youtube.com
So Ben Shapiro makes shill-tier arguments in favor of money in politics, Cenk calls him out on it, Shapiro panders to his audience in place of quality counterarguments, and somehow Cenk lost? I feel like I watched a completely different video from the Shapirotards in the comments section.
Cenk lost. Deal with it.
>A kike and a roach walk into a bar
Someone come up with a joke.
And smoke rööki
Prostitute, Google it
2028 Presidential Debate
right wing represents literally jew
USA USA USA !!!1!
A kike and a roach walk into a BAR. 20 rounds later, they were wasted.
Roach vs kike debate? The kike is going to win but ultimately we all lose.
literally the exact opposite happened
cenk made shill arguments (for taxation and medicare and money in politics)
ben call him out on it
(cant force medical labor/taxation is more complicated than tax the rich/TYT takes donations from the middle east)
cenk directly talked to the audience everytime he talked and tried to pander ("USA, USA, USA!")?
ben talked to cenk and rarely looked at the crowd
is this a meme? someone fill me in because ill seen many comments like this
Ben Shapiro tried conflating a billionaire paying off politicians to a Youtube channel being biased. He then tried arguing that politicians aren't bribed by using legal technicalities. These are completely shit, shill-tier arguments, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusion (we should keep money in politics).
Cenk is not as eloquent, but that is irrelevant. He was right on this point. If you think otherwise, it's because you've confused Ben's rhetorical ability with actually good arguments, or you're just completely lacking in the ability to be objective in the face of someone you generally agree with and someone you don't agree with.
>Cenk won
lol wait you actually think that? goddamn you have to be even more stupid than cenk, i feel sorry for you.
ive watched the debate and I thought Id agree with shapiro but half the time I agreed with cenk
cenk I like him too bad he's on the wrong side
An anti-Trump vs an anti-Trump.
We win!!!!
There's literally no chance of that. The taller man always wins. The sole exceptions to this rule are when the short man is a scientist or head of state.
>Cenk won
kek
the media is solely responsible for the russian conspiracy theory, and solely responsible for the new extremes of the divide between the left and right due to their demonization of trump all during the election. they are also responsible for him winning, both by making democrats overly smug and thus lowering their turnout, and by creating a backlash against them
if a billionaire pays media outlets to do that, how much impact does he have?
cenk was not only ineloquent but he had no specific points, so he was relying on his ineloquent rhetoric to win. when asked for specific facts he'd just spout generalizations and tell people to google it. he also just used republican platforms on anything to divert attention away from the current question
>cenk made shill arguments
the fuck are shill arguments?
Cenk can never win, he is an one scooper.
>DAY 3
>/LEFTYPOL/ STILL SHILLING THIS
forcing memes never worked, unless we're doing it ironically
I googled it. A controlled opposition kike and a turkroach drank gallons of bacon grease while a shitskin watched.
You can be "right" about a point and still not argue your point well enough to win a debate. Cenk didn't debate well at all, every time he was challenged he simply said "google it." That's not a good argument.
A shill argument is one that requires you to accept bullshit. It's the kind of argument a lawyer would make for his obviously guilty client.
Cenk really isn't that smart. O yea Ben's wife is a dr
Kike and a roach.. Both of them are subhuman scum, who cares what they think?
Ben: facts facts facts
Cenk: Of COOOUUURSE I'm right!! Google it! You want SMALL government?? Cuz that mean you don't like ROADS???
>every time he was challenged he simply said "google it."
wrong
He said "google it" maybe once or twice and it wasn't when he was challenged by shapiro.
It was after he stated a fact. He tells the audience not to take his word on it but to verify it for themselves. The only way to verify it is to google it, there is no other way Cenk can prove it to you.
So I really don't see what's wrong with that.
They're both retarded, who gives a shit?
...
Cenk entire argument was based on historical records on economy and regulation. Unfortunately, that argument will only take you so far. As seen when Ben called Cenk out for implying that higher tax rates create a more prosperous country. Cenk was so clearly BTFO by that counter that he starts to get flustered, backpeddles, then blames the audience for not being intelligent enough to understand.
Ben won, but I wish they didn't spend so much time on healthcare.
for example:
Cenk: the US debt is about $19 trillion
Audience: boooooooo!
Cenk: it's true, google it.
What's wrong with that?
Not true at all.
It happened easily a half dozen times, and was always before some vague liberal talking point that the audience refused to buy-- which naturally hurt his fragile leftist ego.
Please give me one indisputable fact that Cenk claimed which was then followed by his catchphrase.
you're retarded
come with the facts. "google it" is literally the weakest comeback ever
No one booed the US debt part
everyone here is a whiner on this Sup Forums
I feel so bad for you lol. Ben obviously lost and if you don't agree you're mentally ill and very stupid.
no one likes trump, everyone is anti-trump
okay and how about in the meantime you give me the 6 timestamps where cenk said "google it"
I know, it was an example
Your first paragraph is mostly wrong, but I'm not going to debate with you specifics with respect to that. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that somehow a billionaire funding politicians directly "equalizes" the effect of media bias, which is what you have to be arguing, either that or that it is inconsequential (because of media bias).
