@@motyovszkimiklos7538 You realise ben didnt make this video surely? These were just points this channel picked up on and claimed to be rules he seems to follow in debates. He doesnt actually have this list in a frame and read it every night before bed 😂
"Buying into an argument that you dont understand". This one statement is brilliant. If I don't understand, the higher road is to shut my mouth and open my ears. Many times there is no need to reply. It is ok when we don't engage. I recall the saying the smartest person in the room may be the one who says little and listens well.
@@mojewjewjew4420 I understand where you are coming from, but I think that it's more like "Nowadays it is thought that being offended wins them." People don't use the yelling tactic as much as bringing too much emotion to the table.
@@autumnishere420 That too but i feel its more in the west, from where i am for you "have" to be loud, aggressive and hypocrite works aswell. Sure you heard how you also cant have a reasonable conversation with parents because DiSrEsPeCt
Blust GT That’s where older people like myself have the advantage. Being past 50, we can always tell our opponents to slow down. It drives them nuts, and sometimes short circuits their brain, and gives extra time to think, of responses, counterpoints, etc. His fast talking, is also his weakness.
@@jenniferl1908 narcissistic brain damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex does not allow for the high IQ or self-awareness, or intellectual capacity to sustain a debate. Narcissists can't even fathom a polarized argument because their lack of empathy fails to understand anyone else's perspective except their own. Ben does not gaslight or move goal posts which are the only tactics narcissistic brain damage knows. Narcissists are not loving fathers with a family who support them. Narcissists actually need to cause damage to others and to self to increase their dangerously low serotonin. Don't confuse high IQ with destructive narcissistic brain damage LOL Did you not read a single word about narcissism before projecting this disorder onto a celebrity?
1. catching a non-arguement 2. being offended doesn't prove anything 3. push a person to give examples 4. know your arguments inside and out 5. emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent
Neutral?! Is it neutral to argue against the right of private property as the narrator does when he say socialist wouldn't see it that way? I barely got into this video and I was scratching my head to understand the narrator's contorsions. The presenter is anything but neutral. The narrator starts with the assumption that there is no gravity, no up, no down, and to make any assertion would be to state a bias. Fact and the truths they lay out are not bias. This is what I call untethered thought processes. If you untether all fact for from reality, then you can make any argument seem logical working in this created realm of fantasized reality.
Marisa Nya yeah cool, that had nothing to do with the thread at all. If you wanna stir up a debate then don’t do it on a random comment talking about the take that the poster had on Ben.
@@scottsyverson1607 Facts are not biased. Interpretations of facts are often biased. Your argument here shows that you fully buy into the snuck premise of private property and cannot see past your preconceived belief that "of course there's private property!" You completely missed the presenter's point - and in fact, demonstrated it quite well. There was no anti-Shapiro bias in that section and the presentation was, indeed, quite neutral.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 No, it's a good debate tactic. If someone brings up an irrelevant point or appeals to authority, it's good to question why it matters to the debate.
Another technique Ben uses is rapid speech which forces debate opponents to stop and think about what he said. This makes your opponent look weak because they don't have time to formulate an instant response.
Hear faster. Problem solved. And just we're in the clear, I don't think you mean the gish galloping fallacy, where one throws as many objections in his speech time as possible that the audience thinks if the opponent failed to respond to all of them then one has won by default. You don't mean that objection, do you?
@@zerochaos1 Ironic! There is absolutely nothing wrong about presenting new arguments or angles from which you have to consider an issue at all! Otherwise, if all is scripted, then how different or professional really is any speaker, if they're doing nothing but regurgitating previously pointed out arguments? Amd for Zero, where is the wrong thing Ben is doing? Let me dissect (in the neutral sense, to just break down) your points. You're firstly assuming Ben's throwing fallacies and is fallen victim to cognitive biases a lot of the time, but his saving grace is how quickly he throws stuff at the opponent's wall and see what sticks. So firstly you're assuming he's using fallacies a lot of the time (which I'm not positively arguing against, but I seldom see him do those. You're more than welcome to point out where he did so.) It is only wrong logically to throw claims after claims that the opponent can't possibly address in the debate's time, and being segwayed into debunking and defending irrelevant points instead of addressing and debunking immediately relevant points to the debate's topic. Even then, overwhelming the audience with 10 issues when the debate can only handle 2 or 3 topics or subpoints at max, to me is a coward way of redherring and distracting the viewer's attention. And notice I specifically said "topics/isses" not "points", as I genuinely believe putting 15 arguments or points all immediately relevant to your case is absolutely fair game. I mean, it's a bit unfair given he can deliver 1.5-2 times the amount of info his opponent can, but is that a logical fallacy or a shameful tactic? I see it as much of a shameful tactic as someone knowing more than his opponent really. Speaking faster isn't that different from knowing a subject more deeply than your opponent if you think about it. Secondly, and where irony lies, you're yourself calling him names and for lack of a better word, poisoning the well on him. If the fallacy you were looking for was gish galloping, i.e., overwhelming the opponent with topics he can't address (like throwing accusations after the other that he can't recover from in the debate's time), then you yourself committed the unforgivable sin of using words in your favor. And before you call me a Ben-boi I'd like to inform you, I am an Arab myself, and regarding that thing going on I differ with DW and pretty much all of conservatives in this regard. So almost by definition I'd have to nitpick every flaw I can find of him and how twisted he is in his speeches. What I have is, gonna sound arrogant there, the intellectual courage to say he's right when he's right, and innocent of fallacies when he's innocent of those grave sins. I probably disagree with them on every single issue, albeit it slightly in most cases. But calling me a Ben fanboy ain't gonna cut it, especially given in his book I'm as antisemitic as one can possibly be. But when he's right, he's right.
hmm, necro post - but i'm curious, why would you debate a christian apologetic? We're told that doing so hurts the faith, so you're not debating against someone who follows the word in full 2 Timothy 2:14 - Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen regardless, as a christian, I'm not looking for a debate and won't really reply if that's your response, I'm honestly just curious (I like to learn about people, especially those brave enough to state it so openly and simply - I've always respected that in that people and try to live it)
@@sinfulxiv9607 I think he's talking about the Andrew Neil interview. The left says Ben was humiliated. The right says the interviewer was being unreasonable. Check it out for yourself.
@@SlickSkuddy if you wanna be good just read books nd listen to people use these tactics a lot and then do actual debates even if you lose its experience
that's because your parents are playing the "I DEMAND YOUR COMPLIANCE" card, That works until you are capable of winning a physical fight, Then they have to use Soft power, to back those words, That words until you have soft power as well or own your own living space, At which point negotiation becomes optional.
To use TRICKS to try to avoid answering the questions is a sign you cannot answer the questions. My old man always said you cannot avoid answering the questions, just answer them. What i see now is no one is actually having a discussion, just deflecting from each other.
This video just shows that the point of all those debates is just who is better at outsmarting the opponent instead of let's have an argument and fact driven dialogue to get the truth.
