Who Do You Consider to be the Best Debater Today? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate platform globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Who Do You Consider to be the Best Debater Today?

Debate Information

I would say Ben Shapiro.
ZeusAres42Starlord616PlaffelvohfenjeleyseDeeAlofRITreeMan



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    I do not know about today, but Milton Friedman has been the best debater I have ever seen. He always responded to all arguments logically, his arguments were smooth and self-consistent, he could utterly crush his opponent's arguments with just a few words - and, at the same time, he was always extremely polite and made his opponents feel not embarrassed, but impressed and educated.

    The latter is a very rare trait, and I cannot think of a single debater I know today who would not, in their responses, try, in some way, to humiliate this opponent. Ben Shapiro is one of the better ones in this respect, so your choice is not unwarranted - but he still, behind the facade of a gentleman, often inserts sarcastic remarks indirectly belittling his opponent. Something Milton Friedman never did.

    I also should mention Sam Harris, with whom I disagree on virtually everything (except his opinions on free speech and religion), but who possesses much of the same traits Milton Friedman did. He also listens very carefully to his opponents and always responds exactly to what they said, as opposed to what 99.9% debaters do, which is nitpicking a few snippets from the opponents' argument that are easy to attack and then attacking them, ignoring the central point of the argument.
    Debater123ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePRO
  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -   edited January 27
    Noam Chomsky. Although I don't always agree with him.
    anarchist100




  • Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.

    This guy beat William Lane Craig ina  debate with ease!
    PlaffelvohfenDee



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1751 Pts   -   edited January 28
    I used to like Ben Shapiro but not really a fan of him as a debator anymore. After listening to him multiple times it becomes apparent that it's basically no more than the same repetitive B*S.

    Richard Dawkings, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are/were not bad. However, it seems that over time they deviated more away from actual science and more into the realm of fame.
    Happy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 ;
    Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.

    This guy beat William Lane Craig ina  debate with ease!
    You're giving William Lane Craig way to much credit here, the guy's entire tactic is to just say what Christians already believe then assert that he won.
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenDeexlJ_dolphin_473mickyg
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited January 28
    @ZeusAres42

    That is the impression I have always had of Ben Shapiro: he makes good points, but he never really gives any new insights, repeating the same set of talking points instead. I actually like his interviewing activities more than his debating ventures, as during interviews he actually asks interesting and thought-provocative questions. During debates, it does not feel like he is actively thinking about the subject at hand - instead, he is thinking about which of the N number of arguments he has prepared to pull out to "win" the debate.
    He also speaks way-way too fast (I am saying it as an ultra-fast speaker myself), which, I think, is a strategy he subconsciously uses to overwhelm his opponents. I believe that a proper debater should respect their opponent, give them time to process the argument and make the life of the audience members easier.

    Jordan Peterson, who mostly has the same views as Ben, is much more sophisticated, and no two debates/interviews/lectures with him are ever the same. I do not like his dark outlook on humanity - it seems that he is always looking for the worst manifestations of human nature (understandable, as a clinical psychologist) - but listening to him actually makes me think, whether I agree with him on something or not.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    I would say Ben Shapiro is a good debater, but if you listen to him for long enough it's kind of hard to actually accept anything he says. He constantly straw-mans the opposition, resorts to ad hominem, and gish-galops. He can of course, use this last tactic better than anyone else, so fast in fact that the audience can't keep up. He is clearly very intelligent, but that intelligence is directed in a way that is superficial, and often intellectually absent.
    Did Trump Tweet My Blood IS the Vaccine

    Besides this, his voice is really annoying to the point that even if I could agree with anything he says, I don't think I would want to pay much attention to him in a live debate. He is very clearly "damaged goods", in that he is unapologetically blunt and emotionally retarded. He has a superiority complex built on top of a fragile ego damaged by years of neglect and abuse. This shows in his snobbish demeanor and elitist attitude. His motto: "Facts don't care about your feelings" is a logical travesty, yet it is peddled as being logically sound.
    DeeDebater123ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -   edited January 28
    I think Matt Delahunty is an excellent debater and has no degrees in anything , he ties people in knots by constantly demonstrating the logical flaws in their arguments , like Hitchens he’s wonderful when he looses the cool and takes no prisoners.

