7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates

7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates

Ben shapiro is one of the most famous and skilled political debaters out there and even if you’re not into politics his arguments are fun to watch. In this video I want to explore why Ben is so talented in debates. Specifically, I’m gonna give you seven techniques that you can use no matter what side of an argument you represent, even if you’re on the wrong side Three caveats before we begin: First, I am NOT saying that Ben is right or wrong on any of these points. What I’m gonna discuss are some of the rhetorical devices he employs that can be persuasive even if they aren’t always logically foolproof. No matter where you fall in these issues, there’s a lot to be learned from Ben’s style of debate. Second, you probably don’t want to focus on debating in your interpersonal relationships because the goal of debate is quite different than the goal of most relationships. -or you’re debating somebody on a stage in which case your goal is basically to humiliate that person as badly as possible. And third, Ben obviously does quite a bit of research which is really tough to combat without figures of your own. -If you’re, if you’re richer you tend to be married longer on average people who are poor tend to get divorce Where did you get that, um, statistic? -Census Bureau Now, research is necessary but I’m more interested in the tactical side of the debate rather than the prep so I won’t go any further into it. Let’s begin then with Ben’s defensive debate tactics starting with catching non- arguments and that’s because not everything that sounds persuasive actually constitutes a valid argument. For instance, when you hear that nine out of ten fill-in-the-blanks believe something that doesn’t necessarily prove a point. That is an argument from authority and, though it might be compelling, more evidence is required to be deemed conclusive. So when people lean on authority in arguments, Ben knows to call them out on it, like in this example: We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons. That was Ronald Reagan. -Okay, so now I can disagree with Ronald Reagan. You keep front of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me -So? Another common debate tactic that maybe isn’t done on purpose and doesn’t constitute a valid argument is getting emotional, particularly when the other person gets upset or offended. Now when Piers Morgan did that, Ben wisely didn’t engage him because simply being offended doesn’t prove anything. How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there, how dare you. -I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers. Like I say, how dare you -Well, I mean, you can keep saying that but you’ve done it repeatedly. What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on the program. The late Christopher Hitchens put this same idea rather bluntly: If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say: well, I’m still waiting to hear what your point is. Now you don’t necessarily need to be that abrupt, but pointing out that a point needs something beyond simple emotion in order to make it valid can make other debaters flustered and from there you can segue into the third defensive tactic that we are covering in this video, which is pushing for specifics. People often hold very broad opinions, very strongly, without necessarily being able to articulate what they mean concretely, and of course this happens on all sides of the political spectrum. So when Ben is grappling with a very broad, spanning charge, he takes the necessary first step of pushing that other person to provide specific examples. -I know what the Republican beliefs are I mean, you’re a young guy, but you certainly remember two years back when their beliefs were completely the opposite of what they are now. -But which ones, which ones? -Free trade. This is absolutely critical do not get wrapped up in defending generalized statements even if you don’t like them, because if any sort of blanket label is asserted against your position or it’s large institutions that are being branded one way or another, if you try to defend against that single phrase you are already buying into an argument You don’t understand and that would be absurd So instead, push the other person to relate exactly what they mean specifically, like in this example: We’ve been talking about. When you say institutional racism, it’s too broad. You at least have to name me the institution. Which one is the racist one? Which institution is racist? Tell me what you –like — so we can fight it– seriously– so we can fight it together Just– I want to be on your side. I do. I want to fight racists. I think race again I think racism is — I think racist — racist behaviour is evil. I want to fight it with you, but I can’t fight it if you’re not if you’re not showing me what it is Similarly and lastly on the defensive side, Ben knows his arguments inside and out so he doesn’t get sucked into defending points that his argument doesn’t require. For instance, in this next clip Ben is talking about how Trump will say outrageous things, knowing that it sets the media ablaze and his point is that Trump knows what he’s doing and he does it on purpose in order to control the news cycle Now when Don Lemon responds saying the Trump shouldn’t be doing that, Ben doesn’t bother defending the morality of his actions. He’s only talking about the purpose of them. -says some things that are outrageous like people in the media aren’t patriotic, knowing that people in the media are immediately going to turn it up to 12 on the Richter scale. But Ben, don’t you think he should be truthful in his comments even if he’s even if he’s funny and if you give them any — shouldn’t he be truthful and he wasn’t. Of course and I think that this is where the media — here’s my advice to people in the media. Now recognizing that you can and should agree at points with the person that you’re debating seems obvious but it can be especially hard to do when people insult you a general rule of thumb is that if the other person winds up attacking you you were actually winning the debate. So Ben usually doesn’t get sucked into defending his own honor and he shows a great example of that here: Paul did a hit piece and in it writer Jane Coaston says you have hollow bravery, calls your campus speeches shadowboxing and if you wanted to be genuinely brave, you’d challenge quote: Some of the wrongheaded ideas held by your right-wing fans How do you respond to that? Number one: I’ve never really attributed bravery to myself I don’t think that it’s brave to walk on a campus and talk to kids, I think it’s brave to