@@dudies3377 Yea i dont think you'd win the debate if someone just ran up and 'attacked' u by punching u in the face. I think tht just means you need to learn to duck 😂😂
Lovemercy You sound extremely obnoxious and biased. Both liberalism and conservatism are beliefs based on differing values and have their pros and cons. Saying that one side’s beliefs are inherently correct and the other side’s are irrelevant just means you’re too indoctrinated by your ideals to possibly engage in any meaningful discourse regarding the topic. Perhaps you should check yourself and try being a bit more open-minded
He's a good debater, and when the subject is politics it's really hard to defeat his arguments. It's not that there's no defeater, but you really have to know the subject in and out to stand a chance.
Allu: When one is trying to reason with a leftist, one can be certain they are not interested in learning from you, and you can also be certain there is nothing available to learn from their fact-free emotion-based regurgitated-talking-point rant which passes for an argument only in their own mind, so that’s how we get there. 🤣
@@darkspawn4980 You must place your mirror differently than I place mine. On the other side of my mirror is a dense, immovable wall. That is the left. On my side is life in all its glory. Which side are you on?
I have Invisalign so I stutter a lot now, is the best strategy to speak slowly but with confidence or fast with confidence and pretend I didn’t stutter?
Talking fast and not stuttering doesn't make your points correct. Sure, speaking with confidence is important, but it won't "win" the discussion alone.
I absolutely appreciate all the videos you share. This one in particular because it will possibly give me a chance to win at least a few debates between my son and I. I love him to death, but he is an incredible debater. I seem to fall victim to his skill and experience.
A question I wuld ask is what is your goal in debating with your son? Why do you want to "win" debates? What are your actual goals there? Unless it's someting you and your son do for fun and understand you are debating as a type of game, I don't think trying to learn tactics to "beat" your son at debate is likely to accomplish any goal I would associate with parenting.
Bald Torment I think you could argue that’s a argument based on authority ( which isn’t necessarily good or bad ) which just means they don’t have a sound argument if that’s their only reason for you being wrong
@@crungus__ since anyone can be offended at anything, that isn't proving anything beyond a person finds something offensive. I could be offended by someone saying hello to me but that doesn't mean it is objectively offensive.
You know what would be a great addition to your videos, would be a direct link or links to Just Ben Shapiro's guide, or Jordan Peterson's guide, WITHOUT narration.
First lesson in logical argumentation: *Logic does not concern itself with what is right; It only determines what conclusions are valid given established premises* Second lesson in logical argumentation: _Attack the premise, not the conclusion._ Third lesson in logical argumentation: Even the most logical person is subject to emotional manipulation. Listen closely and push the right buttons.
@@sonicthehedgehog1109 No, he doesn't. He is just good at presenting arguments in a cohesive manner. But if you really dig into his arguments and the "facts" he states, you quickly notice they are usually full of logical fallacies (strawmanning being one of the key words here) and factual misrepresentation. Sometimes his "facts" are even drawn from scientifically dishonest sources. When it comes to the issue of black crime, he is especially dishonest and misrepresents the data/statistics badly, and in this particular case I am not even sure whether it's deliberate or not. So no, he usually does not have "facts" to back up his claims, he is just a mediocre debater picking his battles with even worse debaters.
@@thibaultl1956 I like Sam Harris, because he always strives to be very clear about his definitions and is actually interested in what his opposition has to say. I can't really say a lot more about American debaters because I am from Germany and I am not that exposed to the political sphere, but in Germany I like Richard David Precht (political philosopher), because he is very easy to follow and his line of argumentation almost always makes perfect sense, at least to me. That being said, I don't think that debate is actually a good way to exchange ideas. Debating is usually about overwhelming your opponent with rhetorical tricks and thereby convincing an audience with rhetorical strength rather than argumentative strength. (There is a book called "How to be right" by Arthur Schopenhauer, which is filled with rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies and how to use them to win debates. You can just have it lying next to you when watching Shapiro and check off boxes, it's scary).Also, people can have good ideas but be extremely bad at debating, maybe because they can't come up with good responses on the spot or just because they don't like the spontaneous nature of debates. Or maybe they can't remember all of their arguments or get lost in between them. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't defend their idea or that their idea is bad. The best political philosophy emerged from a much more controlled way of discourse, namely through the exchange of (sometimes public) letters, where the disputants have much more time to think about their response and try to tear apart their opponent's argument. This makes it a lot harder to act in bad faith or to apply logical fallacies and get away with it. The modern equivalent would be the exchange of ideas through TH-cam videos. That's why I enjoy Amazing Atheist, ContraPoints, Shaun, TLDR etc much more than debate videos.
nope just stumpan the unaware... you can fight a ghost all day but only right actualy gets the attention of a welcomed invite like a silent meal of gratefull comfort ...or its as boreing as a wrestlen match with the tv shut off...
F***ing pansies. He said so because that wasnt a valid point and he wanted him to elaborate. Doesn't surprise me someone who doesn't have logic doesn't understand this
@@sasukeisacat I tend to like people more when they agree with me too, tribalism is normal. But sometimes you've just gotta try and separate art from artist although sometimes I do struggle with that
Sparrow Uchiha I feel like COC is liberal, I know he said he didn’t vote for Trump (while by no means does that make you a liberal, I know many conservatives that didn’t, Shapiro is one of them) but I feel like he is left leaning. But I could be wrong. But he has been unbiased in my experiences with watching his videos.
so say you destroy something of your enemy’s that is very epic to him and he gets mad did you win because he got pissed off for destroying his thing? or are you the one to blame for making him mad cus you destroyed something of his that wasn’t yours?
Maybe, but if it's before you've even had a chance to say anything of substance (like what happened to Ben on the BBC) then it's more like the person who got mad forfeited
@@__-dq9ev It's never about convincing others to believe your stance, right? It's just about who can boost their ego better at the expense of another person.
I might need to listen to this about 1,000 times more because I am terrible arguing with people I just want to find the facts throw them on your face and have the case close I struggle to understand tactics.
Most debates seem to occur more when people have different information on a subject rather than a difference of opinion. If you want to 'win' you typically have to know your facts and sources quite well and be able to predict theirs.
@@xitaris5981 Or having the same facts, but interpreting them in a stronger rhetorical way, you "win." That's the problem here. Tactics not fact....icts.
The "facts" ? haha No you want to find words to support whatever side you've chosen to be on. And you call it facts when it support your subjective views.
Expand ur vocabulary. And any time u think of a question u don’t know the answer to, google it and then expand on that google search. Information seeking and a wide range of vocabulary is a good place to start.
I just saw another video that criticized his smirking as it meant he was making his opponent mad, that may be the case or not. I think when Ben smirks he is thinking checkmate ...
He’s really just a well trained lawyer. Go to law school and take negotiations. They teach you ways to poke holes, and guide others to your point and side.
Marisa Nya you really tried but that’s so untrue he just doesn’t say your side of the argument so you’re going to say he’s wrong, but if you FACT check he’s completely correct. You are just a leftist sheep
@Marisa Nya That's actually a bold faced lie, if you listened to anything he's said on the matter in the last 2-3 years, he's changed his stance on this. Nice try though.
