Why can't anyone defeat him, Sup Forums?

Why can't anyone defeat him, Sup Forums?

Because he's damn good and perfectly cherry picks his points. Like his arguments against abortion is less logical and more moral/emotional thus making what he says hard to contest

Because he's the future president after trey gowdy

The only topic he isn't cold, hard, factual about. Nice cherry picking, faggot.

I wouldn't call it cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is when you only take the good evidence and ignore the weak evidence, or the things that disprove your point.

I'd say Shapiro just selects the right approach. An old Karate master once very famously said, "The key to victory lies in discerning vulnerable points from invulnerable ones." Shapiro is very good at discerning in this way.

He addresses all major political issues, so not sure where the cherry picking comes in.

Actually, I think he approaches most of his viewpoints from a Principle position. I listen to his podcast on a daily basis, most of his arguments are about what is right and what is wrong from a moral perspective. It's when he's speaking at a college, when someone comes up and asks him a question with some vague evidence, that he goes full Shapiro. That's the point when he has to counter evidence with evidence.

He's too edgy for other people.

Could you cite some invulnerable arguments that he avoids?

Thug Life.

he's literally said why

he puts A LOT of emphasis on preparation

I listen to him daily too. While I disagree with his religious and abortion views, you have to appreciate the fact that he doesn't care to offend his party to denounce Trump. He's not a "provocatuer" like Milo. He truly is a god.

because he talks fast in a rapidfire barrage of more points that require detailed explanation than anyone has enough time to actually counter. when you kids grow up youll discover this is not an uncommon talent. The bars are filled with self-assured morons just like him.

Point and case....

This, because all libs regurgitate the same old sob story. Not that hard when you think about it.

He memorizes a few statistics that support his claim. He can always contort his way back to the few statistics he knows.

Abortion is murder of the innocent. There's no way around that. It's not an appeal to emotion, though he does tend to decorate that argument with emotion.

All libs do is interrupt and answer questions with questions. So, this is the counter. And he's the most polite and professional - and let's them interrupt and never speaks over them. See: Piers Morgan interview. It's a joke. Just like you.

Easily. One of the better ones is regarding firearms.

Whenever talking about firearms he approaches it from an individual liberties standpoint, talking about how to protect your home, your family, and in the case of the texas shooting, your community. It's a personal matter, and he encourages you to be a good person by owning a firearm for defensive purposes. He backs this up by citing the founding fathers, but that's not his main argument.

What he doesn't do in this case is use numbers, because the numbers are influenced by too many factors. I could cite Australia as being an example of the removal of firearms causing an increase in violent crime overall, but someone else could cite some socialist shithole in eastern europe as an opposite example. Too many factors to clearly define what is the case. Too easy for you to argue against. But in light of the Texas shooting, among others, you can't argue that there is danger and that your family is worth protecting. Any moral person would agree with that.

>Abortion is murder of the innocent
Abort yourself, christcuck.

And just like with drugs, someone will always find a way around a gun ban. Which would've allowed the killer to kill the entire church and not be stopped by the guy who shot him, because - bring a law abiding citizen - he wouldn't have owned a gun to do so. We could do this all night man c'mon

And here we have the definitive divide.

In Shapiro's own words: "It depends on whether or not you believe that this thing is alive. If it is, you can't kill it. If it's not, you can do whatever you want with it."

I've never heard him make an argument accentuated by a "moral" perspective without backing it up with hard evidence. Could you cite some specific examples?

Fully agree. I'm demonstrating that his tactic isn't to avoid topics, but to avoid certain approaches.

Not off the top of my head. I'm not Shapiro. The most relevant bit I've got on that is the gun control example above, but he still generally shies away from statistics-based arguments on that.

Why do you spam threads about this baby-faced little edgelord on Sup Forums every day?

Lol I swear this is the first I'm posting about him, but yes I've seen the posts before.

That's not an invulnerable argument. It's just a can of worms. All you need is an understanding of Australia's advantagious circumstances that allow for it's gun control and some numbers that you have to do a little work to find. Most countries with similar, geographic, cultural, ideological, and political circumstances in common with the US have strict gun control laws, and much higher instances of gun/power related crime, and corruption.

I'm such a Christian for being against murder. Fuck off fedoratheist

He is the next big thing in conservatism. He is the next William F. Buckley

Wait was he stopped though? He basically shot everybody in that church and then got shot at after he walked out. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad somebody confronted him, but I think he was quite done before that happened.

In Mexico, there is literally one facility wherein you can purchase a firearm, which is permeated by hundreds of security/police officials. What is your position on the murder capital of the world, Mexico?

Because he knows how to point out and attack the flaws of the left better than anyone else.