be a member of the military. I think it’s brave to be a cop I think it’s great to be a firefighter. I don’t think it’s brave for me to walk with a security team at my side onto a stage. If I thought that I was gonna get shot and murdered, then I probably wouldn’t do it. So I don’t consider myself part of that group anyway Then wisely doesn’t bother defending his own bravery and instead sticks to the points that he knows are strongest to his argument and that takes us to Ben’s Offensive Strategies. One of the big ways that I see him stump his opponents is through the use of snuck premises. Essentially, you introduce the exact point of contention as a given and that’s through the clever use of language. Now, this isn’t to pick on Ben because we all do this from time to time. So first off, see if you can find the snuck premise in this next case: -from planned parenthood. As you may have noticed, I’m mostly against abortion. If you wanna go to Planned Parenthood and get a contraceptive, go for it. I don’t care. I do care when you start killing babies. This is a problem for me. Again, a snug premise introduces a contended point as a given. So what counts as a snug premise shifts with each position of each person involved in a debate now in the context of the abortion debate: pro-choice versus pro-life, what is the snug premise that Ben just said? Here it would be the words: “kill babies”. This entire debate hinges on the personhood of the baby/fetus and using the word baby implies personhood. So with that word, Ben is able to sneak in a premise that most of his opponents would probably disagree with but he does it in a way that they don’t notice, so they are stuck, coming to the same conclusion that he does. Here’s another example, this time in a debate over the morality of socialism communism and other economic models: -income inequality in the United States is also quite high, right? There are people who are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and then there’s the the local checker at your grocery store. But if the local checker your grocery store is getting richer then it seems to me they have nothing particularly to complain about in how the economy is operating. They don’t have a right to Jeff Bezos’ money They don’t have a right to Bill Gates’ money any more than Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos has a right to their money. What is the snuck premise in this case? It would be the idea that it is their money. A socialist or a communist might see the money that an owner of the means of production has, aka another rich person, as being stolen, so it wouldn’t be their money in the minds of a socialist or a communist. But when Ben assumes the idea that it is their money, he makes a point that again his opponents might find disagreeable but they won’t really know where to poke the hole, because they adopted his premise as soon as he said it. Now in my experience, most debates are won or lost on snuck premises. In concealing the steps we take to arrive at our conclusions, we can get there without the other person knowing exactly how they disagree with us, but still being stuck. So if you want to win cheaply, without having your ideas challenged, this is an excellent tactic, that is, how you can win a debate even if you’re wrong. But to the degree that you can catch yourself, you’re usually better off avoiding this and it’s usually more insightful and better for the relationship to bolster the opposition side, as we discuss in our video on Jordan Peterson, which I will link to below. Again, not to pick on Ben, just pointing this out as an example. I’m going to leave this for now and move to another effective rhetorical tool that I see from Ben. It’s moving from the abstract to the concrete, and it looks like this: I think that focusing on poverty is a good thing to do. I think focusing on income inequality is not a good thing to do because there’s no correlation between income inequality and relative rates of poverty, right, there’s tremendous income inequality in a lot of places on Planet Earth, in fact in all places on Planet Earth. If you go to Sudan, there’s gonna be a rich warlord there and then there are gonna people living on six dollars a year. This works because the specific example seems to prove the broader point that preceded it, even though a single example cannot prove a rule. It is useful shorthand for persuasion and explanation. I do this all the time with the examples that I give you in these videos- it’s very very common. And when you add an element of humor to the specific piece that you are saying it makes it even more persuasive because people can be so wrapped up in laughing, that they don’t necessarily evaluate if they disagree with the point that you made. -The people who are currently acting in a criminal fashion in the drug war aren’t going to be out acting as model citizens, as a general rule. A lot of those people are going to be committing other crimes because this has been the history of the United States: when you make a substance illegal, the people who are criminals were criminals before and they’re criminals after. Al Capone was not going to turn into a banker after prohibition ended. And the final piece for this video, at least, is that you want to emphasize the conditions under which you would agree with your opponent. What evidence would you need? Now we previously saw Ben do this with regards to institutional racism in a previous clip: -racist behavior is evil. I want to fight it with you But I can’t fight it if you’re not if you’re not showing me what it is. Here he is talking about Trump’s impeachment and the Muller investigations: [Applause] Dude, I’m happy to wait for the Muller indictments if they come down and they target Trump. I’m happy to see him impeached but I need to see evidence. Where’s the evidence? just throw it in the trash. And if he throws it in the trash or quashes the Mueller investigation then yes impeachment should be on the table. Thank you Ben. When done in good faith, this is a really admirable way to build consensus and settle a debate, but since I said that this video was gonna have elements of how to win even if you’re wrong, this can also be used as a smokescreen to make your opponent lose sight of a more effective way to win an argument and instead focus on giving you the evidence that you asked for. By the way I am NOT saying that that is what Ben is doing here. I’m just saying that when you outline the conditions of what it would take for you to reverse your position, it can work as a diversionary tactic. So, there you have it, seven reasons that Ben Shapiro is so difficult to best in the debate and seven ways that you can win even if you’re wrong.