    I watch him most weeks on the wonderful Atheist experience on You Tube

    The most annoying debater I’ve ever seen was the whiney voiced Lane Craig who most walk around on egg shells out of deference for his undeserved reputation as a great debater , his arguments are mostly dreadful and his voice reaches that whiney pitch when he thinks he’s making a winning statement....very annoying 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 727 Pts   -  
    Jordan Peterson.  I'm not sure I'd consider him a debator, but his wealth of knowledge is immense.  He doesn't really seem to have a political agenda.  He seems to place truth above all else.
    Debater123Happy_KillbotDee
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot Where has he used ad hominem, 'gish-galoped', and straw manned during a debate?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Where has he used ad hominem, 'gish-galoped', and straw manned during a debate?
    Basically all of them.

    What was the most recent debate he did? I bet I could find at least one of these things fairly quickly.

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    He doesn't really seem to have a political agenda. 
    You are talking about the guy who was largely outside the public sphere until he took a stance on the use of gendered pronouns right?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.




  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot I've looked at a lot of his debates, he doesn't resort to insults or pervert their opponents from what I've seen for his advantage. I'm not sure what his most recent debate was, I think he hasn't done any recently because of the lockdown.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    I've looked at a lot of his debates, he doesn't resort to insults or pervert their opponents from what I've seen for his advantage.
    Ad hominem =/= insults. He definitely attacks his opponents constantly though. Do you remember that interview on the BBC with Andrew Neil? He tells him to admit he is a leftist despite the fact that Neil is the head of the right-wing column. I think that's the interview that made me realize how much of a joke Ben Shapiro is. Neil is litteraly trying to introduce him to the British public and he makes himself look like an dry insufferable cunt.

    I didn't put this in my scathing critique above, but the only reason he looks good at all is because he mostly debates college kids who don't have a strong grasp on their own views or critical thinking, so his normal dirty tactics work.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot 'Ad hominem =/= insults.' Ad hominem is the attacking of the messenger, not the message, which almost always leads to insults. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

    'Do you remember that interview on the BBC with Andrew Neil?' Yes, he messed up that one time, but that's the only time I've ever seen him mess up on a debate.

    ' so his normal dirty tactics work.' I didn't realize objectivity is a dirty tactic.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -   edited January 28
    @Debater123 ;
    Ad hominem is the attacking of the messenger, not the message, which almost always leads to insults.
    No. You really need to read a book. Seriously, you have no excuse for making such mindless mistakes since you can just look this stuff up.
    Yes, he messed up that one time, but that's the only time I've ever seen him mess up on a debate.
    That wasn't really a debate, just an interview. It does expose his character, although you can see that every day on his show which is even worse.
    I didn't realize objectivity is a dirty tactic.
    He is rarely objective, although he does a very good job to hide it so that most morons don't notice. For example, he likes to point out that "it's a scientific fact that a zygote is alive" and then uses this to assert that abortion should therefore be illegal. Notice how this is missing a piece, an assumption, a first premise: namely that killing anything alive is always wrong, a position that Ben doesn't even hold on account of he has threatened Beto O roke with violence.



    This is a very "feelings" based assumption. The tragedy of Ben Shapiro, is that he yells at everyone else for using feelings and not facts, then ignores his own advice in favor of using his own feelings, which he then buries in gish-galop and uses ad hominem to obfuscate.

    A real loser, he is.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot 'No. You really need to read a book. Seriously, you have no excuse for making such mindless mistakes since you can just look this stuff up.' Ignoring the facts and sources 101 from @Happy_Killbot ;

    'That wasn't really a debate, just an interview. It does expose his character, although you can see that every day on his show which is even worse.' You don't like his character, I do, since this is completely subjective we cant argue this.