I think Ben’s method of breaking down his opponent’s argument, really helps them to see it in a different way that they couldn’t when they were blind by their belief
That's literally one of his tactics, to talk so fast that his opponent can't even process what he's saying fast enough to come up with a measured response on time
@@ssh1487 Honestly though I'm sure his quick speaking completely confuses people... I mean I was watching a video of his where he took a political compass quiz and he was going *so fast* I had to check to make sure the video wasn't on 2x speed
@Dave Liebers He is not quite clear about whether the term "their money" refers to a legal or a moral distinction. I would assume a moral one, in which case there is no clear, default reference by which this definition can be taken as a given, which is the premise he is trying to sneak in. Also, unless you actually want to claim that the distribution of resources which results from the _complete absence_ of any regulation whatsoever is the only proper one, you are going to have to acknowledge that there is in fact a legitimate argument about what it means to "earn" money and what the moral implications of a particular situation is, however inconvenient this may be to your tribalist, ideological sense of superiority.
Guy literally tried to make a point that he wants to fight racism but he cannot because his opponents won't explain what racism is. This isn't what debates are about. He just likes to talk fast and trick his opponents into confusion. Not making a valid point or promoting healthy dialogue. He is an insult to intelligence.
I feel that during arguments people focus more on “winning” than being correct and that’s a really bad way to figure out who’s right becuase you might be wrong and you’ll still come out on top and that’s actually counter productive
Maybe that's a good thing, sometimes, at least? I mean, the more you're trying to defend your point, the more things you come up with that no one could think of if they weren't as determined.
@@turbotrup96 So you're basically saying that you would sacrifice the chances of your argument being correct, so that you can increase your chances of winning it? Trying to win an argument knowing that you're fundamentally wrong is the most basic sign of being a morally wrong person.
@@ShubhThakkar I'm not talking about consciously making a complex argument with hidden holes in it hoping that the opposing thinker won't see them. I'm talking about both sides being so determined and adrenaline-driven that they would squeeze out the very best of their views and come up with new arguments thanks to which they'd shed a new light on the topic they're discussing that others would most likely miss because they would give up too soon. Because, in the end, agreeable people will not have an astute enough discourse when they agree with each other too soon and move on to another topic or end the debate.
@@turbotrup96 I think it's important to be rigorous, but you're confusing arguments with debate. Two people debating will never almost never agree with each other on a fundamental level, because debate dictates that two sides are opposing each other. Even if they end up agreeing on something, debates are usually time-boxed so how long they spend debating is usually determined by the format of the debate. Arguments can end pretty quickly, but an ideal argument aims for understanding one another over anything else.
I really enjoyed learning this. I did notice you reference beforehand any comments you then played for us, and I do understand, as you also explained, that you didn’t want us to misconstrue any particular points one way or the other. I do realize that in our society today we have become perhaps to quick to speak or think before we just let ourselves hear what is the other person is asking, or answering. I think it is really great that you are putting this information out on a channel, and why I am going to follow it! Thank you for already teaching me something today!😉
Masters of debate in the last 25 years, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, Katie Pavlich and the Master of debate in this time, Ben Shapiro. Thank you all!
Slimeustas Not really. People bad at arguing are often very good at making fallacy, albeit unintentionally. If you are not experienced enough, you will lose very fast.
Summary: 1. Catch Non-Arguments 1:15 2. Getting Emotional 2:01 3. Push For Specifics 2:45 4. Know Your Arguments Inside Out 4:11 Offensive Strategies: 5. The Use of Snuck Premises 6:07 6. Moving From Abstract To Concrete 8:40 7. Emphasize The Condition Under Which You Would Agree With Your Opponent 9:48 7.
The most important of all these factors is RESEARCH! When you give yourself the tools (knowledge, wisdom, facts, research) you have an entire toolkit of ammo (builds confidence) to use your logic brain to slay.
Well ben shapiro doesnt actually bring facts to the table, he just cherry picks his information and says it fast. Just do the research and you will Quickly see how fraudulent most of his views are. He also normally debates uneducated students anyways and as quick as he meets someone like literally the self called ape Joe Rogan he gets challenged.
@@jirkazalabak1514 because everyone at politicon has a restraining order against him because he be too good or he didn't see any real challenge (or maybe he was just busy, you never know, you're not him)
If you actually watched the video you'll see that he's a great grandstander and uses rhetoric effectively. Is he extremely good at presenting his points and flustering his opponents? Hell yeah, he is but how good you are at debate doesn't necessarily mean what you're arguing for is actually correct
@@sasukeisacat No, he was giving a speech and then having a panel with his cronies from Daily Wire I believe. So yes, he was at Politicon, and he was there the whole time. He got several challenges, including Kyle Kulinski, but for some reason "Mr. I will debate anyone" didn´t actually debate anyone. I will admit that he is impressive against college kids, but in that debate with Cenk last year, I really felt like he was just resorting to getting cheap laughs, which admittedly worked quite well. As far as the facts went though, it was Cenk almost all the way, and I am not a fan of TYT. I was genuinely surprised when I watched it. It turns out that when his opponents have done as much research as he has, he is a lot less impressive all of a sudden. At least that´s my experience from having seen a lot of his material.
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
“If somebody personally attacks you then that means you’re actually winning the debate” amen 🙏
In fact , I agree with this !!!
and then he says in his "10 tips to debate lefties" video that you should attack your opponent's personality. He is a huge hypocrite
@@motyovszkimiklos7538 You realise ben didnt make this video surely? These were just points this channel picked up on and claimed to be rules he seems to follow in debates. He doesnt actually have this list in a frame and read it every night before bed 😂
Which is what Ben did to Andrew Neil 😂
Well, you may win a debate, but you may lose an election. Clinton...
Caught my lawyer watching this right before court
Can I just let Ben be my lawyer😂
Why did this make me chuckle
Nothing wrong with brushing up
😂😂😂
Yeah hopefully your lawyer win the trial
Pushing for specifics is practically flawless. Fudgers will be immediately exposed.
True, but they get real mad haha
100%
"Buying into an argument that you dont understand". This one statement is brilliant. If I don't understand, the higher road is to shut my mouth and open my ears. Many times there is no need to reply. It is ok when we don't engage. I recall the saying the smartest person in the room may be the one who says little and listens well.
I was taught as a small kid. “Raise your voice and you’ve lost the argument “.
You must be quite old then, nowdays you are taught that raising your voice wins them.
@@mojewjewjew4420 I understand where you are coming from, but I think that it's more like "Nowadays it is thought that being offended wins them." People don't use the yelling tactic as much as bringing too much emotion to the table.
@@autumnishere420 That too but i feel its more in the west, from where i am for you "have" to be loud, aggressive and hypocrite works aswell.
Sure you heard how you also cant have a reasonable conversation with parents because DiSrEsPeCt
Tell BLM supporters that.
@@Bobbysgirl-e5p or antifa but oh wait they are the same breed
1) Talk fast
Blust GT
That’s where older people like myself have the advantage. Being past 50, we can always tell our opponents to slow down. It drives them nuts, and sometimes short circuits their brain, and gives extra time to think, of responses, counterpoints, etc. His fast talking, is also his weakness.