Comments (100)

  1. Wonderful analysis! Can’t see your notes. Arrow won’t display.

  2. Enemy is a term used to kill in war. Opponent would be a more appropriate term for a debate. Liberal are you? 😛

  3. Uh…he's freaking awful at debating. Terrible. Do a bunch of blow and talk fast, and over your opponents.

  4. since when is ben shapiro dominant in debates??

  5. 8) Debate emotional lefties !

  6. It would've been a gift to put him across George Carlin. To Carlin it would be akin to stepping on ants.

  7. He got humiliated by BBC..


  9. What about screaming that your more famous than the interviewer?

  10. Weird leftist posted vid!

  11. AKA, 7 x 70 reasons I will never be Ben Shapiro.

  12. Maybe his talk is not that fast but your processing information is just too slow.

  13. Shapiro "traps" people by picking inexperienced debaters that he can easily manipulate. This is the debating equivalent of being a pedophile.

  14. Ben Shapiro is a liar and a terrible debater, so I do disagree. He is gross.

  15. The only reason he's good is because he speaks the truth. And only uses facts. you will win every argument that way

  16. Shapiro dominates debates because he uses actual facts and logic. which is something the left rarely uses. sometimes they use facts, but they don't have any reasoning to apply to those facts. Almost every Democrat supporter and anti-Trumper expects that you will just believe what they say solely because they said it. It's not entirely their fault however. Democrats have worked hard to ensure that everyone is taught how to just accept what they are told rather than being able to reason.

    We're all taught growing up that we're reason-minded by simply believing whatever the Democrats want us to believe. About the only way we get any reasoning experience is when sometimes in that very rare case that the left wing position is actually logical.

    So, we get some experience in school with reasoning when unlikely fictitious scenarios are invented to force the left wing position into the logical one. That's why on the left they always do mental gymnastics when confronted with actual facts and real statistics. That's why the left's argument is to use extremes and totally unrealistic . . . but maybe might happen scenarios.

  17. First off… the whining cry baby is not dominant, he’s annoying. His voice could break glass

  18. Short answer, call your opponent out for using logical fallacies, and then sneak some in yourself. I actually agree with most of Shapiro's positions, but I do find his tactics to be a bit cheap. He's smart enough to not have to resort to using fallacies himself.

