Actually that is incorrect the BBC guy was there to test Ben’s positions stated in his book. He has done that throughout all of his interviews regardless of where his guests fall in the political spectrum. Btw the BBC guys is right wing as they get. Shapiro failed that interview and demonstrated what he wrote in his book does not even pass his own test in that interview
That's not really been my observation except on a select few programs where chest-beating confrontation and screaming are the whole point. The worst is selective editing though. Guys like Yang and Bernie did their townhalls w/ Fox and made massive waves because of it. She's doing herself a huge disservice here ignoring Trump crossover voters. That's great. Maybe we'll see more as time goes on.
Right. Bernie could get away with it since he was the first so I don't think the mods really knew how to handle a Dem townhall, and Bernie really doesn't have a faux scandal like the right has with Warren and the Native American thing. Its like "but her emails" but far stupider.
Also the guy had the prime 1 on 1 interview on Bill Maher not too long ago, and it was a fairly amicable conversation as it usually is with Maher during his 1 on 1's. He interviews Ann Coulter all the time too.
Bill Maher gets mountains of s*** for having conservatives like that on, btw. He always gives his conservative guests props for going on his show, which is openly hostile to them. He bemoans liberals' lack of courage to take the fight to red territory, and I have to agree with him.
Honestly, politics aside, Ben Shapiro isn't some sort of high level debater. He is well versed on debating techniques and he knows the political topics well. He can do a solid job of presenting his side of the argument.......... but he is far from the only one that can do that. He really lacks the creativity or high functioning ability of someone like Jordan Peterson of Christopher Hitchens or even a Neil Degrasse Tyson. Sometimes, as a debater it is better to just front a weakness or admit a short coming in your article. Ben Shapiro doesn't do that..... and when he is eventually boxed in, he cries and moans like an entitled child. The reality is, I don't think Shapiro really gives a damn about abortion or even Donald Trump.... he is a different type of conservative. Rather than just fronting that, he tries to rally the troops and gets knocked down.
This is likely true. However, if she wants to be President she likely needs to learn how to answer the questions and keep doing so. She isn't the first one, but to be President, someone should be able to adroitly handle combative situations.
Regressive illiberals are intellectually dishonest when they say the Islamization of Europe is a good thing. Shapiro isn’t being dishonest. He is being hypocritical but is completely unaware — naive.
Peterson and Tyson are not good debaters. They're subject matter experts. They're good orators (Tyson especially). But they're not good at conflict. Shapiro is extremely smart (or at least well-read/learned) and quick witted, but also ideologically possessed beyond reasonableness (basically his relationship with Capitalism is the same as his relationship with Judaism). He's truly a better debater than he is anything else, and you can see that from his background. His #1 tactic is gish galloping. He will blurt out 10 dubious claims in the spot of time it would take his opponent to counteract or address a single one. It's impressive at first, but then you start seeing through the avalanche and realize it's mostly just someone blowing fake snow.
I suppose we have different opinions on debating then. I mostly look at it through the lens of an attorney and I will take Peterson or Tyson over Shapiro. Shapiro has the tools, but he just isn't especially persuasive or creative. He can handle most people with his skill set but will run into issues if he is not well prepared or comes up against someone with a high level of intelligence. Peterson isn't just a subject matter expert, he is very skilled at rhetoric and thinks very quickly. I do not agree with all his positions but I find him quite skilled and manipulative. I have heard NTD debate in the past, he will delve outside of his subject area from time to time and does very well. He has a natural ability to know when he is in over his head and will concede a point with minimal damage. The best (outside the courtroom) that I have seen is Christopher Hitchens. The best I have ever seen in person is Gerry Spence..... you give Gerry Spence 5 minutes and he will have you believing anything he is saying.
Come on Ben is not naive stop with that narrative he way too intelligent to be that naive. I bet he would agree with me on that
What massive waves? Bernie got some positive pub but he got no poll bump and I did not even know Yang had a town hall on Fox. I don't necessarily agree with not going on Fox but it's not showing doing so is beneficial.
Who has said Islamization of Europe is a good thing? Link? Or are you just posting shot that does not exist?
isn't the point of debate to persuade people to look favorably on your side of the argument? Don't know what is actually graded or how points are given but I thought that was the gist of it. Talking about formal debates.
Really that is what journalists supposed to do test their guest positions on which they attest too. Or do you do think all journalists are supposed to be like fox and msnbc. Btw Andrew Neil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil We got a real lefty here lol
Listen again to when he accuses Shapiro of wanting to bring back the "dark ages." That's not objective journalism. That said, this may be a BBC thing, as I have heard other BBCers do the same thing. Then again, the BBC is a key part of the leftist media Cathedral, so of course all their news people act like this.
His approach to interviews is to remove his own opinions and take positions opposite of his guest to test their positions. So if you believe in lowering taxes he will start from the position of raising taxes and engage you. The idea is that this format actually tests your beliefs, forces you to argue your position and ultimately gives the viewer more information than just doing a cooperative dance where he lets you spew your canned talking points as he nods in agreement. Most American media (most, not all) fail to actually probe positions.
