i read "teabagging"

@@HarryNicNicholas oh god I’m so sorry to hear that

​@@HarryNicNicholasI hope you get well soon

Me too! Really. We just did not read the "eb" I think.

"He ghosted me because I wasn't doctor."

He said a quick "ah..." in the first 15 seconds :D

As i read this, he went “uhm…”

Um, I can’t even do that in the comment section.

as I read this I heard him say um

My grandfather told me, these are called 'thinking words', remove them from your vocabulary and you'll instantly sound a lot smarter than most people around you. Speak with conviction.

A good and honest theist will question their belief pretty regularly.

@@roems6396 idk if you're joking but he meant that he's so handsome that even lesbians will fall for him in a joking manner

@@paulsacramento5995 just questioning isn't enough. you gotta make a rational assessment

@@MorbiusBlueBalls Absolutely, that is why I said a "good and honest theist".

@@paulsacramento5995 This just isn’t true. I know that theists say that they question their beliefs, but they don’t. They are programmed not to do so. Questioning means that they don’t have enough faith and then they won’t go to heaven. That’s what childhood indoctrination,with the concept of hell, does to people. If they truly question their beliefs and research the claims, then they become agnostic atheists.

Or a Gish gallop

That's reductive.

@@TheShortStory Gish Gallop is definitely the best way to describe him. I remember watching a youtube short of a linguist breaking apart the way Ben talks and showing that it's mostly for-show and put people off.

​@@chocopuddingcup83 That's why he promoted clips of himself "owning a SJW" on college campuses, he would overwhelm young minds, then use it to mock the Progressive- left. I believe he engages in sophistry as a form of deflection, much like Jordan Peterson does.

A ZIONIST LEPRECHAUN.

This is from months ago

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right

😂

That's Shapiro's M.O. Very similar to Jordan Peterson. When they are debating more sophisticated people, like Alex, they put on a facade of respectability and seriousness, but once they are in more familiar and friendly territory they revert to being utter hacks, strawmanning everything on sight and making the most ludicrous statements imaginable. Peterson is the worst. He goes from telling people to steel man their opponent's arguments to calling everyone who disagrees with him radical Marxists who want to throw everyone in a gulag.

exactly, because that was the right rhetorical move in this situation. a gish gallop is not going to work with a practiced debater if the conversation with alex had *any* impact on shapiro i haven't seen evidence of it. so in my mind, the parsimonious answer is obvious and bleak

Then you haven't watched enough of his debates. He behaves this way most of the time when he isn't being heckled by college kids trying to play gotcha.

@@sandmantheman that may be true but he does say the most absurd shit in those interactions with college kids. someone.. smarter, would do that

@@sandmantheman Like his interview with Andrew Neil?

Yeah, Alex compelled me to do some research of the Bible and it definitely strengthened my faith. Truth is never afraid of questions, so Alex is welcome to ask more

Alex can probably turn atheists into theists and theists into atheists if he wanted to lol

Atheism is the better position. Not having yourself defined as moral or not by the criteria of adherence to cults standards is liberating and helps you become a better person.

@@86Corvus ow yeah, shedding morals is definitely a positive move

Not to mention not having to normalize fairytale happenings as facts does wonders for your rational analysis of reality. Ofcourse its a bit catch 22 where you already have to act more rationally to reject the fairytales as truth and see them in proper context which is -fairytales...

Facial pubes almost never look good.

Do you mean how it is in this clip, or has it been even more grown-out at other times? Because in this video it looks a bit too unkempt for my taste.

@@alaron5698 I’m saying in this video I think it looks great for his face. Recently he’s gone for more of the close cut groomed beard.

Too brutal for youtube.

Yooooooo HAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

Philosophical.

@@williamwilson6499 How long did it take you to think of such a witty and constructive reply...? Out of interest, do you spend your entire day and night going through you-tube comments looking for typographical errors or is it only when you are bored?

