course, the number 1 reason Ben wins debates is because he has the facts, all the facts, on the topic he's speaking about.  Hard to dispute facts.  Facts don't care about your feelings. Truth is truth.  Emotion and opinion are not.  Period. Next.

  27. Because he ignores what the opponent says and then talks over them loud and fast with a preprepared talking point that only tangentially applies to what the opponent just said.

  28. Um he isn’t? He talks over his opponents and hurls accusations, and when he loses he throws a tantrum and leaves. What a moron you are.

  29. If you're a climate scientist who comes across as a shy, gentle, soft-spoken librarian, you're better off avoiding a debate with Ben Shapiro about climate change.

    If you're an evolutionary biologist who comes across as a shy, gentle, soft-spoken librarian, you're better off avoiding a debate with Ben Shapiro about evolution.

    Personality is critical. Lawyers such as Ben Shapiro are people who argue for a living. Being a fast-talking motormouth is an essential attribute when it comes to gaining the upper hand in an arguing match (or "debate"). Climatologists or evolutionary biologists may have the facts on their side, they may have a sound, reasonable case to put forward, but unless they happen to be an articulate extrovert who can aggressively hammer home their points, they're not likely to get anywhere in an oratorical duel. (Sorry, I mean "debate".)

  30. 8. Talk extremely fast
    9. Conjure numbers out of thin air and create sentences that contain phrases like "if we assume" or "let's say"
    He's a con-artist of the highest degree and not half as clever as many people think he is. But good for him, he's collecting all that Koch brothers dosh to spread his BS. A man has to live.

  31. Lets talk about the sorta morons whom walk straight in the very same trap for the 1000 times.
    Intelligence? You have to show em the a word on a explanatory dictionary to get the concept, but what one can await from a leftist troll?

    "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me"
    But what about be fooled by the very same trick countless times?

  32. The only reason Ben Shapiro is viewed as dominant in debates is that he talks faster than everyone else and refuses to consider the other side's arguments. The only people that think he's smart are people of low intelligence who can't follow what he's saying.

  33. He’s good debater for sure but really he state facts and you can’t counter facts. I doubt he can keep that up if he was arguing for the sky being red.

  34. A warning to all men watching this:

    NEVER use any of these tactics against women or your mothers. You will regret it sooner or later. NEVER

  35. I had to stop right at 7:21 after abortion. In CONTEXT of that short segment I propose this. If NASA found a fossilized single cell paramecium (google it), liberals and conservatives all over the world would declare "WE HAVE FOUND LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE!" Yet a MULTI-CELL "organism" in a HUMANS WOMB here on TERRESTRIAL EARTH is just some some "blob" that can be exterminated at will. Under that qualifier or logic, NASA should DESTROY any evidence of life we find on a cellular level in the galaxy. After all, "it's just a cell".

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.