  19. Reason 1: Talk fast in-front of college students 10+ years younger than you and then pretend you owned the libs when they literally can’t say anything because they have no idea what you just said

  20. Talk fast, ignore your opponents answers, use part of facts and ignore the rest, talk loud, answer quistions not in evidence, use specifics that are not relevant to the subject, talk a lot and drown out others by arguing by rote, repeat other peoples facts but don't defend them.
    It is easy to win debates as long as you are shameless and really don't care about the spirit of the debate, Shapiro is just a loud mouthed example of this whom i was really unaware of in the general sense until he crashed and burned against Neal. note when you make yourself available for an interview it is NOT to have an debate, it is an "Ask and Answer" quorum.

  21. I think it is important to note that conservatives are the only ones that actually think Ben Shapiro is so dominant in debates….because they are easily impressed…and you know, confirmation bias.

  22. Would not want to debate Shapiro. Not up to it. He would win hands down. 😄😁

  23. Ben Shapiro literally wrote a book on how to debate in bad faith. End video. Roll credits.

  24. I guess you did not see his interview with the BBC.

  25. I agree Ben Shapiro is a great debater, but I think Sam Harris got the better of him when they were discussing religion.  Their dialogue was non-adversarial and even cordial, but Sam's skills and knowledge definitely took the prize on that occasion.

  26. All this video does is make the erroneous claim that being dishonest in a debate makes one a winner…

  27. he’s good at debating liberalism because he focuses on truth and logic

  28. This guy is not "smart." he's jus another blithering wind bag. Dimwits think he's smart.

  29. The guy graduated cum laude from Harvard at 23. You think maybe he's just highly intelligent and this is a gross oversimplification.

  30. Facts don't matter in a debate. I'm not sure I know what a debate is anymore. In Shapiro's verbal fisticuffs it's pointless to try to respond to every fallacious thing he throws out. Most of us can't talk as fast as him. you'd never get to your own point. He's going to say what he planned to say regardless of whatever you say. Opponents should also say what they came to say, not be responding​. Exchange your point for his always take it in a different direction: yours.

  31. He's not dominate, he just talks over people as fast as possible. Does everyone remember his meltdown on BBC when he failed to prepare for his interview? It was amazing

  32. Talking fast while saying nothing of substance is hardly a sign of dominance in debate LOL

  33. Shapiro is constantly angry in every debate I ever see him in. In the BBC interview, with Andrew Neil, he gets destroyed.

  34. Ben Shapiro does as much virtue signaling as the college kids, he wrote an entire book about how porn is bad SNOWFLAKE

  35. 1:31 – 20 years later, more Doctors got cancer from CAMELS than any other cigarette!

  36. You can win a debate by bullshiting or fast talkin, that doesn't mean you've won, facts are facts you just proceeded that person's debating skills, facts are facts no one cares about your feelings

  37. So…he’s a master debater?

  38. Andrew Neill owned him in 5 seconds

  39. And …debate is so very important in real life?😜

  40. The reason Ben is so effective at debate is he’s highly intelligent people with his IQ think ahead of the conversation this impossible for the person with average intelligence.

  41. Debate gullible, ignorant, lefty morons, who know nothing. Get em Ben.

  42. 1) talk fast
    2) give a bunch of random stats and definitions
    3) drop in a facts don't care about your feelings every now and then

  43. Did you sneak in a “snuck premise” by suggesting that the wealthy money was stolen versus theirs? When you said Ben claims it’s their money, do you suggest it’s not? Nice video!

  44. When this screwball said " I am not going to discuss if he is right or wrong" it is apparent he is screwy.

  45. Ben Shapiro is a great debater, but the fundamental reason that he wins his arguments is because he is fundamentally right in his positions. 97% of all scientists agree that life begins at conception – so abortion is killing babies. Now you may agree or disagree on abortion, but you can’t disagree that it is killing babies, unless of course you are a science denier.