There are significant differences between speech and money that make the analogy bogus. For one, everyone has speech rights, not everyone has money. Everyone has choice in what they express and consume, a choice that has expanded thanks to the Internet. Power is distributed far wider in a situation where a single entity can't essentially pay for legislation, and there are natural checks and balances due to market and social pressures that make it more difficult to actually have control over information people consume. Why did Trump win, despite the media highlighting his stupidity and bigotry? Not simply because there are stupid bigots who support him. He won also because these some people decided that they didn't want to trust media outlets they disagreed with. You don't have that when it comes to political bribery, which is what you are defending.
gee I wonder where you're from
This. Why does leftypol have so much invested in the roach?
Actually, Ben is the one who looked retarded, and you are retarded too since you apparently didn't see what Cenk was saying.
He never said that higher taxes means more prosperity. His point was that higher taxes does not necessarily mean a less prosperous country, and used the 1950s "golden age" to illustrate. In fact, when he initially brought up that point, he even says something to the effect of "I'm not saying that this is the correct tax rate for us to have." But even then, after that, Ben tries to strawman him with the "why don't we make tax rate 100%?" line.
I fully expected Cenk to get beat up by Ben and that is not what happened. Ben might be a heavyweight when it comes to SJWs but he's a welterweight on economic issues and Cenk exposed him.
>even Cenk admits he lost
>blames it on audience for not being made up of enough TYT to start another low key genocide
No, google it.
A propaganda meme originally constructed by people looking to advance a particular outcome with little regard for truth.
>guys the american dream is about getting the government to pay for everyone's college
This is why immigrants are trash
i thought they both lost personally, neither one of them pushed the envelope far enough and ben shapiro consistently made points that had no basis in the discussion and were unrelated
he was talking out of the side of his mouth pretending that what he said was little more than empty words that were only loosely related to the subject matter
sometimes they sounded good, but on further inspection they had nothing to do with anything he just spoke about them as if they did
cenk did call him on it once, but he did it more than that
as for cenk, he missed a lot of chances to say something worthwhile and instead focused on childish bullshit and poor examples
i disagree with both of them politically
and really the entire discussion should have just been that both parties are bullshit and people need to dissolve their power because they both take from the same corporations and they just put figureheads in place
elections are just smoke and mirrors, the president is a figurehead, and voting is a pacification and division tool
they were having a discussion as if any of what they were saying even matters in the current political climate, and the reality is it doesn't
if you look at the history of the country the same agenda has been playing out for decades regardless of who's in charge
the things that do change are largely passion plays that divide people and keep them distracted while unjust wars, militarization of the police, surveillance etc all go on and get passed without anyone really mentioning them while people are distracted
and it all serves one purpose, those in power stay in power and the balance of power gets shifted in their favour more and more because people cling to crumbs they're thrown and distractions and pretend they matter in the system
neither one of them pointed that out and they both take sides that play right into the system that's set up that regularly fails the vast majority of citizens on all sides
>I am not even going to debate you
>I am just so right, and your wrong
>but I want show you my logic
Sound reasoning, no wonder you think Cenk won.
If you think Cenk won this debate, you are functionally retarded.
The specifics of whether Russia is a "conspiracy" are not important for the purposes of this discussion and I wasn't interested in going down that rabbit hole. I just wanted to let him know I thought he was wrong, and I debated the main point instead, you intellectual lightweight.
>He never said that higher taxes means more prosperity.
Right, that's why I said that Cenk IMPLIED that. And he clearly did imply that, which is why Ben attacked that stance. It wasn't until after the fact that Cenk backpeddled into saying, "we need to find a balance between 0 to 100%" And again, Ben asked, is it closer to 0 or 100? Cenk never responded to that because his argument didn't have any economic backbone to it. He presupposed all of his arguments on the past.
Well you're just wrong and I am right, but I won't get into how you're wrong.
ok here's the first time he said it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlZXck2o73c
33:28
>Corporations donate more money to politicians than unions do.
That's a factual statement and not "some vague liberal talking point ".
The debate was boring until the end. Debate should have been at least 2 hours.
google it
Sink Uber needs to debate Alex Jones.
Ana Kasperian and Lee Ann Rackadoo can be in their respective corners.
>people unironically thinking cenk had better arguments
hes a kike who literally shills for gold on his podcast, but (((shapiro))) made more logical points.
Sup Forums crack open a fucking book and better educate yourself. youre a fucking disgrace to the white race.
I know you're not intelligent enough to google why you're not intelligent, but google it.
>not having some amount of your assets stored in gold
Idiot boy
holy fucking shit Shapiro's solution for the money in politics question at the Q&A was retarded.