    'For example, he likes to point out that "it's a scientific fact that a zygote is alive" and then uses this to assert that abortion should therefore be illegal.' This isn't an appeal to emotion, you have failed to explain how his argument is feeling-based rather than fact-based on abortion.

    'namely that killing anything alive is always wrong' If he believed that, he would be a vegan.

    ' which he then buries in gish-galop and uses ad hominem to obfuscate.' I am still asking for examples.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -   edited January 28
    @Debater123 ;
    Ignoring the facts and sources 101 from
    Ad hominem =/= insults
    https://thomaswell.medium.com/please-ad-hominem-doesnt-mean-insult-1b849eed632

    You are ignoring facts and sources, not me.
    You don't like his character, I do, since this is completely subjective we cant argue this.
    If you like his character, then that speaks very poorly of your own, does it not?
    This isn't an appeal to emotion, you have failed to explain how his argument is feeling-based rather than fact-based on abortion.
    You should read my entire statement then before responding instead of being so impatient. I explain it in the very next statement half-wit.
     If he believed that, he would be a vegan.
    Yes, he should be a vegan. His entire worldview is based on a contradiction.
    I am still asking for examples.
    I have already given 2. Find his most recent debate and let's deconstruct.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    So much for your source, also I don't even get why you're arguing with the website where you use to call out people on fallacies

    'If you like his character, then that speaks very poorly of your own, does it not?' This is in the eyes of the beholder, say what you want about me, it means nothing.

    'You should read my entire statement than before responding instead of being so impatient. I explain it in the very next statement half-wit.' Nice ad-hominem attack, and yes, I read the following segment before posting my response, and half of it was irrelevant(the part with Beto) and you argued that he appealed to emotion because he thinks it's bad to kill people that are alive, that isn't just an emotional argument, its a logical one as well, as its to think that killing your own species when you have a choice is beneficial to the progress of mankind.

    'I have already given 2. Find his most recent debate and let's deconstruct.' You've, given none... the one about Beto proved absolutely nothing apart from him being protective of his children(which is natural) and the one about him making the argument that since the zygote is alive, (and therefore an alive human), it should be illegal to kill it. And I have not found his most recent debate.

    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    So much for your source, also I don't even get why you're arguing with the website where you use to call out people on fallacies
    The link should be fixed now.

    Not arguing against: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem which demonstrates that ad hominem is not an insult.
     This is in the eyes of the beholder, say what you want about me, it means nothing.
    It does if you want me to take you seriously, but that's already water under the bridge.
    Nice ad-hominem attack
    Nope, that's just an insult in case you missed that point. One you happened to have strengthened.
    you argued that he appealed to emotion because he thinks it's bad to kill people that are alive
    Nope. Not my point. You think this is what I said because your comprehension ability is so low. I find this to be typical of conservatives.
     its a logical one as well, as its to think that killing your own species when you have a choice is beneficial to the progress of mankind.
    Then why does Ben Shapiro think it's okay to own/use guns? Guns can be used to kill people, who unlike fetuses don't have questionable status as humans. He can't have it both ways. No logic there.
    You've, given none...
    I gave 2: Beto O'Rourke and his interview with Andrew Neil.
    the one about Beto proved absolutely nothing apart from him being protective of his children(which is natural)
    That's a naturalistic fallacy.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature ;

    AIDS, Covid-19, cancer, and miscariages are all  natural, so it must be good then right?
    And I have not found his most recent debate.
    Sounds like a personal problem.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    'Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody' This is from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

    'Nope, that's just an insult in case you missed that point. One you happened to have strengthened.' An insult is ad-hominem, http://https//yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem.

    'Nope. Not my point. You think this is what I said because your comprehension ability is so low. I find this to be typical of conservatives.' Nice generalization and I'm not a conservative(I'm a liberal), I would ask for you to clarify, but you always refuse(which seems suspicious).