Blust GT oh yeah yeah
He has said he was a college debater. They learn to speak quickly to make point in 4 min on a huge array of complex topics.
that's a sign his mouth tryna keep up with his machine gun brain
@@muffledgiraffe4303 o lol I thought that it was because he doesn't want to get interrupted by someone and have to change the topic for their needs.
Talk fast so the opponent is still trying to figure out what you said so they lose sight of their response…
Shapiro style 100%
You hit the nail on the head. Candice do the same
@Trevor Brannon 🤣🤣🤣
no you lot just are not very bright. He's easy to understand if your values are grounded in logic.
Engage other people who think slower than you do, you will win.
Don’t forget about Bens most important trait slow speech
Articulate in manner. I agree.
I think he talk to fast.
@@azscn8192 I was being sarcastic
Ben's most important trait is he a narcissist.
@@jenniferl1908 narcissistic brain damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex does not allow for the high IQ or self-awareness, or intellectual capacity to sustain a debate. Narcissists can't even fathom a polarized argument because their lack of empathy fails to understand anyone else's perspective except their own. Ben does not gaslight or move goal posts which are the only tactics narcissistic brain damage knows. Narcissists are not loving fathers with a family who support them. Narcissists actually need to cause damage to others and to self to increase their dangerously low serotonin. Don't confuse high IQ with destructive narcissistic brain damage LOL Did you not read a single word about narcissism before projecting this disorder onto a celebrity?
Legend has it he wins arguments against his wife...
Lol
Did you forget that she’s a doctor?
@@coleg5578 So she's good at dissecting his points?
@@Bextie hahaha lmao
Against his Jewish wife, who's a doctor? You must be referring to another wife...
“Simply being offended doesn’t prove anything”
Wise words in today’s times.
Such a controversial comment with no comments and only likes. I agree.
@@matthewguy1155 😭
Or in the words of Shapiro "Facts don't care about your feelings"
@@jonathanshawver4678 But honestly, that's some wisdom
Couldn't agree more
1. catching a non-arguement
2. being offended doesn't prove anything
3. push a person to give examples
4. know your arguments inside and out
5. emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent
I appreciate that this video is non-biased on the actual issues being discussed.
"Feelings don't care about facts."
-Shen Bapiro
I think it's "facts don't care about feelings"
@Harsh Kumar Don't answer that. A rhetorical question.
Is it shen bapiro , or Ben Shapiro ?!
But it's true thoug
Piero Minaya Rojas “You take 100% of the shots you don’t miss”
-Gayne Wretzky
@@cookieeater3000 r/whooosh
This is the most impressively neutral take on Ben I’ve ever seen online. Good job.
I'm honestly not sure to me I kinda sounded like he was against ben. Anyone else?
@PoliticsPres possibly
Neutral?! Is it neutral to argue against the right of private property as the narrator does when he say socialist wouldn't see it that way? I barely got into this video and I was scratching my head to understand the narrator's contorsions. The presenter is anything but neutral. The narrator starts with the assumption that there is no gravity, no up, no down, and to make any assertion would be to state a bias. Fact and the truths they lay out are not bias. This is what I call untethered thought processes. If you untether all fact for from reality, then you can make any argument seem logical working in this created realm of fantasized reality.
Marisa Nya yeah cool, that had nothing to do with the thread at all. If you wanna stir up a debate then don’t do it on a random comment talking about the take that the poster had on Ben.
@@scottsyverson1607 Facts are not biased. Interpretations of facts are often biased. Your argument here shows that you fully buy into the snuck premise of private property and cannot see past your preconceived belief that "of course there's private property!" You completely missed the presenter's point - and in fact, demonstrated it quite well. There was no anti-Shapiro bias in that section and the presentation was, indeed, quite neutral.
Being right helps a lot!
explains why Ben needs tricks
@@reneelibby4885 name bens tricks. lol
Nah it doesn't
You have explained why debates are nothing more than entertainment
Nuts
A GAME OF VERBAL FENCING.
Legend has it that he has infinite uno reverse cards
Anonymous person
I just wanna get rid of moderators. don't care how or what people's why is. guess infinite number 2 cards with different colors lol
@@ultraatari9298 no u
Anonymous person
Legend has it Ben was too afraid to debate Kyle kulinski.
I think of it the same way. +4 and Reverse!
K
Im unculted
Does the reverse car deflect back, or just change the orders that the players go
"So?"
-Ben Shapiro
You misspelled Ben Shillpiro
Translation: "I can't answer your question honestly because I have no leg to stand on, so I'll just dismiss it, and act like I won the point".
So? He pointed out an obvious double standard and like piers Morgan you have no answer
@@maskedmarvyl4774 No, it's a good debate tactic. If someone brings up an irrelevant point or appeals to authority, it's good to question why it matters to the debate.
@@elgatofelix8917 Be original.
Two Ben Shapiro's debating each other would result in overload and a complete explosion.
"Implosion"
Instructions unclear, lost argument with parents to "Because I said so" and am now grounded indefinitely
Imagine two Ben Shapiro's debating against each other.
Omg
Absolute war.
The smugness would rip a hole in our universe
You should watch him with Steven Crowder
Baltzar Bonbeck it didn’t have to be about politics, it could be everything you know :))))))
WARNING: Be careful when using any of these tactics with a girl you are dating. lol
Are you saying Ben "Virginity is Cool" Shapiro isn't a good model for dating? Who would have thought!
@@IAmGeorgeLucas cool, but when are you making a good Star Wars movie again?
@@IAmGeorgeLucas no no no, that meme format is reserved for Joe "do you smoke weed" Rogan only.
That's because women don't debate/argue fair. They are emotionally driven.
Facts don't care about your feelings babe
Being a skilled debater does not make anyone morally superior.
Another technique Ben uses is rapid speech which forces debate opponents to stop and think about what he said. This makes your opponent look weak because they don't have time to formulate an instant response.
Hear faster. Problem solved.
And just we're in the clear, I don't think you mean the gish galloping fallacy, where one throws as many objections in his speech time as possible that the audience thinks if the opponent failed to respond to all of them then one has won by default.
You don't mean that objection, do you?
As a fellow fast-talker who listens to podcasts (including Shapiro's) at x1.5 speed, all I can say is git gud
He uses rapid speech to mask the logic errors and weakness in his own arguments. He is very immature and insulting. He is arrogant and prideful.
@@zerochaos1 Git gud, scrub
@@zerochaos1 Ironic! There is absolutely nothing wrong about presenting new arguments or angles from which you have to consider an issue at all! Otherwise, if all is scripted, then how different or professional really is any speaker, if they're doing nothing but regurgitating previously pointed out arguments?
Amd for Zero, where is the wrong thing Ben is doing? Let me dissect (in the neutral sense, to just break down) your points. You're firstly assuming Ben's throwing fallacies and is fallen victim to cognitive biases a lot of the time, but his saving grace is how quickly he throws stuff at the opponent's wall and see what sticks. So firstly you're assuming he's using fallacies a lot of the time (which I'm not positively arguing against, but I seldom see him do those. You're more than welcome to point out where he did so.)