However, he's HARDLY invincible. Let's see:

1) He's religious (instant sign of ignorance)
2) He thinks you can't really be moral if you're an atheist
3) He keeps changing his views on climate change because it's actually something that liberals are right about. If I recall, he's not willing to accept the science because "science has been wrong before"
4) He gets so stupidly pedantic when talking about the song "Imagine" that I have to stop listening to him. "Oh, liberals like it? Better hate it then"

Ben is a great voice for the right, but he often falls into the trap of identity politics. At least he's able to see that Trump is pretty stupid.

Nobody but christcucks and mudslimes confuse abortion with murder. Are you a mudslime?

On an unrelated note, his sister is an absolute qt3.14 with big tits.

Because he chooses his opponents, mostly nutty ultra liberals and college kids. I'd love to see him in a debate with someone like Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, or the late Christopher Hitchens. He'd get the intellectual shit kicked out of him.

Big tits yes. But manface/10.

Who honestly gives af about climate change? Calling the kettle black.

That's not what cherry picking means in this context, dumb dumb. You can debate any and all issues and still cherry pick specific points or data to support your claim.

>2017
>follows iron-age Palestinian death-cult
Not worth the time

Yeah, he chooses all the campuses he has to wear kevlar to. Lmao

Yes, he chooses to go to colleges and debate college kids. That's exactly what I said.

More guns would help.

A Government that isn't half corrupt and half retarded would also help.

Would you rather base your argument on something that can be more easily debated (Gun Control VS Violent Crime Rates) or something that can be less easily debated (Love of Family and Personal Liberty)?

Atheism has no moral standing. It's the same as Fideism, which inevitably devolves into Nihilism, at which point everything is meaningless and morality is pointless.

Again, Shapiro's main point: is the baby alive? If yes, Murder. If no, Trash Disposal.

I didn't know "cherry picking" had different contexts unless we're talking about machinery.

when did the cuckservatives make their most prominent representatives a jew and a fag? I thought y'all hated jews and fags

Youtubing "Ben Shapiro" would help with putting a dog in this fight

Well I'm glad you learned something today.

Violent crime didn't increase in Australia due to gun control, it increased because the population did. More people = more crime.

The better thing to look at is the lack of mass murder and gun crime here.

I'm quite familiar with his work and have seen several of his college kid "takedowns." Thanks though.

I think you only say that because you became familiar with ben first. I would say he has a more feminine face, and they both just look like each other.

Atheism has no moral standing? Why do you imply that morals come from religion?

He's a Jew, cherry picking is what they do right after a heavy case of whataboutism, kys.

>Atheism has no moral standing
Absolutely false. Religion isn't the basis, originator or keeper of morality. Morality is a human concept and creation... just like religion. Morality is the basis of civilised society. It's an evolutionary advantage.

can only dream we'll be blessed to have trey gowdy as a president

>Atheism has no moral standing.

Technically this is correct, since all atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. But any atheist can have a healthy, developed, and robust moral code. In many cases, this moral code is much more developed than that of the overtly religious, being that any fundamental religious beliefs are steeped in immorality.

this. I don't need a god to tell me killing and stealing and worshiping other gods is wrong.

Many fundamental religious beliefs*

So, all sarcastic redirecting aside, there are innumerable arguments with media lib dilettantes.

Meh. I'm not very familiar with that dude, was just scrolling by and saw your pic. But he is a bit soft in the cheeks I suppose.

Don't be retarded.

I'm saying he's been known to deny truth if it helped his cause. He's not stupid, he just convinces himself that nasa MUST be wrong about climate change since liberals prioritize it. If nasa came out tomorrow though and said an asteroid was going to hit the earth by Thanksgiving, he'd be just as panicked as you and me. It's identity politics.

Show me evidence of a truth he's denied. Lol

>innumerable
I'm pretty sure there is a finite number of them, all hyperbole aside.

>with media lib dilettantes
Yes - all I've seen who are idiots who can't debate, and all people he's agreed to debate because he knows this. He's a talented debater, that's undeniable. That does not mean he's correct, only good at debating. Again, I'd love to see him debate an actual opponent, the men I've already listed to name a few.

well... if the climate were to change to one that made the planet barely habitable for humans and likely would cause the extinction of many lifeforms that keep the current ecosystem balanced, I think most people would care. even if the icecaps melt we won't be living in such a ridiculous place as water world, but the habitable land would dwindle. that's just one possibility though.

>if you had to destroy israel or america which one would you choose
>UUUHHHHHHH
i just defeated him, you're welcome

Philosophers have given a far better critique of morality than any fucking bronze age book, and some of the best moral philosophers were atheist.

