It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
279 schoolgirls released 4 days after mass-abduction in Nigeria
The girls were the latest victims in a series of student kidnappings that Nigeria's president warns will continue if regional authorities keep paying...
Arguments
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
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.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: opponent's arguments    Milton Friedman   free speech   best debater  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 28%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Noam Chomsky         
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: William Lane Craig ina    Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll   guy   debate  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: S. Richard Dawkings    repetitive B   times   actual science  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Theoretical physicist    William Lane Craig ina   William Lane Craig way   Carroll.This guy  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: excellent debater    voice reaches   wonderful Atheist experience   annoying debater  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Jordan Peterson    political agenda   wealth of knowledge   truth  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ad hominem    gish   straw   debate  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ad hominem    gish   nbsp   straw  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
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.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: political agenda    public sphere   guy   stance  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lot of his debates    recent debate   insults   opponents  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Andrew Neil    British public   scathing critique   dry insufferable cunt  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Ad hominem    only time   attacking of the messenger   message  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
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.
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.
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ad hominem =/= insults
https://thomaswell.medium.com/please-ad-hominem-doesnt-mean-insult-1b849eed632
You are ignoring facts and sources, not me.
If you like his character, then that speaks very poorly of your own, does it not?
You should read my entire statement then before responding instead of being so impatient. I explain it in the very next statement half-wit.
Yes, he should be a vegan. His entire worldview is based on a contradiction.
I have already given 2. Find his most recent debate and let's deconstruct.
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.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: fromAd hominem    entire statement   next statement half-wit   facts  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Nice ad-hominem attack    following segment   emotional argument   alive human  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
The link should be fixed now.
Not arguing against: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem which demonstrates that ad hominem is not an insult.
It does if you want me to take you seriously, but that's already water under the bridge.
Nope, that's just an insult in case you missed that point. One you happened to have strengthened.
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.
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.
I gave 2: Beto O'Rourke and his interview with Andrew Neil.
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?
Sounds like a personal problem.
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.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Beto O'Rourke    ad hominem   logic there.You   naturalistic fallacy.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature AIDS Covid-19  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 5  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Ad hominem attacks    Ben Shapiro   naturalistic fallacy   Jesus-f  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Source does not suggest.
I believe you have referred to yourself as a "classic liberal" which is slang for autistic conservative.
And abortion isn't defense of one's property, your body? lol
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?
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.
That's why I'm asking for his most recent debate, so we can deconstruct it.
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.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free speech    gender pronouns   essential.On Shapiro's comment   arrest people  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
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.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free speech    political positions.On Shapiro's comment   gender pronouns   human life  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: William Lane Craig ina    Theoretical physicist   Richard Dawkins   High School level  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.58  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Dawkins Trolls Harris    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?
Don't worry, we still need people to handle our trash after all.
Not an ad hominem.
So you are saying that if you invite someone into your house you can't tell them to leave? lol.
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.
A lot of his debates are like this.
Good job half-wit, fallacies don't only apply in debates. They exist in vernacular too.
Still sounds like a personal problem. Guess you can't defend Ben Shapiro then.
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: personal problem    ad hominem   Good job half-wit   lot of his debates  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Cool story Mr. chauvinism = chivalry.
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.
Insults =/= ad hominem. You deserve my insults, half-wit.
Then you don't have a point.
I remember watching a video of him at a college a few years ago where
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.
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.
Actually, it makes it so you don't have an argument to defend, and your words are just farting into the wind.
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.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lot of those debates    ad hominem   abortion anyways.Your ego   personal problem  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
'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...
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.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: specific laws    ad-hominem fallacies   cringey memes   Cool story Mr. chauvinism  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
The only statement you have said in this thread I agree with.
Have a nice day.
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.
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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 ?
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: right wing    political agenda.Ho   truth   version of truth  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why can you not separate your comments from your opponents by using highlighting?
Its impossible to read your posts past a few lines
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: comments    opponents   posts   lines  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 9%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: day.His argument    free speech argument   arrest people   source history  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: @MichaelElpers Petersen    right wing   awful lot of time waffling   social structure  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
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.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: biggest criticisms of JP    main criticism of JP   white supremacist   white supremacy  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: VERACITY OF THE GOSPELSDURING DEBATE    WL CRAIG   RICHARD CARRIERWL CRAIG   Carrier  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: manner of speech    much effort   public speech   scientific paper  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: basic questions    tangents   finds   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: much effort    understanding complex ideas   idea of Jungian Archetypes   adequate job  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: @Dee Okay         
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Bret Weinstein         
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Jordan Peterson    fairness   habit   things  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra