Ben Shapiro is Wrong

[bulbasaur]

Anyone ever heard of the guy?  The guy is educated and informed, but he makes some mistakes in his arguments.  He actually makes quite a lot of logical flaws, but very few people actually catch it (at least, the people on Youtube don't catch him).  He is usually debating against people with little debate skills, so he often comes out on top.  But, beating up on scrubs don't make you a good baller.  The people he often debates against are trying to appeal to emotions, but the best way to "beat" him is to catch him in a logical flaw because many of his arguments are based completely that the logic is sound.  Thus, any crack in his logic, then his entire argument falls apart.  That's easier said than done (especially if you are on the spot), but it's very possible given his video clips.   

Personally, I don't agree with him on all issues.  He makes some good arguments, and he is entitled to his viewpoints.   But, simply having a good argument doesn't mean that your viewpoint is correct.  Other viewpoints may also have good arguments as well, and he often dismisses them.  He probably does that on purpose though.  Having a civil debate/discussion doesn't make good entertainment. 

With all of that being said, let's break down some of his arguments (he made lots, so this might take a while).  I should note that I only watch him on Youtube, and Youtube only shows mostly clips.  Maybe he goes into more detail in the unedited video, but oh well.  It is what it is at this point.

1.  Shapiro believes in the 2nd Amendment because the people have the right to fight against government tyranny if needed.  He also believes it is within 50 years (or so, the number changes).  The problem with this argument is that he is actually arguing a different argument.  Sure, some people from the left are arguing against the removal of all guns, but many others simply want modified gun laws.  He might have an argument with the first group, but not the second group.  The biggest problem with his argument is his time frame for such an event.  It is based on nothing more than conjecture.  Normally, that would not be a killing blow to an argument because that is simply how he feels.  However, he bashes the opposition so hard because they base their arguments on conjecture, emotion, etc.  If you point out that he is doing the same thing (basing an argument without evidence), then you got him.  He loses....or at least he looks bad. 

That was a lot.  More as I feel like writing more....

[bulbasaur]

2.  He often categorizes the left as one big group.  Maybe he is talking about a certain group of leftist, but he doesn't always make that distinction in his argument.  That alone doesn't mean much in a debate.  However, he makes it into a point to not label him (racist, bigot, misogynist, etc.).  If "labeling" people is wrong, then he is wrong for "labeling" the left.  If he is only talking about a certain group of leftists, then you should also be allowed to talk about a certain group of the right.  He doesn't fall in the category that you are describing, but you also do not fall into the category that he is describing.  By doing this, you negate his argument.  He likes to attack his opposition with generalization s, so this hinders his argument. 

[bulbasaur]

3.  Race vs. Culture.  Shapiro makes this argument quite often, and surprisingly, people don't call him out for it.  Whatever the issue may be, he might dismiss the issue as a race issue but consider it a culture issue.  He fails to understand that race relations is a part of culture.  Look up the definition of "culture."  Generally speaking, culture is "the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society." Race relations fall into this category.  They are not exclusive from each other.  The biggest kicker about this:  Shapiro is Jewish!  Being "Jewish" can be a reference to race, religion, culture, all of the above, some of the above, etc.  Similarly, race relations and culture are linked. 

This isn't the only time he tried to argue semantics.  He actually does this trick quite a bit.  Strangely, no one calls him out on it. 

[bulbasaur]

4. Gay Marriage vs. Religious Freedom vs. The Civil Right Act of 1964 vs. The 2nd Amendment. 

Okay, this is a big one because he is wrong on one of these, and being wrong on one of them means his entire argument falls apart.  So... he is against gay marriage because it infringes on religious freedom.  He further states that a cake shop should be allowed NOT to cater a gay wedding based on religious freedom.  This argument is questionable, but let's assume it is true.  Assuming his argument here is true, he now has a problem.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that restaurants cannot discriminate based on religion.  If he wants to argue that the CRA can be interpreted in many ways, then so can the 2nd Amendment.  Now, his gun argument is in question.  And now, the problems with his arguments are just snowballing. 