He didn't do that in conversation with Alex. And infact Alex belaboured his points for rhetoric, which is a different kind of nuisance.

I'll always find it hilarious that creationists have these things named after them

William Lane Craig says, "hold my beer."

@@mattjones4257 You have no understanding whatsoever. WLC does not gish gallop. He lists his arguments in a formal debate where you have eg 15 minutes. The opponent can do their research. and has time to reply to e.g. one or two of them, and WLC always addresses the opponent's points. The opponent is free to pick which of WLC's arguments to deal with.

I am an atheist myself, but I am a big fan of Ben as well. I was so happy when they finally met face to face. I guess most people who tries to engage Ben has a hidden agenda when they ask questions, you might think that you can disguise it in a form of formal question but, Ben has gone through a lot of debates that he knows which questions are legit. Alex came into this debate without any agenda but he genuinely wants to ubderstand Ben's view and also put his own view on the table for Ben to pick apart. Granted that their topic is about religion and not politics.

Clearly the intellectual he just debated doesn't agree with you. Food for thought.

I just today learned the phrase “The Gish Gallop” (I have friend of that last name, who mentioned that it’s named after a relative of theirs.) It’s prioritizing the quantity of your arguments instead of their quality, in order to swamp or overwhelm your opponent. I haven’t watched the whole debate yet, but it seems like Alex didn’t get sucked into that, didn’t just lose his cool (which B.S. often counts on so he can berate you for being overly emotional etc.) and was able to see some of the redeeming qualities in Ben

I would congratulate him for being one of the few adults with the stones to debate Shapiro. The challenge is always out there. Only students attempt to take it on

Being a professional atheist is exceptionally easy.

@@AJHart-eg1ys Lol this is hilarious. Plenty of people see what the media character ben shapiro is, but they don't have the will or means to confront him in a debate. Debate is spectacle regardless; it's almost a useless endeavor outside of making money and enriching the media apparatus.

@@VSPoliFight Absolutely, as atheist is a pretty easy concept.

@@Rockyzach88 Shapiro has absolutely settled into a niche with the rise of Daily Wire, etc. And I accept that our younger generations do not see the value in discussion, since they generally present themselves as being too stupid to see the difference between disagreement and hate. The fact that they also present as incapable of telling a good argument with a bad one has produced a more spectacle-like environment where earnest exchanges of ideas is fairly rare. This is not by accident. When one side overwhelmingly insists on using a foundation of feelings, sketchy "logic" and misrepresentation, it's no surprise it doesn't want a solid back-and-forth regarding those ideas. Take care.

As someone who expected to be really uncomfortable I'd say just go for it. Hitchens manages to be so obviously wrong that all my embarrassment is towards him, not Alex. And it's pretty funny to see someone absolutely blow themselves up in front of the most charitable and calm debater. At multiple points Peter complains about something, Alex says he's more than happy to pivot the discussion and Peter just gets more pissed.

@@davishall Hitchens is petty and rather juvenile. You can see glimpses of those traits in his infamous debate with his brother Christopher.

@@godisbollocks Owen Jones did a interview with Peter 10+yrs ago, he was relaxed & opened up about his life- having a cold, strict, detached father in the military, and wanting to become a respected public figure, his brother's success bothered him, Peter wanted to counter Christopher's ideology. Alex's interview really brought the ingrained petulance out in Peter, which exposed the Tory brain rot & his self righteous entitlement. Embarrassingly! Reminds me of Prince Andrews attitude. Ann Widdecombe too. The hubris, while looking a fool.

@JEdwarrd The funniest part of the debate was when Peter attempted to quote Rudyard Kipling, messed up the quote completely while chastising himself for messing it up, then Christopher gets up there and quotes the passage perfectly from memory without having been prepared to do so.

@@godisbollocks Agreed😋 I find it fascinating to observe the psychological dynamics between ppl, I brought my popcorn for that interview/ debate.