  46. I can argue these tactics as irrelevant by saying Ben a Sharpio did not invent these techniques and so the description is vaguely supporting Ben Sharpio as a superior debator. I might say he uses evidence to make concrete claims and asks questions when he doesnt have enough info and then compare that to others as being common behavior if I had evidence to support my intuition. The theme mood is wanting to help and using good reasoning. I dont see any coercion with him agreeing with a person and then disagreement with the current videos.I can assume if there is something to disagree with later, it would probably be amicable with the audience. The strongest point was that Ben Sharpio takes insults well and retorts back at his opponent that they still have not given him enough evidence. Having emotional control and humor were also strong points to support Ben Sharpio as a strong speaker. Humor is generated when a person cannot disagree with the speakers evidence. Ambiguity is an example of these because it is truthful to some extent and requires an assumption to investigate the predilection. Another example of humor would be to always have a contrast example with a personal reference thar can be used to create humor because an attacker is looking to increase their ego by shaming their opponent; but if the opponent gives that satisfaction by giving a contrast example, it can distract the listener. Compare and contrast is a strong structure in Ben Sharpios speaking and it is apparent. Asking questions is also an apparent behavior not all speakers use. Some speakers would just be silent and wait for a point or two to be made before responding. On the point made about planned parenthood I believe this isnt necessarily a trapping strategy. I BELIEVE THAT IS COMMON SENSE. women should have the right to choose an abortion if they want to

  47. The real trap is liking this video if you support Ben Sharpio because it ostensibly supports him while it insults Ben Sharpio as manipulative.

  48. Ben is ssooo wrong!

  49. Ben has no enemy , he makes them.
    That cartoon vöice is annoying.

  50. 1. Use logical fallacies (false dichotomies, red herrings, reductio ad absurdisms, etc.) to obfuscate all rational discussion.

    Anyone who has an intermediate understanding of logic realizes Ben does this all the time.

  51. Never ever debate with smart,well educated well informed people also helps him win debates😘😉

  52. Another man debating abortion when it is non of his business. Nobody should debate a woman with what she should do with here body.

  53. Ben speaks the truths the rest of us are too inarticulate to say.

  54. actual dipshit shapiro.

  55. Great video, succinct, clear, and to the point!

  56. 7:32 ok, that’s a stretch. What do you think he should’ve said @ Charisma on Command

  57. That chess move was illegal af! Bishops do NOT jump lol *shaking my head Btw great video otherwise!

  58. Ben is such a douche

  59. A kindergartner could out-debate Don Lemonhead.

  60. Must be a different Ben Shapiro from the one I saw stomping out in a huff when he couldn't handle an interview with Andrew Neil on the BBC. Strange, though – it certainly looks like the same guy and there aren't many guys who inhale helium during a discussion.

  61. 1. Be a right wing
    2. Debate with the left wing
    3. You won

  62. Claiming that his arguments revolve around snuck premises when they are (or could be) honest opinions basically undermines this video's main point

  63. Ben..Your an example why they should legalise abortion. Your Father should have had a wank instead

  64. This is an entertaining video, but it’s wrong. I am a fan of Ben and the Daily Wire, but he doesn’t have a debate strategy, at all. I know because I am an excellent debater. Ben simply sticks to data points (facts), has the knowledge to support them and doesn’t allow his adversaries to drag him off point. It’s a very simple and linear technique.

  65. Gimmicks, just like Trump

  66. Liberals think classic logic and rational thought are just "tactics" and "tricks" of public speaking because that is how those who desire power see public discourse. It has not occurred to them that Ben and others are speaking plainly and honestly because they actually believe it's true.

  67. This FUCKTARD again?

  68. So you imitate Shapiro trying to speak as fast as him?

  69. This hasn't aged well.

  70. "be a complete asswipe jerkface" – Shapiro

  71. Sam Harris ate this bozo for breakfast in a debate…..

  72. Laughs in Andrew Neil

  73. He is regarded as a good debater because America is full of fucktards. If you're reading this you're probably one of 'em.

  74. You guys want to know why when Ben is getting interviewed or on the news he is always on the right side? Because he is always right.

  75. Many years ago I took a course on logic. Try and find one on line. Whats a valid argument?. Learn what is and what isn't valid. Whats a true statement? Whats a relevant statement.?

  76. Question: do we have any younger videos of Ben?

    Did he have a natural knack for some of these tactics? Or do you believe that some, most, or all came from training/schooling as a lawyer?

    He's a young guy so that may not be a question that can be answered.

