Please show me at least on person who could win debate against this guy

Please show me at least on person who could win debate against this guy.
Sorry, you can't. Ben is a beast

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Who?

...

Most of his arguments are pretty dumb if you think about them

Why does it matter? Being good at debating doesn't make what you're saying true.

Ben's our only defense against the lgbtqjfix .7% pretending every facet of society has to cater to them

then point it out to him and get back to us. Or don't. we'll probably see you in a compilation video

you're pretty dumb if you think about it

...

I'd love to see him debate a race realist.

ssssh, don't destroy the mass delusion that psychopaths are somehow better leaders. the business world shall not collapse.

Enlighten us

Found the faggot.

...

...

Destiny suck at debates though, the only thing he does is twist the other persons words around until he contradicts himself. He rarely brings new opinions to the table.

...

All he does is talk fast. That's why everyone thinks he always wins.

thought about it, they seem fine.
your point?

...

Rip

This but unironically

He doesn't twist words, at all. He uses the Socratic method, a method of questioning, to get the other person to realize their own inconsistencies. It's a philosophical approach that most people wouldn't understand, if they approach a discussion already knowing who they disagree with.

so he should be vulnerable to stalling tactics and open-ended questions? has no one managed to use that yet?

Ben is a fucking Savage

Thats where you are wrong fucking idiot.

He'd wipe the floor with Shapiro, but just like every other talk, the person Steven is talking to wouldn't concede a single point, and no one leaves convinced of anything but a stronger hatred for their political opponents.

Hi Steven

looks like an absolute MSM tool
let me guess: claims to provide news but only brings opinion?

...

Too witty for the Internet!! Lmao you’re so right!!!!

Why hasn't he done that? They seem like his only opposition on the right.

can someone tell me what's his argument against abortion for when the kid isn't sentient or anything yet? i don't feel like listening to his condescending nasally jewish voice.

He's not,actually--- that isn't what the Socratic method is or even what it is supposed to do.

It is a dialogue opening method in order to reach true understanding and involves heavy focus of the true meanings of words.

Anyone that has ever taken a moment to read any of Plato's works on Socrates will see this.

Too bad he's a Jew.

Nobody, other than the people who proudly call themselves race realists, are eager to give a platform to that view.

william f buckley could have

You just mean racist.
Stop trying to slap a new name to it because you don't like the obvious negativity associated to it.

Grow a pair and own up to what the real word is.

not an argument

Many of his arguments are sound but lack validity. For one, he takes conservative goals and values as fact. He also doesnt seem to be aware of his unknown unknowns, so he comes off as Dunning-Kruger. Anybody on the fence or on his side will agree/be amazed by him, but he's not nearly as flawless as people think. Still, he's better than the autistic screeching masquerading as debate that exists in 95% of internet politics.

...

Plenty of "skeptics" have done so.

"Racist" has more than one meaning, race realist is a specific type of racist.

Why you mad?

Slim shady

>his arguments are sound but lack validity
sounds like a contradiction to me, user

Hey, a thread about how great Ben is.
Never seen this shit before.
Wonder if we'll be seeing more of it?

i wish i wasn't. we're all fucked.

You make a lot of sense

Mostly correct and agreed. I think he is perfectly aware of what is valid and what is not but uses what weapons he has at his disposal to the best of his ability. He takes conservative values as fact because his opponentents take their values and beliefs as fact. Lefty hardcores really do think that anyone who disagrees with them is 'literally a nazi' and rather than lose debates trying to get a retard to understand fact vs. emotion, he just employs a similar tactic and then simply articulates it better and with a rational demeanour.

>sound but lack validity
I think you mean it the other way around.

I know this one guy who could win an argument against Shapiro.

Shapiro: "Logical, well thought out argument"

...

Actually in order for an argument to be valid it must be BOTH sound AND adequate. The whole truth AND nothing but the truth.

Not an argument. You should debate him though, I'd bet you'll make him look silly.

>if you think about them

He relies on his fanbase not thinking.

Not the other guy, but much of the debates are about trying to hash out each other's definitions, assumptions, etc.