It is only wrong logically to throw claims after claims that the opponent can't possibly address in the debate's time, and being segwayed into debunking and defending irrelevant points instead of addressing and debunking immediately relevant points to the debate's topic. Even then, overwhelming the audience with 10 issues when the debate can only handle 2 or 3 topics or subpoints at max, to me is a coward way of redherring and distracting the viewer's attention. And notice I specifically said "topics/isses" not "points", as I genuinely believe putting 15 arguments or points all immediately relevant to your case is absolutely fair game. I mean, it's a bit unfair given he can deliver 1.5-2 times the amount of info his opponent can, but is that a logical fallacy or a shameful tactic? I see it as much of a shameful tactic as someone knowing more than his opponent really. Speaking faster isn't that different from knowing a subject more deeply than your opponent if you think about it.
Secondly, and where irony lies, you're yourself calling him names and for lack of a better word, poisoning the well on him. If the fallacy you were looking for was gish galloping, i.e., overwhelming the opponent with topics he can't address (like throwing accusations after the other that he can't recover from in the debate's time), then you yourself committed the unforgivable sin of using words in your favor.
And before you call me a Ben-boi I'd like to inform you, I am an Arab myself, and regarding that thing going on I differ with DW and pretty much all of conservatives in this regard. So almost by definition I'd have to nitpick every flaw I can find of him and how twisted he is in his speeches. What I have is, gonna sound arrogant there, the intellectual courage to say he's right when he's right, and innocent of fallacies when he's innocent of those grave sins.
I probably disagree with them on every single issue, albeit it slightly in most cases. But calling me a Ben fanboy ain't gonna cut it, especially given in his book I'm as antisemitic as one can possibly be.
But when he's right, he's right.
The shampoo bottles in my shower are gonna be so impressed.
😂😂😂
don’t understand your joke
@@itquankazi as in having arguments with your self in the showe
Lmao
I already destroyed one in the argument, now I'll be able to do the same thing to the other ones before.
"Simply being offended doesn't prove anything"
All twitter drama perfectly summed up
*ALL* Social Media (if not most) debates summed up haha!
Another favorite of my is Facts don't care about your feeling.
Also Reddit and Facebook
Twitter is a mental illness "platform".
And political tiktok
I love debating on many different issues, (especially Christian apologetics) but I want to get better with debating social issues.
hmm, necro post - but i'm curious, why would you debate a christian apologetic? We're told that doing so hurts the faith, so you're not debating against someone who follows the word in full
2 Timothy 2:14 - Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen
regardless, as a christian, I'm not looking for a debate and won't really reply if that's your response, I'm honestly just curious (I like to learn about people, especially those brave enough to state it so openly and simply - I've always respected that in that people and try to live it)
@@Bjorick I don't debate other Christians. The purpose of debating is to prove to the unbelievers of the veracity, & inerance of the word of God.
@@Bjorickfriendly fire lol
Ben is on another Level
You forgot the part where he says his wife is a doctor
Hahahaha!
*Hebrew Hammer lol
@@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485 it became a kind of a meme because he says it a lot, i guess. Ben "my wife is a doctor" Shapiro.
😂
@@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485 what the hell, isn't that private info?
It’s honestly fun to listen to him debating. He’s very quick on his feet
Brennan Probasco
Ikr, I don’t even like listening to debates but he makes it interesting
Nicholas Millington
Link?
Another reason why he's so dominant.
Sinfulxiv
Nicholas Mullington doesn’t have a link
@@sinfulxiv9607 I think he's talking about the Andrew Neil interview. The left says Ben was humiliated. The right says the interviewer was being unreasonable. Check it out for yourself.
His real skill he knows the opponents side better than they do.
👌🍌ing Ben Shapiro is crazy
Ben and Jordan Peterson are two people that you literally can’t argue with. They come prepared with facts and science to back it up
The main problem is that you only remember these premises when your in the shower 3 days later
YOU'RE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly 🤣
In practice I wanna assume the timeframe becomes shorter
@@SlickSkuddy if you wanna be good just read books nd listen to people use these tactics a lot and then do actual debates even if you lose its experience
@@dougo3592 why should someone need to win argument.
Why not have a conversation instead of "winning"
You could argue just like Ben but you’re parents would still pull the “talking back” card
deadass😭
that's because your parents are playing the "I DEMAND YOUR COMPLIANCE" card, That works until you are capable of winning a physical fight, Then they have to use Soft power, to back those words, That words until you have soft power as well or own your own living space, At which point negotiation becomes optional.
parents see a logical ,reasonable an valid argument = DISRESPECTFUL
Tibs Sage that’s teachers all the way
I am your mother!
To use TRICKS to try to avoid answering the questions is a sign you cannot answer the questions. My old man always said you cannot avoid answering the questions, just answer them. What i see now is no one is actually having a discussion, just deflecting from each other.
slappin at air call it patty cake ...
Truth is the best trick.
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS my sandcastle that I spent all day making
how original
You deserve it after all you made it of sand
Next time go with concrete
NEXT MEME
ur making this up, ben shapiro isnt real
Then stop making your sandcastle out of fake news sand :P. Whole natural sand is the way to go xD
Imagine Ben playing as an impostor in Among us.
Ben Ten if they had a leader board he would be #1
he would win every game
Oh, God
so hypothetically for the sake of argument, let's say i was the impostor
Nah, he’s pretty sus
The "census bureau" response is awesome
This video just shows that the point of all those debates is just who is better at outsmarting the opponent instead of let's have an argument and fact driven dialogue to get the truth.
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS MY PARENTS MARRIAGE by SIGNING DIVORCE PAPERS
Connor Riggs NOW THAT IS EPIC
are you implying Ben is your dad?
Another libtard rekt
OoOoOooOOooOooOoOof
Very epic
"Where did you get those statistics?"
"Census Bureau."
😂had me dying
"Where does it _say_ The Boy Scouts of America is just for boys?"
"In the name."
A bit better response than "google it!" 😂😂😂
He was damn ready
And the way he just backed off. That was quite an "Oh $#!t" moment for him.
Reuben Kim the guy was probably thinking he would stump him lol
An expert debater. Thank you
I love Ben. He always wins the argument.
8. Talk 4 times faster than your opponent.
Lol true
Lmao
dude i was gonna comment this, you beat me ):
talking faster makes your opponent shut up more
You can do that when u know what ur actually talking about
That's not a tactic that's genetics and upbringing lol
"If the other person ends up attacking you, you are actually winning the debate"
I like that
Not actually true most of the time. Really just depends on the type of “attack.”
@@dudies3377 Yea i dont think you'd win the debate if someone just ran up and 'attacked' u by punching u in the face. I think tht just means you need to learn to duck 😂😂
@@dudies3377 "winning the debate" not "winning the boxing match"
Takumi If you sincerely thought I was referring to physical attacks, I feel sorry for you.