>Just make the government so small it's not worth to bribe
Yeah, it's not like the government to vote itself bigger with "bribes" and make it worth to bribe it again. Surely no one is gonna come up with that.
Sup Forums is more interested in identity politics/tribalism than proper arguments. it's why they worship donald trump like a god, while normal people simply vote for a candidate. it's pretty sad really
he didn't make valid points, he said a lot of valid sounding things that didn't hold any weight upon further inspection
he repeatedly made misleading statements and tried to make unrelated things sound related while making up points
i'm not saying i agree with everything cenk said or even think he won, i thought he was underwhelming and neither one of them was good or made any points i found important when it comes to discussing political parties
but be real about what was coming out of his mouth
you fell for jewish tricks there goy
Quality post. Underrated
Nope, I remember when he said it initially, he qualified it with "I don't believe this is is the tax rate we should have" or something to that effect. I am positive. The point, again, he was making was that you can't say taxes decrease growth when America was at its most economically prosperous when taxes were much higher. There are ways you can poke holes in that argument, for instance pointing out that tax revenue has actually increased, most people didn't pay actually pay the top tax rate, and America benefited from everyone else tearing each other to shreds, which Ben did point out, but the "Why not 100?" is just a straw man.
Cenk didn't give a specific tax rate because it's an invalid question in this context. Cenk's position isn't that there's this magic number that taxes should be at. His point is that taxes should be a matter of our needs (as a country) and that the tax burden shouldn't be put on the middle class (like it has been). Again, you can argue the particulars of his point, but Ben didn't do that. He just retreated to libertarian cliches.
im debating which merchant meme to post in reply to (((you))) mr shapiro
ben was arguing on the side of free market
cenk was arguing on the side of centralization
the rabbi won
If you think that argument is sound, you are a fucking retard. Sure, high taxes don't mean apocalypse if you have the only source of oil on planet Earth.That doesn't mean high taxes are tenable. The world economy was blown to shit in the 50s and we bankrolled the recovery. That's why the high taxes didn't destroy us. You're a fucking IMBECILE.
A kike and a roach walk into a bar. The roach goes to the kike and says, "Could you pay for my drink?"
The kike answers, "Why would I?"
The roach says, "Because it would be really friendly of you."
The kike then asks, "And what do I get in return?"
The roach says, "Well, nothing really."
The kike then says, "I'll save my money for a prostitute then."
I didn't say it was a sound argument. In fact, I address that here: Whether it was a sound argument or not is irrelevant to the fact that Ben argued with a STRAWMAN with his reductio ad absurdum.
the only way to make a government that small (and cenk was right here, the government size should vary depending on the issue that's the reality of the situation anyway) would be revolution, not voting and neither of them pointed out that reality
the parties in power are bullshit, and no one who runs ends up being more than a figurehead
but sure even in a very limited government bribes would be an issue
the entire debate was stupid, they're encouraging people to eat up the bullshit both sides supply one way or another and pretending a system that doesn't work (voting) somehow will if the figurehead saying words that hold little weight is using different words
we need more than voting to fix the corruption in the government
And here is the second and last time he said it:
54:00
So no, it didn't happen "easily half a dozen time", it only happened TWICE, so I was right
cenk rekt him with the soros example
he was arguing on a side you agree with, that doesn't mean he argued well
and the market isn't really free, and with the way things are currently run there are a lot of things that are detrimental to citizens being able to participate in an actual free market
ben shapiro consistently made things up and threw in completely unrelated things throughout the debate
he couldn't stay on topic or make proper analogies, and that's failure in my opinion
i disagree with cenk and i think he failed in many areas of that debate as well, but not because i disagree but because of the childish antagonistic attitude toward the audience and the way he handled himself
they both had some fair points, but ultimately they both failed at debating
debates are more than just the two opinions offered, it's how you conduct yourself and present an opinion and shapiro failed to present his opinion well and didn't conduct himself well either and neither did cenk
that all being said both parties are bullshit and voting is just a division and pacification tool
your opinions and ideologies are ultimately meaningless as a citizen because that's not how power works anyway and your voice goes unheard regardless of how much you like what any given person has to say
No one won, they both articulated well established points of view, invented by more intelligent people that them, for a little while and then both took turns looking like idiots when they really tried to debate.
I dont like Cenk the truth isnt really in him.
Shapiro is just a childish snarky high school debate team point scorer that has never really grown up into a serious journalist. I hoped that he would eventually move away from the kind of simplistic rote criticism that anyone can give of others views and can get paid for and named an "opinion columinist" if they can find enough people to mindlessly read what they write.
cant remember the last time I was suprised by anything he had to say or didnt know what an article of his would say before i read it.
Now as he tries to become a politician himself and articulate his own political philosophy hes just going to find himself exposed to the to the type of stupid and easy criticism he always traded in and profited from. Let him reap what he has fucking sowed.