British conservative DESTROYS Ben Shapiro

Originally published at:


Is he witty-witty, or just witty-compared-to-other-conservative-pundits-witty?


He’s load-bearing drywall.


Mr. Shapiro’s tantrum was very poorly informed, but I was hoping to see his actual arguments destroyed.


fast-talking pundit who regularly ‘owns’ aggressive campus students with his quick wit and rapid repartee.

He probably does do that, with practice, but I think it’s probably overrated. A lot of the YouTube segments of him “owning a lefty student” look cherry-picked.


I assumed the word DESTROYS was being used ironically here, but it turns out that no. Which is a shame because it’s a truly vile and despicable clickbait trope, and doubly disappointing because I thought I might see an amusing video of someone simply blowing “Ben Shapiro” up with a bazooka.


His arguments have been destroyed several times over by Breadtubers. He does well under certain debate conditions but his arguments crumble when there is time to construct a counter argument with references.

It is worth remembering that Ben Shapiro’s attitude to debate is that it is more important to win than to be right.


He is fast talking and says “the left” every other sentence. So he makes his points with quickness and certainty, and you don’t even have time to think “Yes, but…” or “Wait, is that true?”

I find him way more palatable than some other pundits like Mark Levine, for example. He at least will on occasion acknowledge some valid counter points. But most of the time he is cherry picking the worst arguments counter to his own, makes them seem like the “mainstream” counter argument, and then proceeds to mock and counter said argument. Sometimes he is correct in his counter, only because the position he is commenting against has been so distorted it’s almost parody. (i.e. cow farts - the left doesn’t want you to eat hamburgers.)

That said - I fucking HATE every god damn title that uses the term “destroy in it”. Other than maybe that Metallica song.


There’s really no point. It’s a step up from the Texas republican who thinks vaccines are sorcery. The “actual arguments” are a rationalizations for fundamentally emotional religious beliefs and to take them in good faith is to accept an invincible frame of reference.

Consider his media persona, “facts don’t care about your feelings”. Some people don’t see the forest for the trees. Ben thinks the forest is a tree.


I think the tantrum was a defensive move to avoid, or get out of, being cornered. Perhaps he wasn’t prepared to minimize or dismiss this particular set of critical points.


Ding ding ding.

He talks fast and cherry picks data to sounds scholarly. To the uneducated and ignorant he sounds smart, his points fit my bias and he’s loud, so he must be correct.


If you watch the full 16 minute interview, he’s pretty fairly destroyed. Looks like a twat in the process, too, where he just attacks wording rather than addressing anything substantive.

My favorite part is towards the end where the interviewer continues to ask him whether he’s part of the larger reason why there’s so much political divisiveness and anger in America, and then references over and over quotes from Shapiro, and apparently Shapiro’s only recourse is to personally attack the unflappable interviewer for his assumed political views.


He’s a sophist. He’s good at reframing the conversation and moving goalposts, but there is surprisingly little substance to his arguments.

Challenge him, and he tries to discredit you by stating that you’re a liberal. As if that somehow diminishes you’re argument. A lot of times people who disagree with you use different labels for their beliefs. That’s typically how debates work.


I knew the name Ben Shapiro, but this is the first time I’ve seen or heard him.


Good god, but he’s an obnoxious creep. A smug, grating twerp.


Again, most of the liberals I know are decent, intelligent and thoughtful people; meanwhile, Ben Shapiro gets to make money being a dumbass with a copy of Atlas Shrugged: The Manga and some Debate Team 101 pointers. Lord, please give me the paycheck of one conservative 'intellectual.


Also, the pro-choice position hardly goes against “Judeo-Christian” values. American evangelicals have only been pro-life since the 80s!


He’s yet another bitter conservative HS debate club nerd who’s been bolstered by the wingnut welfare apparatus since he was young. Fast-talking hucksters always seem smart to the rubes, so combined with the usual Libertarian panoply of fallacy-laden bad-faith arguments he stands out a bit from the others.

This interview shows the limits of that shoddy tactic: little Ben didn’t do his homework, got called on it, and had a meltdown.


Part of me almost feels sorry for him since he’s apparently been a target of antisemitic attacks from the Alt-Right since leaving Breitbart, but on the other hand fuck him for his role in helping the Alt-Right’s rise in the first place.


That’s how I look at it. No sympathy for kapos here.


Looking at the clip (and the longer clips), it does seem that he does not really argue, but uses a mix of fast-talking non sequiturs, poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks.

He reminds me of a few GURPS rogues that I played, where I like to have and use a high Fast-Talk skill score, though he also seems to have taken the mental disadvantages Bully and No Sense of Humor.