Lovemercy You sound extremely obnoxious and biased. Both liberalism and conservatism are beliefs based on differing values and have their pros and cons. Saying that one side’s beliefs are inherently correct and the other side’s are irrelevant just means you’re too indoctrinated by your ideals to possibly engage in any meaningful discourse regarding the topic. Perhaps you should check yourself and try being a bit more open-minded
He's a good debater, and when the subject is politics it's really hard to defeat his arguments. It's not that there's no defeater, but you really have to know the subject in and out to stand a chance.
Nowadays everyone argues to win and not to learn.
Allu: When one is trying to reason with a leftist, one can be certain they are not interested in learning from you, and you can also be certain there is nothing available to learn from their fact-free emotion-based regurgitated-talking-point rant which passes for an argument only in their own mind, so that’s how we get there. 🤣
@@HQBergeron Agreed all they do is throw hissy fitt about things they don't understand.
@@HQBergeron the right side is the mirror image of the left. You look exactly like each other but your both on different sides of the mirror
@@darkspawn4980 You must place your mirror differently than I place mine. On the other side of my mirror is a dense, immovable wall. That is the left. On my side is life in all its glory. Which side are you on?
@@HQBergeron the trapped side, but if you place another mirror facing yours I'll be free
Ben Shapiro SAVAGELY DESTROYS the sandcastle that I took 2 hours to build
With FACTS and LOGIC
Okay, this is epic
*Ben shaprio yelling at a sand castle in the face*
Then don't be a child. Stop building sandcastles!!
@Leisure LOL thank you for that
Ben is a master-debater and a cunning linguist.
…Against college kids.
@@EsoTarikZyou missed the double entendre. Twice. So I guess you doubled the double entendre. Are you a college kid by the way?
And you're a wordsmith 😃
@@Candolad If you define a word smith as being writer with writing credentials...then yes. Indeed I am. Although my spelling is lacking.
He's a LIAR who supports the terrorist state of Israel. Enough said.
Love Ben! One of if not the best political debaters in our time. What a great time to be alive!
He talks so fast and doesn't stutter, and taks with confidence
that's his secret
I have Invisalign so I stutter a lot now, is the best strategy to speak slowly but with confidence or fast with confidence and pretend I didn’t stutter?
@@blobblue6833 probably speaking slowly
@@blobblue6833 Does Invisalign makes one stutter ? Then i don't know if i should get one.
Talking fast and not stuttering doesn't make your points correct. Sure, speaking with confidence is important, but it won't "win" the discussion alone.
@@jackl.1759 exactly!!
Piers was on the “how dare you” before Greta
@@donkeylord3517 It's still uncool
@Golden Eagle "that seems mildly inappropriate for a political debate" 🤣
If you can defend yourself vocally, physically, and mentally - You will be a force to be reckoned with.
Speaking of experience.
I absolutely appreciate all the videos you share. This one in particular because it will possibly give me a chance to win at least a few debates between my son and I. I love him to death, but he is an incredible debater. I seem to fall victim to his skill and experience.
@Owen Reid Too funny! Yes, or try to school each other for the "next time s".
A question I wuld ask is what is your goal in debating with your son? Why do you want to "win" debates? What are your actual goals there? Unless it's someting you and your son do for fun and understand you are debating as a type of game, I don't think trying to learn tactics to "beat" your son at debate is likely to accomplish any goal I would associate with parenting.
You got this, Mrs. Shapiro!
So, the point of a "debate," in your view, is not to learn or hear other ideas, but to *win.* And that is exactly how this guy views it.
Yoo that's hilarious 😂😂
I totally didn't watch this so I can win a debate with my parents
Lol,don't try his tactics(it will piss them off,but you'll sound smarter)
@@mobslayer211 They hated him because they told them the truth.
They might hit you with the "because I said so"
Bald Torment I think you could argue that’s a argument based on authority ( which isn’t necessarily good or bad ) which just means they don’t have a sound argument if that’s their only reason for you being wrong
@@blakedavis2447 "I told you so" counters even the greatest arguments
2:08 “Simply being offended doesn’t prove anything.” Oh hallelujah, thank you for saying that.
@@crungus__ since anyone can be offended at anything, that isn't proving anything beyond a person finds something offensive. I could be offended by someone saying hello to me but that doesn't mean it is objectively offensive.
@@benwatson5787 libtard destroyed
Ben Watson are you trying to convince someone who disagrees with you, the merit of your argument. Callousness has never worked.
@@adele19b3 I was agreeing with Cameron and disagreeing with Soviet, not quite sure what you mean.
@@benwatson5787 But what makes something objectively offensive? All offense is subjective and by that logic nothing should be offensive to anyone...
You know what would be a great addition to your videos, would be a direct link or links to Just Ben Shapiro's guide, or Jordan Peterson's guide, WITHOUT narration.
First lesson in logical argumentation:
*Logic does not concern itself with what is right; It only determines what conclusions are valid given established premises*
Second lesson in logical argumentation:
_Attack the premise, not the conclusion._
Third lesson in logical argumentation:
Even the most logical person is subject to emotional manipulation. Listen closely and push the right buttons.
Imagine Ben Shapiro as your lawyer in court.
Ben Shapiro Becomes Lawyer, Judge Is Arrested For Murder
I would lose every case D,:
@@PGOuma : *Watches the video*
Also you: Imma pretend I didn't see that
@FuckOuttaHere Only if the jury are a bunch of stoned college kids with no confidence
@@hueyfreeman1983 by confidence, do you mean, always feeling the comforting support of the herd? Lol stay "woke", sheeple.
1) Choose Your Battles
2) Be prepared
3) Have facts backing up your argument
Shapiro never has #3.
@@MRocky323 yes he does! 🤣🤣🤣 What are you talking about???
@@sonicthehedgehog1109 No, he doesn't. He is just good at presenting arguments in a cohesive manner. But if you really dig into his arguments and the "facts" he states, you quickly notice they are usually full of logical fallacies (strawmanning being one of the key words here) and factual misrepresentation. Sometimes his "facts" are even drawn from scientifically dishonest sources. When it comes to the issue of black crime, he is especially dishonest and misrepresents the data/statistics badly, and in this particular case I am not even sure whether it's deliberate or not. So no, he usually does not have "facts" to back up his claims, he is just a mediocre debater picking his battles with even worse debaters.
UserJWR Alright so who’s you favorite debater? I’m honestly curious...
@@thibaultl1956 I like Sam Harris, because he always strives to be very clear about his definitions and is actually interested in what his opposition has to say. I can't really say a lot more about American debaters because I am from Germany and I am not that exposed to the political sphere, but in Germany I like Richard David Precht (political philosopher), because he is very easy to follow and his line of argumentation almost always makes perfect sense, at least to me.
That being said, I don't think that debate is actually a good way to exchange ideas. Debating is usually about overwhelming your opponent with rhetorical tricks and thereby convincing an audience with rhetorical strength rather than argumentative strength. (There is a book called "How to be right" by Arthur Schopenhauer, which is filled with rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies and how to use them to win debates. You can just have it lying next to you when watching Shapiro and check off boxes, it's scary).Also, people can have good ideas but be extremely bad at debating, maybe because they can't come up with good responses on the spot or just because they don't like the spontaneous nature of debates. Or maybe they can't remember all of their arguments or get lost in between them. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't defend their idea or that their idea is bad.
