Current Events > 7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY5t6iUzajk" data-time="

What do you make of this video? I know many of you quite dislike Ben.
---

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me
---

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.
---

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this
---

LimboTraveller posted...

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

Can you give an example.

I was in debate in highschool and the idea of a vague point being valid is nonsensical. That would mean you are ill prepared or don't really understand what your point is.
Keep in mind in highschool debate you have to argue for both sides, so this isn't a liberal or conservative thing.
---

Just bring up criticism of Israel and watch the little rat have a melty.
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this

You could always delete it from your viewing history

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this

Lol 2nd post. You seem to want to watch it.
Why not logout and then watch it?
---

thrashmetal14 posted...

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this

You could always delete it from your viewing history

not worth the effort
---

thrashmetal14 posted...

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this

You could always delete it from your viewing history

Maybe so. The video is however about the method of the arguments rather than the content.
---

okay,
---

lol, I saw that in my Recommended videos
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

LimboTraveller posted...

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

Can you give an example.

I was in debate in highschool and the idea of a vague point being valid is nonsensical. That would mean you are ill prepared or don't really understand what your point is.
Keep in mind in highschool debate you have to argue for both sides, so this isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

vague point , as in ideas that are in the gray scale of morality and norms.

LimboTraveller posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

LimboTraveller posted...

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

Can you give an example.

I was in debate in highschool and the idea of a vague point being valid is nonsensical. That would mean you are ill prepared or don't really understand what your point is.
Keep in mind in highschool debate you have to argue for both sides, so this isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

vague point , as in ideas that are in the gray scale of morality and norms.

I fail to see how morality makes something vague. Maybe vague is not the proper term to use?

In persuasive speech you never want to be vague...unless you do not desire to persuade. And the liberalist does indeed want to persuade.

Also, not sure what would be on a gray scale of morality for the liberalist. For example, gun control to the liberalist is seen as a life and death issue. Nothing vague or gray about that.
---

Debate doesn't matter.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

I'm confused by the snuck premises. I get the idea of using specific terms and having your opponent gloss over them, but what exactly is this doing? Like the abortion debate, people want contraceptives but Ben doesn't want abortions, he calls it "killing babies," but what is that doing if the debate went on? Even if you say "is a fetus a baby?" in response, you'd both have to quickly sort that out and then continue the general premise.

I think it is just a fancy way of saying you relate two ideas together and the opponent is unable to make a separation of the two ideas. Since they have no logical ability to separate the ideas, you can make argumentative points about the related idea that you couldn't have done against the first idea alone.

Ex:
resolution: Oranges are healthy and we should promote people eating and growing them.

response: Sure, Oranges are good, but x insects that love oranges are not. Promoting Oranges promotes these bugs.

Now the debate is no longer about how good Oranges are but this new idea about pests.

Calling it snuck makes it sound worse than it is but I get that the video maker was being neutral here. As he said, we all do it and sometimes these are actually the real key point that should be argued, sometimes maybe not.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Debate doesn't matter.

Matter does debate. Life is debate. Combat is debating with our bodies. Love is debating with our emotions.
Debate is fighting with our minds.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

LimboTraveller posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

LimboTraveller posted...

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

Can you give an example.

I was in debate in highschool and the idea of a vague point being valid is nonsensical. That would mean you are ill prepared or don't really understand what your point is.
Keep in mind in highschool debate you have to argue for both sides, so this isn't a liberal or conservative thing.

vague point , as in ideas that are in the gray scale of morality and norms.

I fail to see how morality makes something vague. Maybe vague is not the proper term to use?

In persuasive speech you never want to be vague...unless you do not desire to persuade. And the liberalist does indeed want to persuade.

Also, not sure what would be on a gray scale of morality for the liberalist. For example, gun control to the liberalist is seen as a life and death issue. Nothing vague or gray about that.

not all ideas are vagues , but some are.
Ideas about morales, ethics which liberalists support are usually on the greyscales while the right wing like ben saphiro is on the absolute side so he can always use this for his advantages since the extreme ends usually has more "facts"

RedWhiteBlue posted...

I'm confused by the snuck premises. I get the idea of using specific terms and having your opponent gloss over them, but what exactly is this doing? Like the abortion debate, people want contraceptives but Ben doesn't want abortions, he calls it "killing babies," but what is that doing if the debate went on? Even if you say "is a fetus a baby?" in response, you'd both have to quickly sort that out and then continue the general premise.

Because it shifts the argument. Whatever point you were originally trying to argue is quickly forgotten because you got wrapped up in an argument about whether fetuses are babies, when instead you wanted to talk about funding for Planned Parenthood, or other services they perform. Now Ben gets to "win" because he no longer has to justify Planned Parenthood funding, he's distracting you with a time waster about fetuses being babies, a different argument entirely.

If you pay attention you can see this same exact thing happening on CE all the time. Mal_Fet is really good at it.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

he replied because he was expressing his opinion about watching the video , which might assume that the video is a right wing video from the title names ans he just wasnt bothered to watch the entire video to confirm this.

LimboTraveller posted...

not all ideas are vagues , but some are.
Ideas about morales, ethics which liberalists support are usually on the greyscales while the right wing like ben saphiro is on the absolute side so he can always use this for his advantages since the extreme ends usually has more "facts"

I guess I will find an example as ask you if it fits.

Would the idea that there is more than 2 genders but how many there we don't know fit into what you mean by vague?

Ben would ask why you can't know how many there are and define them. That is what you mean by his side having more facts?
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

So I'm guessing that in order to 'win' against a snuck premise you would have to say "we're not talking about X, you shifted the topic, we're talking about Y." It seems like you'd have to be a very seasoned debater to think fast enough to call them out. And yeah, I do see that a lot on here, and people get wrapped up pretty hard on the shifting.

You either do that or defeat the snuck premise.
Shifting the debate isn't an auto-win, it however could be that you are less prepared to argue the new idea and they have well prepared.
In general, you should be able to know what a debate will evolve into. The example of planned parenthood, it is elementary to know someone might try to bring up killing babies. If that catches you off guard, you haven't done your homework.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

So I'm guessing that in order to 'win' against a snuck premise you would have to say "we're not talking about X, you shifted the topic, we're talking about Y." It seems like you'd have to be a very seasoned debater to think fast enough to call them out. And yeah, I do see that a lot on here, and people get wrapped up pretty hard on the shifting.

Be careful with that. Cause then you run the risk of the other person making you get stuck in an argument about snuck premises, if they're any good at replying to people that call them out on snuck premises. Just reply as if the snuck premise was never uttered.
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

I'm not going to watch that. you can't make me

Why reply then? The video author is neutral and not a ben fanboy btw.

I don't believe you and it's not worth messing up my Recommended Videos section on youtube to watch this

I havent watched that video but Im subscribed to that channel and TC is telling the truth about it being neutral
---

1. Act smug and dodge any actual question.
2. Make any sort of ridiculous claim that appeals to your fanbase.
7. Winning!

LimboTraveller posted...

he is only good because his opponents are always liberalists who have to argue vague points while he is on the right wing (white-and-black side)

I didn't think he had a lot of arguments with Sargon fans.
---