It is sad that anyone would think you need to believe in a god to be a decent person

>media lib dilettantes.
>dilettantes

So you admit yourself that he's choosing to debate people with no real knowledge? That's the point.

like who? you're fucking retarded if you're referring to nietzsche btw

The fuck?

Aristotle, David Hume, Sartre, John Stuart Mill, and yes, Nietzche.

I don't think Aristotle was a true atheist, per se, but pretty sure he didn't believe in the Greek gods when everyone else did

Leave him alone. Feeble minded people with a weak grasp of innate morality can't help but believe a supreme being must dictate morality for everyone. The alternative frightens them.

have you actually read nietzsche? not just zarathustra i mean, but good and evil, etc.
aristotle was a monotheist

i'm not a christian lol

>i'm not a christian lol

Where in any of my post did you gather that I was accusing you of being a Christian? You're awfully myopic.

>supreme being dictates absolute morality
>all internet fedora athiests do is attack christians

you're being willfully ignorant, fuck off fagboi

Sorry I didn't fall into your stereotype. Nothing personnel, kid.

Yes, dude, I have read Nietzche. He hated God because he thought God and an objective morality were used to dismantle those in power. He admired strong-willed people. Weak people, though, use God and objective morality to get back at the strong, and (sadly) the strong people end up falling for it and become weak.

I read Nietzche 4 years ago in school. He was the most entertaining philosopher to ever put words on paper

specifically i'm wondering if you've read Genealogy of Morals, because in your post you made a critique of "Bronze Age morality" or something like that, and claimed that atheist philosophers knew better.

the ironic thing is that in Genealogy Nietzsche explicitly argues for a return to Bronze Age values

I think those to would be better served as supreme court justices just imo

Because he only challenges to college students and dumbass tv hosts

There's no winning an argument against a moron.

Because he's right. Ben isn't a ideologue and he agrees that social issues matter but much like other economist before him he understands that individual freedom is the best ideal for both parties to embrace.

>individualism

Doesn't take a Christian to understand that fact. Redefining what a human is in your mind is the only way to cope with the fact that you are okay with killing an innocent human.

This. Thank you user.

Fetuses are technically human, but they're not human in any ethically meaningful way.

The only way a society can prosper.

What makes something a human in an ethically meaningful way?

>denying something that was created the potential of life
nope nothing ethically wrong there

Consciousness. A personality. A lifetime of experiences. Interpersonal relationships.
Do you cry after you finish fapping?

...

>he never took high school biology
life = unity of the gametes, sperm fertilizing the egg. this is called conception...did your parents never tell you how babies are made

>THATFUCKINGFILENAME
god dammit user

Consciousness - should you kill someone in a coma because it's inconvenient?
Personality - really?
Lifetime of experiences & interpersonal relationships - So killing a newborn is fine then.

That has nothing to do with what I just said.

>should you kill someone in a coma because it's inconvenient?
>So killing a newborn is fine then.
I honestly don't see the problem with either of these.

...

>Lifetime of experiences & interpersonal relationships - So killing a newborn is fine then.

Not him, but unironically yes. A neonatal human is not sentient or self-aware in any meaningful sense of the word. If anything, this planet needs more abortions. Your mom should have started with you.

holy fuck. fucking idiot dumbass stupid fucking moron. i will replay our conversation.

>you: fetuses aren't human in any meaningful way
>me: they are created and will live out the same life as any other human so long as we don't prematurely end it
>you: yeah well sperm are life too how come you don't cry after fapping (i do but that is IRRELEVANT)
>me: sperm are not life, life is only achieved when sperm fertilizes egg

AND NOW WE'RE HERE HAVING THIS STUPID FUCKING CONVERSATION WHERE I HAVE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THAT LITERALLY JUST HAPPENED TO YOU LIKE YOU'RE SOME SORT OF DOWN SYNDROME AUTISTIC FUCK

He actually argues with facts, and he's very intelligent.

Why do we need more abortions?

Okay, then this is a completely different situation. I can only suggest you try to contemplate what you're saying. I guess you don't value human life that doesn't personally benefit you. No compassion?

That reasoning is completely bullshit. There's no natural law guaranteeing the right to birth. Human's are not the only species that abort pregnancies.

The idea that we need to stop abortions because we're killing millions of potential Einsteins is stupid as well. You're just as likely killing millions of potential Hitlers.

If you were meant to be born, you're here. If you weren't you aren't. The universe doesn't give a shit either way.

Personally, I hate the idea of abortion, but I'm tired of this goddamn debate. If human beings gave a damn about the sanctity of life, then we wouldn't being forcing the planet into an age of extinction.

>they are created and will live out the same life as any other human so long as we don't prematurely end it

So? That baby could also grow up to be a serial killer - your argument is useless. You can't put a real value on pure potentiality.