  77. I don't share many of Ben Shapiro's values or ideas, and to be honest I don't stand the guy and think he's kinda of a jerk. But he has a lot of things I can definitely learn about without having to agree with him.

  78. "Ben Shapiro is one of the most famous and skilled political debaters out there." — In what universe, pray tell?

    Shapiro shows a modicum of success only because he so often debates below his mental weight class. When it's someone of note, however, he shows only brief clips of his opponent (target), monologue's his argument chock full of smarm and overconfident arrogance, allows no rebuttal of any kind from his victim because they aren't present, and then in the vid title proclaims he "destroyed" the person. Yes, how masterful.

    You Shapiro fanboys are out of your minds.

  79. Ben does not "debate." He states facts. Facts are not debatable. Except when Ben is opining about subjective things like whether or not a dress some dude is wearing is pretty or whether a person who doesnt work should have the right to take money from someone who worked, he just espouses facts. You folks (mostly ultra-leftist snowflakes) are free to passionately, emotionally, vehemently argue facts … that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 and call me number-hater etc.

  80. It's obvious you're a shapiro fanboy. You sound like a budget version of him.

  81. 8. Tell the truth.

  82. 10 K socialists hate this video.
    Truth hurts, doesn't it?

  83. Reason #1
    Debate college kids.

  84. Learn to go "limitless", is where's this guy is during these shows.

  85. it also helps that ben is super intelligent and is very well educated and well read, you are implying that anyone can function on his level by simply following your instruction manual, its not that easy.

  86. Sneaked premise. "Snuck" isn't a proper word. 6:10

  87. Ben Shapiro is not a man. It is an insane toy.

  88. A lot of his opponents just spout nonsense they don't understand… what kind of ignoramus thinks abortion doesn't kill babies?

  89. turn seven reasons into 1…the truth

  90. I would love to debate with ben but it would be pointless,, it would be like looking in the mirror and shouting at the grand canyon and getting my voice echoed back

  91. since when did debating become a humiliation contest

  92. In my view, the "winner" of a debate is whomever has moved the dialectic forward, by either learning something new from the conversation, or teaching others to consider a fundamental truth that they had not previously considered in their worldview.
    This apologist for Fascism, Shapiro, and many others like him seek only to impede others from hearing & understanding the legitimate reasons why it is shameful to adhere to any of the bigoted, short-sighted, selfish, perspectives that he is paid to promote.
    At the end of the discussion, if Ben Shapiro had participated, nobody has learned anything that might offer a new and better perspective to better empathize with the views of others, or to better use their own resources for the benefit of everyone, including themselves. Rather, his style of argumentation has been cynically scripted to further inflame the emotional passions of those who had been predisposed to the programmed subservience to their pre-existing indoctrinations, so that their beliefs become yet more polarized, stubborn, unreachably one sided, hateful, and as a result of projection, they will attribute these same traits onto anyone whose beliefs differ from their own. The other parties to any discussion with Shapiro eventually recognize the insincerity of the discursive nature of these publicised events, as their own perspective has not been presented to an audience as a legitimate viewpoint, but merely as a propagandized tool of ridicule for radicalizing fascist hatred & anger against any and all honest introspection & intellectual pursuits.
    In this regard, Ben Shapiro is an emblematic microcosm of the sad realities of Late Capitalism, in which the callous pursuit of monetary rewards have eliminated all intellectually honest voices from being heard, and the death of Truth in the face of the Spectacle.

  93. A debate is a trap I don't enter I just destroy trap and kill pray that is how lion opperate, Jungle fu, Claws Raor or big stinky dump or Love if you no fear and no threat.

  94. Ben should teach a class, he's incredible, like a magician. I envy his mind

  95. He's a little twirp. He lies and says he's 5' 7" when he's really 5' 4".

  96. I tried using these on my parents and got grounded

  97. I think Charlie Kirk is better.

  98. Ben arguably got owned by a British journalist because he wrongly assumed the journalist was on the left because of his line of questioning. The lesson being: Getting something very wrong that other people know is wrong very quickly turns you into a debate loser. Its important to be well research and never say something that other people know to be wrong, if you do you instantly lose credibility. This was a rare mistake from an otherwise very accomplished speaker.

Comment here