Instigator / Pro
Points: 34

Ben Shapiro is not an intellectual

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Sparrow
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 26
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Ben Shapiro is nothing but a big fat right wing shill who 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.

For a comedic touch, I will now present you with my impression of Ben Shapiro

(weasely voice) "The left wing is fundamentally immoral, because left wing politics is based on theft and distorting the facts of biology and objective morality. That's why it's impossible to debate a left winger, they can't debate you because there is no objective reality in their self-entitlednihilisticpostmodernistculturalmarxistmoralrelativistworldview. That's why they argue with pure feelings based rhetoric, because studies show that liberals are ugly, have low testosterone and are more likely to be indifferent to facts than right wingers. 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."




Published:
Ben Shapiro is nothing but a big fat right wing shill
He is not fat, pretty fit actually.  Next point.

 He picks out the worst examples of leftists and conflates them with the entire left wing
Any proof for this?

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.
This is an opinion.  Any real examples?  

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 and takes questions from liberals and then answers it with the things I just described.  

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 has never said this.  He is willing to engage with the left and have civil dialogue.  Ben rationalizes people's positions and educates college students.  He never uses these feelings based rhetoric, it actually sounds like what a liberal would say to a conservative because most liberals just shout and don't have a discussion with conservatives.

Conclusion--

My opponent has only given opinions and feelings based arguments, and has not backed it up with any examples or evidence.  I await for him to do so.

Round 2
Published:
He is not fat, pretty fit actually.
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 shite because he is nothing but a propaganda shill.

Any proof for this?
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.

There are many, many more examples of him being an intellectually dishonest right wing shill. He does these things in every debate he has.

Ben Shapiro is an intellectual because he backs everything up he says with facts or some sort of logical reasoning.
XD

He has statistics right in the back of his mind
What good are statistics when they are cherry picked and used to misrepresent people's arguments and positions?

Since you believe that child-rape is a harmless hobby, let me show you some statistics showing that you are harming children.

Ben rationalizes people's positions and educates college students
He does the exact opposite of those things. 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.

He has never said this. 
He is an ethno-nationalist (zionist) Jew who cries like a little SJW pansy whenever someone criticizes Israel and calls them an anti-semite.

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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh6MPVoUNl8 ( insinuates all fascists are leftists because all leftists are anti-free speech)

feelings based arguments
omg u don't support Lord Shapiro? You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg.

Published:
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.
I'm sorry but this not the way too argue.  You will probably get docked the conduct point because of your swearing and insults.

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.
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."  She was very inconsistent in her positioning.  Ben then said "In what world would my rights be allowed to kill another human being?"  To which the guest very anti-intellectually said "Well you're not a woman."  This was a lame argument and an example of Ben being rational and the women not.  He was speaking to slave-holders because he was making a point that slave-owners can hold human beings and kill them if they want, which is what is happening in abortion.

XD
If you consider this an argument then you are not debating.  This could affect the Argument and Conduct point as well.

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.
He logically pieces together information from their questions an has a discussion with them.  The second part is true, a lot of anti-free speech communists do not want to have an honest discussion.


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.
He only referrers to some.  Nowhere in their did he say "all."

If you ask Shapiro, literally every authoritarian regime in history was left-wing and run by atheists.
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 must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg.
Poor conduct.

Ben Shapiro is intellectual because he skipped two grades, grades 3 and 9, and has many great points and logic. 

If you watch any of his lectures, he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions.


Round 3
Published:
I'm sorry but this not the way too argue.  You will probably get docked the conduct point because of your swearing and insults.
I am allowed to have a little fun. What are you, some kind of SJW who can't take a joke?

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.
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 said "most" not every single person on earth.
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.

The women said "I am certainly a person that believes the mother's rights usurp the baby's rights."
She did not say that.

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.

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.



Published:
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?
I gave 3 pieces of evidence out of many in the last round alone, and you did not rebut to any of them.

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.
This is an opinion of what you thought he meant by saying it, not a fact with a basis.  It's also important to not he refers to leftists as extreme liberals and leftists are different than moderate democrats or classical liberals.

She did not say that.
She absolutely said that.  You should know what is in the source you yourself cited.  2:34-2:55 is when she says "I am certainly a person that believes the mother's rights usurp the baby's rights."

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.
Hitler was a socialist.  An example is Germany banned guns in the 20's.  He gave his people little freedom and the government of Germany controlled people like a socialistic society, which lead to the Holocaust.  Fascism is "is a form of radical authoritarian ultra-nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."  This means government has full control over their people,, which is a trait of Socialists and the let-wing, more government.


My opponent did not respond to these 3 points last round, which is poor conduct.

"Ben Shapiro is intellectual because he skipped two grades, grades 3 and 9, and has many great points and logic.  

If you watch any of his lectures, he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions."

In response to his abortion interview evidence, I said "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."  She was very inconsistent in her positioning.  Ben then said "In what world would my rights be allowed to kill another human being?"  To which the guest very anti-intellectually said "Well you're not a woman."  This was a lame argument and an example of Ben being rational and the women not.  He was speaking to slave-holders because he was making a point that slave-owners can hold human beings and kill them if they want, which is what is happening in abortion."

He did not respond to this either which is poor conduct.  He also used "XD" as his only argument against one of my points.

He also said "You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg." which is also poor conduct, along with "a big fat dirty filthy repugnant repulsive sack of goblin shit because he is nothing but a propaganda shill."