I haven't seen it yet, just curious from someone who's watched it and clearly organized some insights or outcomes from the conversation: you mention that one of the concessions is that God is not always moral. Was there a distinction made in gnostic thinking/philosophy or immaterial divinity vs. the materialistic God-creator of the universe?

He has always admitted those things lol

@@mindlander You're not supposed to give him any props at all

Thing is, he does that all the time in debates. He'll concede things and acknowledge good points. Then the next week you'll see making the exact same points he conceded the week before.

@@RottingDragon it's just a ploy, give a little and seem genuine while you continue to be dishonest. or maybe not dishonest but a disgusting person.

On Alex's channel: " Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview"

In other words, avoid the topics that expose Ben.

yeah that is what it means, i thought that was overt.

@@christopherneal3138 Overt to anyone who understands the art & purpose of obfuscation for propaganda purposes.

It’s a shame because Alex would probe well around it. But it makes sense that Ben would be exhausted about it plus his view is pretty easily findable

@@khaiuschill310 A shame? It's deliberate intellectual dishonesty on Ben's part. Remember when Ben flipped out at the British Conservative reporter? I do. He is spineless.

No

or you could recognize that the net effect of ben shapiro is negative, and actually have some backbone. wow, it turns out life is rough, and full of decisions.

What do you mean by that?

This is absolutely proof no god exists. Things have properties.

I dont see the correlation ngl

@@finlaytemple1744 Sorry, I meant to say social media is to blame for people who are so sure that they're are right when they're not.

@arkyudetoo9555 ahhhh right I see, yeah I get that view, definitely in part to rampant misinformation in my opinion

It is Daily-wire is a business They do content farming The most glaring one is brett her desk,chair table lamp Are all in an office at the daily wire building The backkgroud to her videos is a wall paper to make it look like a room Its a cubicle Behund the camera their is a makeup artist Lighting crew And sound crew She probbaly has a team that picks her video to react Its all show, which i understand but goes to show these are doing something to be grabbing that much attention And it cant be good

aka Spectacle debate.

re listen to this conversation, that is not at all true

@@seanwalsh7542 give me a time stamo where he says he was wrong

​@@m.n.executor1902😂🤣 why would he admit to being wrong when he's not nor believes himself wrong. Rephrasing your point isn't an admission of being wrong it's placating opposition that lacks understanding

@@VSPoliFight Wow. Just wow

@@m.n.executor1902 lol yes I am flabbergasted by your bias and lack of self awareness.

That’s such a twisted logic! 😂

If we ask whether it is necessary (religion), then we have to go through every religion.

​@@arkyudetoo9555That depends on whether one wishes to define their essences as different

@@robinrehlinghaus1944 Agreed

@@deanlowdon8381Which part/logic is twisted on his comment?

Classic autism moment

If you’re referring to the recent one I don’t think anyone “won” it was just an immensely deep dialogue where both sides largely reaffirmed each others opinions

Destiny doesn't have the brains to debate a sack of hammers. 😅

I would tend to disagree, rapidly speaking is very, very difficult to just 'use as a tactic. And I do notice it in fact comes naturally to a lot of intelligent people.

@@Cecilia-ky3uw I try to avoid thinking people are stupid. I have so often been wrong about it. It particularly distresses me when, after the briefest interaction, one classifies the other as stupid. It seems to be a common human weakness to say such things. Even so, in my life experience, I've noticed a higher speed of talking among those who don't spend time thinking. I hear many, many words that don't say much. By contrast, undeniably intelligent people spend most time listening. When they talk, their words are carefully chosen. So, in a general sense, I cannot agree with your premise. Talking fast seems pretty widespread across the intelligence spectrum.