    'Then why does Ben Shapiro think it's okay to own/use guns?' Ben Shapiro and those who agree with his opinion(like myself) believe that guns should be used solely in defense of ourselves, Ben Shapiro obviously believes it's okay to use guns in self-defense, he obviously doesn't think it's good to kill people in cold blood.

    'That's a naturalistic fallacy.' Jesus-f*cking-Christ, I'm not appealing to nature in the least, I just stated the fact that, naturally, parents are protective of their kids, does that mean, if applying to nature here is a fallacy, is appealing to facts as well is a fallacy? I did not call it good, nor did I call it bad, don't rush to conclusions, all I did was call it natural.

    'I gave 2: Beto O'Rourke and his interview with Andrew Neil.' He wasn't arguing with Beto so no fallacies there, secondly, I saw no fallacies with Andrew Niel.

    Finally, I am still asking for examples from you on the fallacies you listed that Ben Shapiro has done.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    'Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody' This is from
    Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.

    You and impatience, I'll tell you what. You clearly don't understand.
    An insult is ad-hominem
    Source does not suggest.
    Nice generalization and I'm not a conservative(I'm a liberal), I would ask for you to clarify, but you always refuse(which seems suspicious).
    I believe you have referred to yourself as a "classic liberal" which is slang for autistic conservative.
    Ben Shapiro and those who agree with his opinion(like myself) believe that guns should be used solely in defense of ourselves, Ben Shapiro obviously believes it's okay to use guns in self-defense, he obviously doesn't think it's good to kill people in cold blood.
    And abortion isn't defense of one's property, your body? lol
    Jesus-f*cking-Christ, I'm not appealing to nature in the least, I just stated the fact that, naturally, parents are protective of their kids, does that mean, if applying to nature here is a fallacy, is appealing to facts as well is a fallacy? I did not call it good, nor did I call it bad, don't rush to conclusions, all I did was call it natural.
    I thought you were Jewish, and yes that's a naturalistic fallacy.

    Tell me, do you think it follows that because parents are protective of their kids that it is morally right?
    He wasn't arguing with Beto so no fallacies there, secondly, I saw no fallacies with Andrew Niel.
    You might want to go re-read that context. First off, he assaults Neil (not Niel) verbally, and is very antagonistic the entire interview. That's a slam dunk right there. Also, his stance on violence against Beto is clearly an appeal to emotion, and your defense is a naturalistic fallacy.
    Finally, I am still asking for examples from you on the fallacies you listed that Ben Shapiro has done.
    That's why I'm asking for his most recent debate, so we can deconstruct it.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.




  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 727 Pts   -   edited January 28
    @Happy_Killbot. He didn't take as much of a stand on gender pronouns as he did free speech.  The government was going to fine/arrest people for using incorrect pronouns.  As an intellectual he realizes that free speech is essential.

    On Shapiro's comment about Beto you are giving no context.  How are we supposed to determine the validity of his comment when we don't know what he was responding to.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
    He didn't take as much of a stand on gender pronouns as he did free speech.  The government was going to fine/arrest people for using incorrect pronouns.  As an intellectual he realizes that free speech is essential.
    I think you are missing the point here, what I am suggesting is that he did in fact have a politically motivated agenda, insofar as free speech and anti-transgender are political positions.
    On Shapiro's comment about Beto you are giving no context.  How are we supposed to determine the validity of his comment when we don't know what he was responding to.
    Again, this is somewhat irrelevant. The point is in the principal. Ben Shapiro can not both tout anti-abortion policy on the grounds that a fetus is a human life and ought to be protected and then also have a stance on harming human life with a gun. That's an ideological inconsistency, and the reason doesn't matter because at least one of these positions must be false.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot 'Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.' Exactly! Thank you! It can be an insult!

    'Source does not suggest.' You just contradicted yourself.

    'I believe you have referred to yourself as a "classic liberal" which is slang for autistic conservative.' XD, If I had a penny for every time you'd use ad hominem, I'd be a millionaire.

    'And abortion isn't a defense of one's property, your body? lol' It isn't, abortion is more similar to inviting someone to your house and then pulling a shotgun on them and blasting their face with the justification: "My Property My Choice!".