Granted my knowledge of the Socratic method is introductary Wikipedia section deep so IDK, but it seems to be about finding out what the debator believes, not just inherent truth like your 2nd paragraph implies

Problem is most of the retards who go on stream haven't actually thought about or researched shit, so they're just regurgitating poorly understood talking points.

he could not be defeated

A race realist is just a racist who also owns a fedora.

Nigel

Trump would embarras him.

Shapiro knows facts but he talks too fast, too many information and not enough emotions. People make their decisions based on emotions.

He also has too high morals and he's too polite. He has no experience at childish arguments.

In a debate, he could state all the facts thinking that he won this and the only thing Trump would have to do is to interrupt him mid sentence and tell him he's fake news.
Shapiro would have no answer and the crowd would support Donald.

The same thing happened with Megyn Kelly when she called him out for disrespecting woman.

Yeah sorry, I always forget which is which.

my understanding of it is it's trying to make a person realise their own inconsistencies by questioning them and let them see the contradictions for themselves, rather than stating to them that they have said contradiction

The problem with him is he only argues with the kool-aid drinking low hanging fruit

A bunch of militant fucks who believe that without religion, people can and would be rational thinkers.

Well when someone puts 10 numbers per secon in your face, to prove you are wrong, who the fuck care about emotions. Facts are more important that feelings

...

cocaineee

maybe against chomsky, or maddow, or stewart ...easily loses

I'll embarrass you all, you little cunty twats. I'll expose you for the piece of taco plasma bags of shit.

>Ben's our only defense against the lgbtqjfix .7% pretending every facet of society has to cater to them

If the society you live in is really that fragile it deserves to go extinct.

Depends, what are we debating? Do I know enough about a subject to make counter points to break his view down? Anyone with solid knowledge of the source data and common sense could beat him in a debate. You just want his dick in your mouth OP.

this ill man

That's a fair point and to be honest his assumptions are probably more reasonable than the "Trump is literally Hilter" crowd. I just wish he'd state his premises more. His show is actually one of my favourite secondary sources for news, but I cringe hard when he starts mouthing off about "the failings of scientific materialism" to combat people who make fun of Mormonism.

But he only use numbers, facts, statistics. How can you win argument against person if numbers is on his side?

What's the clever argument here?

Like I said it depends upon what subject is being debated.

He's one of those retards who think an insignificant minority is conspiring to destroy the traditional family, impose strict non-gender laws and force boys to wear dresses.

What he seems to forget (or willfully ignore) is that the vast majority of the pro-gender bullshit actually happens to be straight.

I feel like that never work, at least on the internet. You have to practically drown the horse to make it drink.

I guess i only saw his best ones. About racism and lgbtq

Shattering a narrative with facts? Granted this is a bit of "Whataboutism" but still.

The argument is that killing a lot of people with guns is easier.

Nearly 3000 died in 9/11 and they only used two planes, that's unrelated.

A knife is a tool, trucks and planes are vehicles, guns' only purpose is to kill efficiently.

Ben Shapiro is only good for debating SJW and feminists.

He shouldn't get into climate science and abortion.

>fast talks

You need him to talk slower so your slow brain can catch up? Kys

Unrelated facts btw.

>Facts are more important that feelings

This is a nice Shapiro meme, but facts aren't everything. Fact's don't help you solve the is-ought problem. The underlying axioms and values you hold are going to be based on how you feel.

>Astrophysicists
>Biologists
>Scientists
>Entertainers

Yes, quite militant. All those people who killed in the name of nothing. Perhaps a holy war and an inquisition will change their tune to a more peaceful way of thinking.

woo lad, that's a whole lot of triggered presumption off so few words

lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

boy meets world?

I simply know better.

Me
hes religious and against abortion.

no you don't.

The only right answer in this thread.

why not abortion?

we need everyone to talk slower to allow critical thinking instead giving the ring to repetition-learned steamrolling

see

Oh look he disagrees.
How cute.

not really

Oh look, it's sounds exactly like a tumblrina
Simply adorbs!

Well facts can help to solve problems. Of course if you know how to use them. Saddly we are living in the world where facts become less and less important. And thats main reason why there is lot of shit here these days

The only thing I've seen or heard about this guy was a video were he talked about John Lennon's Imagine. Either that was satire or this guy is completely fucking retarded.

>y-you're a t-tumblrina