The best political philosophy emerged from a much more controlled way of discourse, namely through the exchange of (sometimes public) letters, where the disputants have much more time to think about their response and try to tear apart their opponent's argument. This makes it a lot harder to act in bad faith or to apply logical fallacies and get away with it. The modern equivalent would be the exchange of ideas through TH-cam videos. That's why I enjoy Amazing Atheist, ContraPoints, Shaun, TLDR etc much more than debate videos.
It’s ok to say Ben is right in most cases!
Russel Brand once told Ben that he’s very good at winning debates without being right. That’s always stuck with me.
Who's the arbiter of what's is right? Russel Brand?
nope just stumpan the unaware... you can fight a ghost all day but only right actualy gets the attention of a welcomed invite like a silent meal of gratefull comfort ...or its as boreing as a wrestlen match with the tv shut off...
When he said “So?” to piers morgan HAHAHHAHA i laughed
Margot emmy Mc Mc that’s cool
when i read "HAHAHHAHA i laughed" LOOOL i laughed out out out loud
So?
F***ing pansies. He said so because that wasnt a valid point and he wanted him to elaborate. Doesn't surprise me someone who doesn't have logic doesn't understand this
Your comment was good but you could of stated it differently
I like how you do this objectively, and don't endorse or refute him.
It kinda upsets me . 😂
I mean it's really professional and I like that but it starts to make me think he's on the opposing side of me .
@@sasukeisacat I tend to like people more when they agree with me too, tribalism is normal. But sometimes you've just gotta try and separate art from artist although sometimes I do struggle with that
Sparrow Uchiha I feel like COC is liberal, I know he said he didn’t vote for Trump (while by no means does that make you a liberal, I know many conservatives that didn’t, Shapiro is one of them) but I feel like he is left leaning. But I could be wrong. But he has been unbiased in my experiences with watching his videos.
Benjamin Chen what don’t you feel him being left leaning or him being unbiased?
@@sasukeisacat republicans watch his videos too he cant alienate them
oh okay so basically trying to save face even when you're wrong. great advice dude
The real key is Ben does his homework
8) If you are out of ideas and hopelessly pinned, don't forget the classic, "Your pp small"
Or your mom gah
Ol’ reliable
Cant Best that!
@Mutated Pearl that can ne countered with"your family tree LGBT
Or the overwhelmingly victorious « no u »
I find that when the enemy loses his temper, I've won.
so say you destroy something of your enemy’s that is very epic to him and he gets mad did you win because he got pissed off for destroying his thing? or are you the one to blame for making him mad cus you destroyed something of his that wasn’t yours?
@@bruggbruh that is what a debate is i.e. destroy your opponents.
@@bruggbruh That's the point of a debate. You destroy what your opponent defends
Maybe, but if it's before you've even had a chance to say anything of substance (like what happened to Ben on the BBC) then it's more like the person who got mad forfeited
@@__-dq9ev It's never about convincing others to believe your stance, right? It's just about who can boost their ego better at the expense of another person.
Winning even if you're wrong seems like a pretty conflicted goal.
It's not a problem for an amoral person.
I might need to listen to this about 1,000 times more because I am terrible arguing with people I just want to find the facts throw them on your face and have the case close I struggle to understand tactics.
Me too but if you are ambushed by multiple people in an argument, definitely use this video as your guide to put them all in a trap.
Most debates seem to occur more when people have different information on a subject rather than a difference of opinion. If you want to 'win' you typically have to know your facts and sources quite well and be able to predict theirs.
@@xitaris5981 Or having the same facts, but interpreting them in a stronger rhetorical way, you "win." That's the problem here. Tactics not fact....icts.
The "facts" ?
haha
No you want to find words to support whatever side you've chosen to be on. And you call it facts when it support your subjective views.
Expand ur vocabulary. And any time u think of a question u don’t know the answer to, google it and then expand on that google search. Information seeking and a wide range of vocabulary is a good place to start.
You know it’s all over when Ben smirks
I just saw another video that criticized his smirking as it meant he was making his opponent mad, that may be the case or not.
I think when Ben smirks he is thinking checkmate ...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Smirks. In other words reveals himself to be a smug self serving bully.
@Cody - Ikigai He can only beat college randos lmfao
@@argargargpirate Incorrect. He’s debated news outlets and congress people
He’s really just a well trained lawyer. Go to law school and take negotiations. They teach you ways to poke holes, and guide others to your point and side.
You mean insist on evidence v opinion and be well prepared? That is all this is
Marisa Nya you really tried but that’s so untrue he just doesn’t say your side of the argument so you’re going to say he’s wrong, but if you FACT check he’s completely correct. You are just a leftist sheep
@Marisa Nya That's actually a bold faced lie, if you listened to anything he's said on the matter in the last 2-3 years, he's changed his stance on this. Nice try though.
Hmm sounds like a shallow insult to dismiss what he’s actually saying.
Id argue he was probably in debate club in high school. If I had any idea Debating was as much fun as other ...bating Id of joined the Debate class.
Im in awe of him, his speaking reflects the speed at which his mind works. I always think of all the good replies 2 hours after the "debate" ha!
I'm pretty sure he actually slows down his speech so most ppl could understand what's he's saying.
I think Ben’s method of breaking down his opponent’s argument, really helps them to see it in a different way that they couldn’t when they were blind by their belief
I'm actually more impressed with the people that understand what Ben's saying without subtitles
That's literally one of his tactics, to talk so fast that his opponent can't even process what he's saying fast enough to come up with a measured response on time
@@ssh1487 Honestly though I'm sure his quick speaking completely confuses people... I mean I was watching a video of his where he took a political compass quiz and he was going *so fast* I had to check to make sure the video wasn't on 2x speed
I watch his videos on x2, I don't know what you're conplaining about. But when I watch other videos on x2 they seem normal...
What can I say I’m a rare breed
Keko Rules Oh my goodness, yep, that one as well! Really, always 😂
Ben Shapiro: the only man that can pull off a stutter
Havkey you just have to do it superhumanly fast
Obama man.
No he’s not the only man who can but he’s one of the best
Troy Oliver yes he is
Tim pool.
0:55 bro took that like a champ 😂
**Watches video**
**turns into lawyer**
Well done..
Where's my cut?
Ahaha
@Dave Liebers He is not quite clear about whether the term "their money" refers to a legal or a moral distinction. I would assume a moral one, in which case there is no clear, default reference by which this definition can be taken as a given, which is the premise he is trying to sneak in.
Also, unless you actually want to claim that the distribution of resources which results from the _complete absence_ of any regulation whatsoever is the only proper one, you are going to have to acknowledge that there is in fact a legitimate argument about what it means to "earn" money and what the moral implications of a particular situation is, however inconvenient this may be to your tribalist, ideological sense of superiority.
Guy literally tried to make a point that he wants to fight racism but he cannot because his opponents won't explain what racism is. This isn't what debates are about. He just likes to talk fast and trick his opponents into confusion. Not making a valid point or promoting healthy dialogue. He is an insult to intelligence.