His logic here is flawed. 

[bulbasaur]

5. Gay Marriage vs. Religious Freedom...agai n.

So he makes the conjecture that gay marriage will lead to government regulating religion.  But, he provides no evidence.  He often attacks people for making claims without evidence, but here he is doing the same thing.  In any case, his conjecture makes no sense.  Letting you do whatever you want in your church and letting others do what they want in their church is the very application of religious freedom.  Using his logic, gay marriage should actually be legal. 

He actually continues more on this topic, but maybe later.... 

[bulbasaur]

Just some dude who rants about politics.  Look him up if you want to give him money. 

Never heard of him.

[Hung_Low]

It's funny how this guy labeled the left as one big group and you disagree... yet the left, Liberals and Democrats always, always label the right, conservatives, or Republicans as one big group and it's ok. Just as ignorant people claimed all religious, especially Christians, don't believe in science.

[bulbasaur]

So you admit that he contradicts himself.  Ok.   

It's funny how this guy labeled the left as one big group and you disagree... yet the left, Liberals and Democrats always, always label the right, conservatives, or Republicans as one big group and it's ok. Just as ignorant people claimed all religious, especially Christians, don't believe in science.

[dogmai]

It's funny how this guy labeled the left as one big group and you disagree... yet the left, Liberals and Democrats always, always label the right, conservatives, or Republicans as one big group and it's ok. Just as ignorant people claimed all religious, especially Christians, don't believe in science.

Yea. Some people do that a lot. But you know what's worse? It is when they complain about others doing that and they themselves are doing it in that exact complaint. Maybe those people are just too dumb to even know that they are doing it. What do you think?

[YAX]

Uhh don't know him.. don't care what he thinks. 

[Believe_N_Me]

Ben Shapiro is sharp. He would crush you in a debate.

No Liberal has the galls to debate him because he ALWAYS OWNS THEM.

Y'all can't defeat the great dangerous faggot Milo Y. either.

I love the fact that you Liberals can't bring yourself to call him the dangerous faggot. 

It's the name of his tour.

Love them both.

BEN SHAPIRO OWNS YOUR WEAK A.SS.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*

First, winning a debate doesn't mean that the person is actually correct.

Second, Ben wouldn't beat me in a debate.  He makes too many fundamental errors.  He never debates anyone of good competition. 

Third, Milo is worse than Ben.  Ben can actually support some of his arguments.  On the other hand, Milo does nothing more than just insult and fear monger.  Milo's argument are completely nonacademic. 

Fourth, lots of liberals refer to him as the dangerous faggot.  Yet, another "fact" you got wrong. 

Fifth, tell us about that 2/3 Compromise.  It's hard to take your analytical abilities seriously when you can't get your information correct.  PWNED!   

Ben Shapiro is sharp. He would crush you in a debate.

No Liberal has the galls to debate him because he ALWAYS OWNS THEM.

Y'all can't defeat the great dangerous faggot Milo Y. either.

I love the fact that you Liberals can't bring yourself to call him the dangerous faggot. 

It's the name of his tour.

Love them both.

BEN SHAPIRO OWNS YOUR WEAK A.SS.

[bulbasaur]

Let's add to the list....

6. Ben likes to argue semantics.  He thinks arguing semantics is relevant, but it is not.  Arguing semantics doesn't mean that the issues aren't real.  For example, whenever "social justice" comes up, he rants on how it should just be "justice."  He never actually addresses the issue at hand.  He just drops the argument after complaining about semantics.  He does this tactic quite often.  Whenever he can't counter the evidence or the issue, he'll redirect it as semantics. 

[bulbasaur]

7.  Ben resorts to ranting. 

Okay, this isn't really a flaw, but it is a flawed tactic.  Whenever the opposition actually makes a good point, Ben tries to take over the debate by just ranting.  In many of his "debates," it is not actually a real debate.  There is no time limit.  Thus, he will just try to rant on and on in hopes of silencing everyone else.  He feels that if he talks the most and gets the last word, he wins.  Hmm, that sounds like some PH people here.