    'yes, that's a naturalistic fallacy.' Care to explain? What I said was simply a comment and a fact, that's it, I read the fallacy, it wasn't that. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature.

    'You might want to go re-read that context. First off, he assaults Neil (not Niel) verbally and is very antagonistic the entire interview. That's a slam dunk right there.' You have a point here, however as I said before, that was like, the one debate he failed in.

    'Also, his stance on violence against Beto is clearly an appeal to emotion, and your defense is a naturalistic fallacy.' Wait, those things only apply in debates, and that was a comment, to no one in particular, to someone he wasn't even talking towards.

    'That's why I'm asking for his most recent debate, so we can deconstruct it.' As I said, I don't know what Ben Shapiro's most recent debate is.
  • There are four types (Maybe more) of the Ad Hominems.

    I am pretty sure Ben Shapiro has committed everyone of those. One of his most favorite ones is judging a person's argument based on what political party they lean to (circumstantial). He's also used "framing" and "poisoning the well" (a common dirty lawyer tactic."

    I think it's his strawman's arguments that have drawn him a lot of fans than is he is actually worth, especially among many people that do not really have a trained eye for this. Some people use Strawman deliberately and they're quite clever at it. In my opinion this is the height of Intellectual Cowardice.

    As for his argument with Andrew Neil that was hilarious. Especially when he called a famous British Right Wing a Leftist. However, at least he did admit he was an after that in a later interview and also apologized for his behaviour I think. So, at least he does have a glimmer of self-awareness unlike the majority of his fans! Well, at least he did in this particular situation anyway.
    Happy_KillbotDebater123



  • @ZeusAres42 ;
    Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.

    This guy beat William Lane Craig ina  debate with ease!
    You're giving William Lane Craig way to much credit here, the guy's entire tactic is to just say what Christians already believe then assert that he won.


    The only reason why I said this is because after just watching a glimps his debate with Harris and Hitcens who appeared to be struggling with him which I was quite surprised by. Also, some other intellectuals have also credited him although they didn't agree with him.

    Then again, I also remember Richard Dawkins once saying he didn't see the point in debating somone just because of their professional (Although High School level) Debating skills. 



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1751 Pts   -   edited January 28
    This was rather amusing though:  Dawkins Trolls Harris!





  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Exactly! Thank you! It can be an insult!
    Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?

    Don't worry, we still need people to handle our trash after all.
    XD, If I had a penny for every time you'd use ad hominem, I'd be a millionaire.
    Not an ad hominem.
    It isn't, abortion is more similar to inviting someone to your house and then pulling a shotgun on them and blasting their face with the justification: "My Property My Choice!".
    So you are saying that if you invite someone into your house you can't tell them to leave? lol.
    Care to explain? What I said was simply a comment and a fact, that's it, I read the fallacy, it wasn't
    You are using it to justify Ben Shapiro's actions, so that makes it a fallacy. You are implying he is right to do this.
    You have a point here, however as I said before, that was like, the one debate he failed in.
    A lot of his debates are like this.
    Wait, those things only apply in debates, and that was a comment, to no one in particular, to someone he wasn't even talking towards.
    Good job half-wit, fallacies don't only apply in debates. They exist in vernacular too.
    As I said, I don't know what Ben Shapiro's most recent debate is.
    Still sounds like a personal problem. Guess you can't defend Ben Shapiro then.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot 'Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?' It ain't yours as well buddy.

    'So you are saying that if you invite someone into your house you can't tell them to leave? lol.' No, they can't understand you or move out of the house for 9 months. Would it then be justifiable to kill them?

    'Not an ad hominem.' https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem Your ego is so large you can't even accept that you are doing fallacies.

    'You are using it to justify Ben Shapiro's actions, so that makes it a fallacy. You are implying he is right to do this.' I'm not implying anything.

    'A lot of his debates are like this.' Care to list a lot of those debates?

