Other What do you think of Ben shapiro?

A bit like Milo really. They tend to come equipped with a truthful argument about the oppression of the right and the dangers of political correctness whilst talking in an intelligent manner. This, combined with a couple of logical thought patterns validates them despite their overarching views being complete nonsense.

It's just yet another case of someone using easily defended perspectives to gain validation on unrelated opinions they would otherwise be unable to defend.
 
I think individuals like Shapiro and Crowder are results of one sided and often biased reported.

Honestly, it becomes sad that it's more entertaining to pay for a news service like the daily wire or louder with Crowder then watching syndicated news.
 
I’m very conservative, and if you want to be specific, a paleoconservative. I tend to agree with him on almost everything.

So I like him.
 
i think he’s a massive joke tbh but i do find myself watching some of his stuff sometimes because it can be amusing
 
Well I do like Shapiro, I may not agree with him on everything but on most stuff I do agree.
 
I wish people wouldn't argue about sexual orientation or gender identity. I am fine with the first entirely (I'm questioning, myself), and for the most part, I'm also fine with the second. Let people be who they want to be.

Also, I disagree with his 'no sex before marriage' proposal. Sure, there's a valid point in it, but I find it religiously influenced, and as long as people don't do anything stupid... I don't see an issue in it.
 
I love his show and while I do disagree with a lot of the things he says he is by far one of the most agreeable people on the political scene. Steven Crowder is also all of those things, and I listen to his show although perhaps less than Shapiro's.
 
Well let's go through a few things.

One people are scum on the internet. Good for you, for not going out with that wierdo online. Keep your being a girl secret online, there's a lot of neckbeards who think it's special that a girl is using an internet site. And glad you didn't get attacked if that's the case. However, how is any of this relevant to the topic? You bring up rude remarks on the internet and a bunch of stories, as opposed to real facts. If this is what's to come tommorow, then I think you should just post what you have to say. However, what you have to say won't have any relevance to the conversation.

Because as sad as it sounds, these are all unverifiable claims. Meant to spawn mistrust and fear based on heresay.

Who exactly is "spawning mistrust" here? I mean, someone talks about their personal experiences, and you immediately say "I don't believe you."

Like did you have your sense of irony surgically removed?



Also, hearsay is "I heard someone else say..."

What you quoted is personal testimony. If we were a court, it would be admissible, whereas hearsay would not.

But we're not a court, so terms like "hearsay" really aren't even proper or relevant to use anyway...
 
I'm rather partial to him. I like that he's not afraid to debate any topic and tries to find as much evidence for positions as possible before presenting the public. Plus, I think its a good idea for college studies, a large majority of which tend to be liberal, to have their views challenged and debated so that they can learn to create logical and persuasive arguments for their positions, but also learn to debate in a calm and respectful atmosphere.
 
He can only debate college students, pretty much says enough about him. He debates people who don't have debating skills, often uses incorrect information. I'd respect him if he debated someone like Noam Chompsky but he never would.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top