Seems that Ben has been in the spotlight for quite a while. According to Larry King, Shapiro was active in T&F in at least to middle school (unless of course he was already in HS at age 12).
His straw man game is strong.
If his ability in other fields is any indication he was probably top notch
bump
His buddy Matt Walsh ran a 2:05 800 in HS
Straw-man wrote:
His straw man game is strong.
Can you give an example? I've watched a ton of videos of his debates and have never heard him use a straw man argument.
Genocidal freak.
Shapiro is like Andrea Bocelli or Josh Groban. If you don't know any actual opera stars, they seem like real opera stars. If you do know real opera musicians, it's quite apparent that they aren't the real deal.
Shapiro is a bad philosophers whose audience mostly consists of even worse philosophers. Here's an example: I once heard him talking about why he thinks the justification for judicial punishment is putative in nature rather than simply an effort to prevent future harm. His argument was that our judicial system doesn't consider future harm. Really? So the judicial system that we happen to have in the USA is what determines the nature of justice? You've got to be kidding me.
Of course, it was the sort of thing to which 99% of the people in his audience likely thought "Wow, he's so smart!" But his position was absolute rubbish, and any real philosopher would have recognized that.
Straw-man wrote:
His straw man game is strong.
That's all he's got. Aunt Sally Shapiro. He rarely debates the actual topic or incident instead of resorting to desperate deflection. But right wingers love that type of thing. It's the reason they somehow view him as top notch.
Whenever I've debated a right winger they never own more than 2 or 3 sentences of ammo. They can't believe if they say taxes and government it's not enough. Parry those sentences and they are stuck. I've had countless incidents where they literally turn and walk away while cursing. That's how low the bar is. So they cherish it when they see someone like Sally Shapiro actually backing their side and responding with more than 2 or 3 sentences, even if those sentences are roundabout rubbish.
.
Conservative pundits and authors have a simple task, due to the caliber of their devotees. I give Ann Coulter immense credit for figuring that out very early. She realized she just had to be a screamer and extremer and write very simplistic books with one-word harsh titles like Slander and Treason and Mugged.
killermike wrote:
Shapiro is like Andrea Bocelli or Josh Groban. If you don't know any actual opera stars, they seem like real opera stars. If you do know real opera musicians, it's quite apparent that they aren't the real deal.
Shapiro is a bad philosophers whose audience mostly consists of even worse philosophers. Here's an example: I once heard him talking about why he thinks the justification for judicial punishment is putative in nature rather than simply an effort to prevent future harm. His argument was that our judicial system doesn't consider future harm. Really? So the judicial system that we happen to have in the USA is what determines the nature of justice? You've got to be kidding me.
Of course, it was the sort of thing to which 99% of the people in his audience likely thought "Wow, he's so smart!" But his position was absolute rubbish, and any real philosopher would have recognized that.
Great post. I apologize for likewise using the word rubbish regarding Shapiro's style in a subsequent post. It was unintentional matching. Your post was not here when I read the thread initially and began my post.
I'm not sure if this is the exact video I was remembering, but here is something quite close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJZDBjjY_Y
In this video, Shapiro repeatedly confuses the notion of our justification for judicial action with the actual workings of our judicial system. It is entirely possible that the justification for judicial punishment is X but our judicial system is not-X. In other words, saying "Well, explain how our judicial system works, then" is not a rebuttal to the "quarantine theory" proposed by the guy asking the question. Maybe the notion of quarantining off a criminal just in case he is a threat to society is the only reason to ever punish such a criminal. The fact that our justice system doesn't operate that way is not evidence that such a theory is wrong. There is no reason to think we should be normative about the system we have in place.
It's sort of like saying "It's definitely going to rain today; how else could you explain the fact that I have a rain jacket with me?"
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Straw-man wrote:
His straw man game is strong.
That's all he's got. Aunt Sally Shapiro. He rarely debates the actual topic or incident instead of resorting to desperate deflection. But right wingers love that type of thing. It's the reason they somehow view him as top notch.
Whenever I've debated a right winger they never own more than 2 or 3 sentences of ammo. They can't believe if they say taxes and government it's not enough. Parry those sentences and they are stuck. I've had countless incidents where they literally turn and walk away while cursing. That's how low the bar is. So they cherish it when they see someone like Sally Shapiro actually backing their side and responding with more than 2 or 3 sentences, even if those sentences are roundabout rubbish.
.
Conservative pundits and authors have a simple task, due to the caliber of their devotees. I give Ann Coulter immense credit for figuring that out very early. She realized she just had to be a screamer and extremer and write very simplistic books with one-word harsh titles like Slander and Treason and Mugged.
Ha ha ... from how you write, it’s obvious you are the typical arrogant liberal who thinks much more highly of his abilities than is warranted.