@Dave Liebers Do you think you can destroy libtards like Ben Shapiro does? Because I can't.
I feel that during arguments people focus more on “winning” than being correct and that’s a really bad way to figure out who’s right becuase you might be wrong and you’ll still come out on top and that’s actually counter productive
Maybe that's a good thing, sometimes, at least? I mean, the more you're trying to defend your point, the more things you come up with that no one could think of if they weren't as determined.
@@turbotrup96 So you're basically saying that you would sacrifice the chances of your argument being correct, so that you can increase your chances of winning it? Trying to win an argument knowing that you're fundamentally wrong is the most basic sign of being a morally wrong person.
@@ShubhThakkar I'm not talking about consciously making a complex argument with hidden holes in it hoping that the opposing thinker won't see them. I'm talking about both sides being so determined and adrenaline-driven that they would squeeze out the very best of their views and come up with new arguments thanks to which they'd shed a new light on the topic they're discussing that others would most likely miss because they would give up too soon.
Because, in the end, agreeable people will not have an astute enough discourse when they agree with each other too soon and move on to another topic or end the debate.
The issue with what is right or wrong is no all that clear. Nearly everything can be debated.
@@turbotrup96 I think it's important to be rigorous, but you're confusing arguments with debate. Two people debating will never almost never agree with each other on a fundamental level, because debate dictates that two sides are opposing each other. Even if they end up agreeing on something, debates are usually time-boxed so how long they spend debating is usually determined by the format of the debate. Arguments can end pretty quickly, but an ideal argument aims for understanding one another over anything else.
I really enjoyed learning this. I did notice you reference beforehand any comments you then played for us, and I do understand, as you also explained, that you didn’t want us to misconstrue any particular points one way or the other. I do realize that in our society today we have become perhaps to quick to speak or think before we just let ourselves hear what is the other person is asking, or answering. I think it is really great that you are putting this information out on a channel, and why I am going to follow it! Thank you for already teaching me something today!😉
Masters of debate in the last 25 years, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, Katie Pavlich and the Master of debate in this time, Ben Shapiro. Thank you all!
“My doctor is a a wife”
-Ben Shrapnel
Bruh dat boi sed
@Natasel At least not outside of the bed.
Kolamoose
666 likes pls don’t like
Bro I had to do a double take to realize that something was wrong I'm done with myself
(hidden bonus reason): argue against people bad at arguing
The Stig no haha
@@businessmandan I mean if one side is better than the other at arguing then yeah that side has a higher chance of success.
Slimeustas Not really. People bad at arguing are often very good at making fallacy, albeit unintentionally. If you are not experienced enough, you will lose very fast.
@@sirbedivere5670 Ben is good at concocting a fallacy, which is another hidden reason.
@@justas423 No it's about an experiencd debater debating inexperienced college kids.
Summary:
1. Catch Non-Arguments 1:15
2. Getting Emotional 2:01
3. Push For Specifics 2:45
4. Know Your Arguments Inside Out 4:11
Offensive Strategies:
5. The Use of Snuck Premises 6:07
6. Moving From Abstract To Concrete 8:40
7. Emphasize The Condition Under Which You Would Agree With Your Opponent 9:48
7.
I would never want a person like me to think that I sound like Ben Shapiro.
Who else never notices Ben Shapiros Kippah cause it blends with his hair so well?
I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT TILL I READ THIS COMMENT
Ivana A. I know right! He definitely chose a good colour.
He makes it look good lol
@@ivanaa.1968 wow lmao🤣🤣🤣🤣
hats never made anyone smarter or dumber so nope didnt matter
As children we learn to use emotions to get what we want...like crying. Some people never grow out of it to one extent or the other.
Geez I remembered when my brother was like that
They cried as kids and they get offended as adults 😆
But it works for ben, cant win em all I guess
😭
They are called democrats... the ones that only cry to get their way
I love humiliating people with intelligence
Proud to say many of these rhetorical devices were taught to me in school
Ben has mastered the debate blitzkrieg
Leopold II ironic (Palpatine)
Yeah basically.
I see what you did there
@@chaseoliver3978 Infiltrate, engage in subversive activities, win.
Ben is using massed tank formations with close air aupport?
Reason number 8: his wife is a doctor.
What's your point?
@@saral19 you have much to learn.
this actually got me to smirk at my phone😂
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
#8. Start every rebuttle with, "So let's say..." then setup a hypothetical situation and back it up with points not rooted in reality.
The winner of an argument is not the one who is right; it is the one who can prove that they are right.
But in the end, it is the TRUTH which wins.
8. Have a wife who's a doctor
9. have a doctor who is a wife.
11. Obtain a doctor wife
An expired grapefruit 12. Marry woman with a doctorate
13. Be the husband of a doctor
14. Always mention youre wife's a doctor
He's very sharp and direct. He's not always right or agreeable, but always worth listening to
The most important of all these factors is RESEARCH! When you give yourself the tools (knowledge, wisdom, facts, research) you have an entire toolkit of ammo (builds confidence) to use your logic brain to slay.
Exactly. The facts are the main part, the skills help to break through the other one's stubbornness.
Well ben shapiro doesnt actually bring facts to the table, he just cherry picks his information and says it fast. Just do the research and you will Quickly see how fraudulent most of his views are. He also normally debates uneducated students anyways and as quick as he meets someone like literally the self called ape Joe Rogan he gets challenged.
Just be careful; there's a lot of disinformation out there.
@@gears265 You can't just "learn" to be wise. True wisdom is through experience.
Logics doesn't always aline with common sense; )
It’s pretty easy when you’re subconsciously correct on 99% of these topics
When my neighbor resorted to stabbing me multiple times, it was only then I knew I won the verbal argument
Ben shuts down bad arguments so fast they don’t really know how to respond. Game - Set - and Match.
And yet, he refused to have any debates at this year´s Politicon. Gee, I wonder why.
@@jirkazalabak1514 because everyone at politicon has a restraining order against him because he be too good or he didn't see any real challenge (or maybe he was just busy, you never know, you're not him)
If you actually watched the video you'll see that he's a great grandstander and uses rhetoric effectively. Is he extremely good at presenting his points and flustering his opponents? Hell yeah, he is but how good you are at debate doesn't necessarily mean what you're arguing for is actually correct
Ben Shapiro is a hack. He backs up bad ideas with good arguments and data that sounds convincing but is usually disproven or shaky at best
@@sasukeisacat No, he was giving a speech and then having a panel with his cronies from Daily Wire I believe. So yes, he was at Politicon, and he was there the whole time. He got several challenges, including Kyle Kulinski, but for some reason "Mr. I will debate anyone" didn´t actually debate anyone. I will admit that he is impressive against college kids, but in that debate with Cenk last year, I really felt like he was just resorting to getting cheap laughs, which admittedly worked quite well. As far as the facts went though, it was Cenk almost all the way, and I am not a fan of TYT. I was genuinely surprised when I watched it. It turns out that when his opponents have done as much research as he has, he is a lot less impressive all of a sudden. At least that´s my experience from having seen a lot of his material.