Conclusion--

I have proven that with my many points and evidence I should get the voters' votes, along with the poor conduct by pro and his refusal to respond to multiple of my arguments and rebuts.  Vote Con!


Added:
--> @oromagi
Well, taking on the role of an intellectual and actually being an intellectual are different questions.
#51
Added:
--> @Death23
Sure. Isn’t anybody who’s persuading with language and logic taking on the role of intellectual, at least in the moment?
#50
Added:
Shapiro's CV is strong evidence that he is an intellectual IMO, notwithstanding his professional bullshitting.
#49
Added:
--> @oromagi
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 point to pro for Arguments
>Reason for Decision: See vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
#48
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You're a mod now? Congrats man!
#47
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments (below)
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
#46
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
You are less bias than I thought. I apologize for calling your other votes solely bias. I was wrong.
Contender
#45
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
I think you forgot to cast the vote with the rfd...?
Contender
#44
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
And my personal favorite…
“ omg u don't support Lord Shapiro? You must be a widdle baby SJW feewings-based Jew hater like omg. “
These two arguments aren’t logical arguments, are obnoxious, and moreover childish conduct.
To conclude, Pro exhibited poor conduct in this debate in the form of childish/obnoxious insults and dodged several of Cons points through these obnoxious insults which is rather unfair to con who was at least trying to have a civil discussion.
All other points tied.
#43
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
RFD:
Pro exhibited VERY poor conduct throughout this entire debate through his obnoxious and unfair behavior.
For instance, Con brought up a valid claim with stating,
“ Ben Shapiro is an intellectual because he backs everything up he says with facts or some sort of logical reasoning.”
To which all Pro replied with was,
“ XD”
This is very obnoxious since Pro isn’t addressing Cons points at all and is instead laughing in his face about them which is rather unfair.
Nextly at one point during the debate, Pro exhibited more obnoxious behavior by stating,
“ He is an ethnic-nationalist (zionist) Jew who cries like a little SJW pansy whenever someone criticizes Israel and calls them an anti-semite.”
#42
Added:
--> @Debaticus
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Debaticus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro convinced me more and provided more resources than con, but he did swear and refused to answer a few arguments, so conduct point to con.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. In order to award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. And, to award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. The voter performs none of any of these steps, except, perhaps, the first step of awarding conduct points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
#41
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
The final point, was that you claimed she was inconsistent in her position. Now, the issue here is that pro was specific about what BS did, and what is error was. This was validatable by looking at the video.
Her being “inconsistent”, was not corroborated by you. How was she inconsistent? On what points? How was this position contradictory? Do I have to take your word that she was - or is there specific actions that you reference that means I can assume she was incoherent. It’s the former. This means your claim is unsupported. Secondly - even were this true, in what way does this show Shapiro wasn’t mischaracterizing liberals, or making a false equivalence? As you don’t say why this shows pros claim is false, and it isn’t clear - this point is also irrelevant.
It’s a common error - I find - to simply attack an opponent, and view the attack as a rebuttal. In reality an attack must be relevant to the point in order to count - yours was not.
#40
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Unfortunately, when you make arguments - every thing you want to say about a given position is in your head - and debaters rarely if ever manage to write down all they have in their head in a way that extols exactly how strong they feel their position is. This offen leads to a situation where a debater can’t accept that a weak rebuttal of weak argument they feel is strong is perceived as such - after all, if you thought your argument was weak - you probably wouldn’t make it.
In this respect, you objected to pros characterization that Ben is referring to “all”, and simply “most”. Accepting that BS characterizes these positions as those do “most liberals”, is a bad argument that cedes ground to your opponent - who is making this argument. Just because “most” is better than “all” does not mean the lesser point is good for you.
The second part - is that Shapiro likened abortion to the Slave Trade - given that the slave trade was universally condemned, and abortion rights are supported by at the very least a plurality - my default has to be that this is a false equivalence. You have to show me that this is not an unfair characterization. In your rebuttal you mostly just reiterated this false equivalence. That you may share the position with Shapiro - does not mean it is correct, nor does it show that this is not a false equivalence.
Neither of these two points do anything to rebut the contention.
Now, this woman may have had a swastika tattooed on her head, and been posting a Nazi salute. This on its own doesn’t make Ben Shapiro an intellectual - nor does it inherently mitigate the claims pro made about his intellectual dishonesty. That the woman was “anti intellectual”, as a result does not rebut or advance the claim that Shapiro is mischaracterizing the lefts position - this means this point is irrelevant.
#39
Added:
None of my rebuttal was irrelevant or unsupported, it had to do with conflating the women's position in which case I responded with those things which were completely relevant. As I said in the debate, she was very inconsistent in her positioning so it is unfair to say Ben was unfairly conflating her positions. You shouldn't be such a bias voter.
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
You didn’t rebut this specific claim.
What you did, was argue that Ben only conflates this position with “most” left wingers - not all: which pretty bad for your position . You then argue that Ben didn’t incorrectly conflate the slave trade with abortion - by restating what the obvious conflation was: which is worse. You made a number of arguments about the woman - that she was anti intellectual (irrelevant), that she had an incoherent position (unsupported), and that she made a particular quote (in this case which was irrelevant).
I wouldn’t consider any of those a valid counter : nor did you address any of the other examples raised.
You needed to be specific, targeted and relevant - and you weren’t any of those things i this rebuttal.
#37
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
no evidence.
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
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.