Yeah, clearly debating itself is a skill that can “win” a debate regardless of the worth of the ideas being proposed, and with someone like Shapiro, it brings into question the whole idea of what constitutes being good at debate in the first place. He uses weird rhetorical flourishes to make it seem like he’s been victorious in an argument, when all he’s actually done is change the subject to discuss a straw-man he’s invented instead. I think he just ends up confusing his debate opponent more than anything, but for people who agree with him, that’s a “win.”
So yeah, in the grand scheme of things for someone in congress, who needs to understand both the law and how it will impact society (and thus how society works in the first place), having clerked at the Supreme Court doesn’t actually mean much.
There are some public figures who, by all accounts, are incredibly mediocre but who I was shocked to discover had clerked for Supreme Court justices. I shouldn’t have been, as it turns out going to the right schools and getting the right degrees and knowing the right people plays an outsized role in that pathway. But even if that wasn’t the case, the law requires a pretty narrow set of intellectual abilities and can lead to some warped thinking, as it’s about having a desired outcome and making arguments that it fits within the law, reality be damned. (Which is why, e.g. a UC Berkeley law professor was a leading light in the creationist movement.)
