Ben Shapiro is not an intellectual
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Ben Shapiro is nothing but a big fat right wing shill
He picks out the worst examples of leftists and conflates them with the entire left wing
His style of debate is simplistic, full of false equivalencies and over-simplifications which are designed to pidgeon-hole the opponent into a circular discourse in which he overrides any attempt they make at reasoned and nuanced discussion with a torrent of self-rebuttals of his own misrepresentations disguised as statements of basic fact.
Also all left wingers are anti-semites and everyone who was ever a bad person was a leftist and an atheist. Also there is no such thing as a rich person who is bad unless they are a left winger."
He is not fat, pretty fit actually.
Any proof for this?
Ben Shapiro is an intellectual because he backs everything up he says with facts or some sort of logical reasoning.
He has statistics right in the back of his mind
Ben rationalizes people's positions and educates college students
He has never said this.
feelings based arguments
I didn't mean physically fat, what I am really calling him is a right wing shill, a point which you chose to ignore. Ben Shapiro is a big fat dirty filthy repugnant repulsive sack of goblin shit because he is nothing but a propaganda shill.
In this 3 minute video alone Ben Shapiro conflates the position of every left winger on earth with extreme pro-abortion attitudes and asserts that the woman he is debating agrees with these attitudes while she repeatedly denies it, and as she tries to explain her position he constantly makes false equivalencies and conflationary assertions about her positions, even comparing abortion to the slave-trade in an incredibly intellectually dishonest display of his anti-intellectual sleazeball antics.
He tries to cancel out any nuanced discussion with his radical assertions and oversimplications and he constantly lies to college students in an attempt to convince them that all left wingers are deranged anti-free speech communists who just shout and don't want to have an honest discussion with conservatives.
Here is Shapiro whining about leftists who don't support Israel and conflating all leftists with having extreme anti-zionist views. He is also fallaciously insinuating that they are pro-hamas, conflating all leftism with socialism and conflating socialism with "equality of outcome" all in the same 2 minute video.
If you ask Shapiro, literally every authoritarian regime in history was left-wing and run by atheists.
You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg.
I'm sorry but this not the way too argue. You will probably get docked the conduct point because of your swearing and insults.
First, you should be able to give specific instances and quotes of when Ben was being anti-intellectual, not a 3 minute video I have to piece apart and guess what you are saying.
Ben said "most" not every single person on earth.
The women said "I am certainly a person that believes the mother's rights usurp the baby's rights."
He cites a video but literally all he mentions is Hitler and Stalin as examples. He never said "all" or anything to that extent. All he said was Hitler was closer to the left in his regime.
You have literally been repeating that he is so brilliant and logical throughout the debate without providing a single smidgen of evidence. A three minute video is about as concise as it gets. What do you expect, exact 10 second snippets of all of his quotes addressed one by one?
Ben did not say either, instead he leaves it open to interpretation and vaguely refers to everything he criticises as "the left". He always insinuates "all" in the way that he says "the left believes this" and refers to it as an agenda shared by all leftists but he never says it directly, since he wants to appear fair and balanced. He wants to create an "us vs them" and try to atomize "the left" as a single ideology. If you believe that the democratic party is run by cultural marxists and that Bernie Sanders is a commie then you are living proof of Shapiro's heinous propaganda tactics.
She did not say that.
For the record, he believes Hitler was a socialist, which would make him extremely far left. This is a one sided and dishonest way of portraying it because Fascism is usually difficult to pinpoint on the political spectrum and has both extreme leftist and extreme right wing elements. For example, Nazi Germany was extremely collectivist but also extremely nationalistic and conservative in regards to German cultural values. Ben Shapiro wants to convince you that fascism, communism, social democracy and socialism are all the same thing, which is simply not true.
lnformal debate. Entertaining read.
I have said before that I wish our voting system allowed for weighting style as style is what most often separates the proficient debates from the popular debates- this voter cares more about style than spelling or grammar.
Pro's R1 is all style- hyperbolic, hypercritical, & funny. As somebody who doesn't see much BS, I enjoyed the impression without really knowing how accurate the satire. The argument boils down to BS is often fallacious.
Con asks for evidence
R2- Pro gives 3 YouTube links which serve his case well enough, yes they demonstrate poor reasoning but very rational arguments seldom persuade in modern political punditry. The problem I have with Pro's approach is the use of anti-intellectual arguments - bluster, satire to condemn another's lack of intellectual integrity. Pro basically lists some logical fallacies and then invites us to listen for those fallacies on YouTube. I think three fallacious quotes from BS torn down to premise and conclusion, fallacy and correction would have been far more effective.
Pro really needed to offer a solid definition for intellectual- Wikipedia's lines up nicely with Pro's case. Con missed an opportunity to offer some definition that might have blown Pro's case up pretty effectively. In the absence of definitions, I have to prefer Pro's inferred definition over Con's.
Arguments to Pro
RFD in comments
For the love of all that is good and holy - I encourage all debaters to define their terms! It appears pro is arguing that being an “intellectual” means engaging in honest discussion, and not engaging in oversimplifications and intellectual dishonesty.
Con appears to be arguing mostly that being an intellectual means being smart - specifically that he skipped two grades as the only evidenced example.
Pro, on the other hand provides examples of key errors in logical thinking and oversimplification BS makes,
There’s a whole tonne of factual claims made by both sides that I simply cannot assess for validity. You need to source your facts when it’s not clearly self evident which side is valid. I literally can’t vote when one side says “Ben is this”, then the other says “no I’m not”, which comprises the majority of this debate
Saying that, pros videos clearly showed BS has a tendency for lumping all extreme positions to leftists. Con didn’t do enough or provide any substantial sources to counter this summary. Even his one objection to a video didn’t seem to be fully relevant to the discussion.
On these grounds - pro managed to show BS acts intellectually dishonestly - and con doesn’t manage to counter. As no side defines what being an intellectual means - pro side is clearly closer to my understanding.
As a result - arguments to pro.
Nearly award conduct to con though, but it wasn’t severe enough in my opinion.
No one wins. Pro could have won this so easily but didn't even quote the videos he used. There was so much more material out there that was better than what he gave instead of abortion was equivocated to slave-owners and don't get me started on Con. He wrote this as a rebuttal to his claim "He only referrers to some. Nowhere in their did he say "all."". Saying he never meant all doesn't mean Pro's point isn't valid. I wrote about 3k characters when I reached to that point and then realise why am I even doing this? Now this is what my debate is. A tie because both are incapable of debating. One can't clearly lay out his argument and the other can't even rebut the main argument brought up.
At no point in the entire debate did Con explain what an intellectual is. Only in the last Round, which Pro couldn't reply to, did Con even hint at how Ben Shapiro 'thinks rational' or any such thing. Pro used sources and highlighted what exactly in the YT video was being 'exposed'. Con doesn't even say what is in the YT links he uses, he just posts 2 in 2 different Rounds and says 'look how much Ben Shapiro backs things up with facts'... Okay, what things?
Pro highlights that cherry-picking points and holding strange views like Zionism, without being able to back them up would mean we are to default Shapiro (if Shapiro is these things) as a non-intellectual. This truly shifted BoP onto Con, even though it already was on Con had this been correctly written as 'is an intellectual' and with Sparrow as The 'red' side (Opposition) despite being the Instigator.