    'Good job half-wit, fallacies don't only apply in debates. They exist in vernacular too.' Ad-hominem, again, secondly, fallacies are made for debates and discussions only. Again, you have failed to cite any fallacies in that statement, even if theoretically, he was debating Beto and said that to his face.

    'Still sounds like a personal problem. Guess you can't defend Ben Shapiro then.' This isn't a personal problem, you are asking me for one so we can argue, simply because you don't have a current debate to attack doesn't make my argument(s) to defend Ben Shapiro invalid.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
     It ain't yours as well buddy.
    Cool story Mr. chauvinism = chivalry.
    No, they can't understand you or move out of the house for 9 months. Would it then be justifiable to kill them?
    Yes, if they fail to leave and the only way to remove them from your property is death it is still legally permissible in the US. Guess you never heard of Castle law. You don't kill anyone with an abortion anyways.
    Your ego is so large you can't even accept that you are doing fallacies.
    Insults =/= ad hominem. You deserve my insults, half-wit.
     I'm not implying anything.
    Then you don't have a point.
    Care to list a lot of those debates?
    I remember watching a video of him at a college a few years ago where 

    Ad-hominem, again, secondly, fallacies are made for debates and discussions only.
    ARE YOU  RETARDED - Le Snob - quickmeme

    So I guess you think fallacies can't appera in books, movies, print media, TV, and your thoughts either? Would explain why you make so many of them.
     Again, you have failed to cite any fallacies in that statement, even if theoretically, he was debating Beto and said that to his face.
    The fallacy is that he abandons his other claims (about abortion) by providing a contradictory stance on the sanctity of human life. We have been over this.
    This isn't a personal problem, you are asking me for one so we can argue, simply because you don't have a current debate to attack doesn't make my argument(s) to defend Ben Shapiro invalid.
    Actually, it makes it so you don't have an argument to defend, and your words are just farting into the wind.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -   edited January 29
    @Happy_Killbot 'Cool story Mr. chauvinism = chivalry.' Irrelevant to the discussion. Also, I was ignorant of the two terms, I thought they were the same, blame my ignorance, stupidity, or whatever, but now that I know the difference between the two, I completely do not believe that.

    'Yes, if they fail to leave and the only way to remove them from your property is death it is still legally permissible in the US' Even if you invited them? With full knowledge, this would happen? Also please cite specific laws and legislation regarding 'Castle Law'.

    ' You don't kill anyone with an abortion anyways.' A fetus fits the criteria of a person: It is alive and is a human.

    'Insults =/= ad hominem.' Another lie, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem.

    'You deserve my insults, half-wit.' Of course, I do, since I'm such an immoral and st*pid person, I deserve every insult I get.

    'I remember watching a video of him at a college a few years ago where' Where...? Please finish the sentence...

    ARE YOU  RETARDED - Le Snob - quickmeme
    Yup, this has gone to the point where Killbot starts posting cringey memes to discredit me, I'm considering ignoring you altogether since there isn't anything past your feelings and insults, nothing objective, nothing worthy of substance. If this debate has taught me anything, it's that you consistently resort to insults and have a focus on the messenger, therefore, committing ad-hominem fallacies.

    'So I guess you think fallacies can't appear in books, movies, print media, TV,' They can appear, don't get me wrong, arguments can appear there.

    'The fallacy is that he abandons his other claims (about abortion) by providing a contradictory stance on the sanctity of human life. We have been over this.' But here is the difference, Beto, is not innocent, the unborn babies, are.

    'Actually, it makes it so you don't have an argument to defend, and your words are just farting into the wind.' Good, then we can agree this conversation is useless and we've been arguing over nothing.
    Happy_Killbot




  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
     Irrelevant to the discussion. Also, I was ignorant of the two terms, I thought they were the same, blame my ignorance, stupidity, or whatever, but now that I know the difference between the two, I completely do not believe that.
    Perhaps now that I have educated you, but like so much else it seems that the intellectual divide between us is so vast that we will never be able to agree on anything, because you can't provide any sort of logical basis for your reasoning, and I am stuck constantly correcting you only to be met with pitiful squeals of "nu-uh" and "but I'm still right".