@@frankhoffman3566 Again, I find that talking very fast is actually more of a trait for those above average in intelligence in particular. You cannot generate words from nothing 'as a tactic' that requires real brainpower behind it. Besides your whole schlack about 'listening' isn't so much a reality as a stereotype. Many and I daresay most intelligent folks are passionate and outspoken, idealistic and beaming(or perhaps cynical and observant of what they see) often times. They have a lot to say and not enough mouths, time and language to say them. And since we're going in conjecture, while the above is moreso backed by other statements here and there, this one is me: When they're quiet, it's not because they've tempered down for the most part, it's because hail has pelted them back into their shells, and left them shy little things. How have they been pelted? By the disapproval of others. They talk too much, diverge too much in interests, they start to realise their only way to fit in is silence.

@@Cecilia-ky3uw ... I do not know what a "schlack" is, so it's hard to rebut ithat I can only assure you that I've lived a long life and met a lot of people along the way. I have never been prone to stereotypes which I find lazy.. My observations have governed my conclusions. Since I accept that my own observations are not universal, It is quite possible that others experience things differently. I nevertheless do stand by my conclusions and I do wish you well.

Similar way with words... Not there yet though

And yet it never happened with Alex...

​@@Mopark25 It happens to most, when they talk about something they burn for.🖖🏻

Nice excuse for you being unable to prove Ben wrong buddy... cope harder

​@terrencemoldern2756 it's exactly what he does, Peterson does the same thing. Where they come unstuck is when the other person doesn't get sucked in and distracted. Both know thier arguments are pretty easy to pick apart so they know they have to control the pace and direction of the conversation rather than actually address the point. Beating up on college kids is easy but they both come unstuck when they come up against prepared experienced debaters.

@@markreardon6663 lol what person has ever truly won a debate with Ben or Jordan Peterson? There’s pretty much no one aside from that BBC reporter guy with Ben years ago... and he only lost that because he TOOK it as a debate and attack when the BBC reporter didn’t even DISAGREE with him... literally the only example of someone “not getting sucked into” what Ben or JP does... Wasn’t even debating... So really I don’t see what you are on about with that being a supposedly losing strategy. But that’s besides the point. As you aren’t even right. Like I said. How’s about you actually PROVE what Ben is saying wrong instead of whining like a preschooler... It’s honestly a joke how sad sacks of 💩 like you try and devalue and belittle Ben Shapiro... yet you are the same people who will NEVER debate or prove him wrong. I mean seriously. Also I love it when you people bring up college students... 1. Ben debates plenty more besides College students. In fact he literally has a segment on his show called “Ben Talks With (Blank)” where he often hosts other prominent political figures, politicians, influencers and much more. Often times being people he disagrees with as well. 2. That really isn’t as much of a slam dunk as you pretend it is. They’re COLLEGE STUDENTS... their meant to be the smartest and brightest young minds in our nation. To the point that they get to attend prestigious institutions and academy’s. Being more well educated then over 60% of the average populace... So really them being college students is in fact a telling sign for how strong Ben’s points are... as even the so called “Intellectuals” of our society fail to prove them wrong. Are College kids not that bright? Yeah I’d say so... but that is more telling of how bad the education system has gotten and that’s not why Ben goes to campuses for his speeches anyway. In fact, yeah despite your downright awful claim... Ben has from my knowledge never gone to a College to debate any specific student in his career. Maybe professors and deans but never a student... what you must be talking about are the Q&A portions of his talks. Which in case you don’t know... Aren’t even meant to be debates... their meant to be questions the students can ask. So again, nice try with your whole false idea for how things work.

Inaccurately, too. O'Connor tried to reduce all of the arguments and as usual failed to do so successfully. He has tried this with Trent Horn, Bishop Barron, Jordan Peterson, and William Lane Craig to no results because he is fundamentally wrong.

He's so often wrong that everyone knows the one or two times he got flustered, rather than the hundreds that he embarrassed dimwitted people spouting nonsense. 😅

What war? If you're to the Palestine war then it isn't thousands of years old. It's moreso another instance of settler-colonial imperialism as seen in America or during Hitler's Lebensraum.

How do you know it isnt your side whos wrong and that ben is actually correct?