    Seriously, until you wise up, I don't care to keep wasting time talking to you. In the very next statement, you ask about castle law. I don't care to keep educating you. Speaking of statements, your need to keep splitting things up into small, manageable 1-3 sentence chunks is yet another pet-peeve of mine, it's like you can't muster up any thoughts more than a few sentences long.

    You actually haven't even tried to defend Ben Shapiro this entire time, it's all been autistic reactions from you. I say something damning, and you respond with a half-baked 1 sentence response as if that is going to change or prove anything. Until you have something useful to bring to this or any conversation, I really don't care to talk to you.
    Of course, I do, since I'm such an immoral and person, I deserve every insult I get.
    The only statement you have said in this thread I agree with.

    Have a nice day.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers


    He doesn't really seem to have a political agenda.

    Ho sounds very right wing to most 

      He seems to place truth above all else.

    Whats truth? Surely you mean his version of truth ? 
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Why can you not separate your comments from your opponents by using highlighting?

    Its impossible to read your posts past a few lines 
  • all4acttall4actt 188 Pts   -  
     Dinesh D'Souza
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 727 Pts   -   edited January 29
    @Dee. I really think you need to look at some of his lectures. He very often is criticized for things he hasn't said or for positions he doesn't hold.  The amount of knowledge he has in science and history is astounding.  I believe he said he used to read a book a day.

    His argument in Canada on transgenderism was not an argument about what pronouns should be used but rather a free speech argument that speech shouldn't be compelled.  Limiting speech limits free thought and advancement. They wanted to fine/arrest people for using the wrong pronoun.  Ridiculous.  There are people that can call peterson a white supremacists or every name under the book.  I'd argue that is much worse than misgendering a person when having no proof but he'd argue for the rights of both because he understands the detriment of losing free speech.

    He more often criticizes viewpoints of the left because they are more mainstream, and he is asked about them directly.  He doesn't declare himself to be part of a certain political idealogy. His ability to source history and science as sources for his arguments are unparalleled.  He is also one of the few debaters that seems to be trying to help/educate people rather than proving the other wrong.  It's shown in the books he writes and the way he talks.
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -   edited January 31
    @MichaelElpers


    Petersen is pretty knowledgeable but if you listen to him him he spends an awful lot of time waffling and if he cannot blind  you with science he will attempt to baffle you with Bull crap 

    Incidentally most peg him as right wing 

    Same Harris asked him once to define god and he spent an age waffling but never coming close to giving a coherent response


    You never explained your statement as in ....  He seems to place truth above all else

    Is “truth “ merely what you agree with?

    From macleans
    There is no polite way to put this, but since Peterson claims that “If you worry about hurting people’s feelings and disturbing the social structure, you’re not going to put your ideas forward,” I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found—he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the s-t-u-p-I-d man’s smart person.
    ZeusAres42
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;
     I really think you need to look at some of his lectures. He very often is criticized for things he hasn't said or for positions he doesn't hold. 
    I think this is actually one of the biggest criticisms of JP. He says edgy and suggestive stuff, and then when he is called out on it he walks it back to something more mundane but nuanced. The problem is, his fans who actually hold certain radical positions jump on this as an endorsement of their extreme position. There are very few people who are nearly smart enough to understand all of his positions, let alone any single one of them in it's entirety.

    JP might not be a white supremacist, but many of his fans unironically are. My main criticism of JP is that he opens the gates for white supremacy, misogyny, transphobia, and xenophobia but he does not go in. If no one is quite sure what someone just said, did they even say anything at all?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • mickygmickyg 271 Pts   -  
    WL CRAIG WON'T DEBATE VERACITY OF THE GOSPELS

    DURING DEBATE with RICHARD CARRIER
    WL CRAIG got upset because Carrier made some comments about the gospels.
    craid said CARRIER broke agreement by bringing up gospels

    ZeusAres42

  • I've tried to listen to Peterson in the past but it's very difficult to without almost falling asleep. I remember some scientist once saying that "if Person has to spend more than 30 minutes answering certain questions then you can be pretty sure he's debating another thing that actually is being debated.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    I do not understand what is so difficult in listening to Jordan: he is sophisticated, but not contrived, and I have never had to put in much effort to understand his points.

    The problem with his manner of speech is that he sometimes has difficulty staying on point, wandering left and right from the central argument. Which is understandable, but more proper for a scientific paper than a public speech. He talks to everyone as if everyone around him was an academic. It is very important to know your audience and adjust your speech correspondingly, and he just does not seem to bother even trying it.

    I do a lot of teaching these days, and if I talked to the undergrad freshmen same way as I talk to my research colleagues, then my classes would be a complete waste of time. The less knowledgeable of your field your audience is, the more informal and simple your speech should be - and Jordan, perhaps, has a hard time switching the gears, because he is a terribly serious and very dark person.




  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -   edited February 1
    @ZeusAres42


    He goes on and on and finds it hard to address basic questions without going off on tangents , he seems to think every thought he has needs to be voiced , I just find him incredibly boring 
    ZeusAres42
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4217 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    I do not understand what is so difficult in listening to Jordan: he is sophisticated, but not contrived, and I have never had to put in much effort to understand his points.
    You are a smart guy with a sophisticated mindset that includes among other things, learning and understanding complex ideas. These traits are not ubiquitous and should not be taken for granted in the general public. If you are having trouble following him, how on earth can you expect average Lizzie Lou, IQ 102 to follow? Should it be so surprising that fanatics and moderates on both sides of the aisle frequently misrepresent and/or misunderstand him?

    I mean, you take one of his ideas like the idea of Jungian Archetypes or Jesus as a perfect Archetype and try to find  this same idea in the public by interviewing people how long would you expect until you find a comparable example? I would estimate it to be hundreds of thousands of people even after accounting for the widespread support for JP. This is a very abstract, sophisticated and non-mainstream view. Even if we lower the bar and just look for someone who can do an adequate job of explaining it I would be surprised to go through ten thousand or more people.

    The most damming criticism of JP is that no one has any idea what he said, so he might as well as said nothing at all.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Dee Okay, I'll try that.
  • I'm surprised no one mentioned Bret Weinstein here.



  • FYI, I don't find Jordan Peterson hard to follow. I just find him boring. And he does have a habit of waffling on about things unnecessarily. Mind you in all fairness I haven't really read or listened to much of him, especially not without almost falling asleep halfway through anyway.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    Well, Jordan appears to be more of a motivational speaker, than an educator. He does have this property of rambling about various things for a long time without focusing on one central point. After his lectures people feel strong and empowered, but not much changes in them, really.
    His books, I have heard, are different, and many people said that they helped them in their lives tremendously. Although, again, that might have more to do with their motivativeness, than the actual-factual content.

    I also do not hold contempt for the "average listener". Everyone can understand him if they just concentrate a little bit and listen. He does not say anything that requires some specialized knowledge. And anyone who reads books every now and a while and keeps their mind, at least, a little sharp should be able to follow. After all, his Youtube channel has nearly 3.5M subscribers. I find it hard to believe that most of them do not understand him.

    What he really lacks is concreteness. But that is fairly common among public speakers, and it is only more obvious in Jordan because of how strongly it contrasts with his overall sophisticated language.
    He does bring out a lot of concreteness when asked concrete questions; on interviews he tends to do it exceptionally well. That is why debates and interviews with his participation I find much more interesting, than mono-lectures.

    As for Bret Weinstein, I have never found him to be a particularly original thinker. He has some interesting insights, but his views really are a mish-mash of different mainstream ideologies. I am not saying it as criticism: he is good at what he does. I just never learned anything particularly new from listening to him somehow.
    Eric Weinstein is more original - but he is someone who definitely is hard to understand. He seems to have a difficulty expressing his thoughts, and there is a certain dissonance between what he wants to say and what actually comes out.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch