Is Ben Shapiro Bad at Debate?

On June 26th the socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated the long-time incumbent Joe Crowley for the right to run on the Democratic ticket in New York’s 14th district. Her surprise victory prompted discussions about whether Ocasio-Cortez’ socialist, grassroots-led campaign can be replicated in parts of the country. These discussions immediately turned Ocasio-Cortez into a major name in American politics.

The Trump supporting pundit Ben Shapiro was among those who tried to use Ocasio-Cortez’ newfound popularity to promote himself. He challenged Ocasio-Cortez to a debate, offering to pay $10,000 for the privilege. It’s easy to see why Shapiro would want to step into Ocasio-Cortez’ spotlight, but it’s not clear what’s in it for her. Ocasio-Cortez had an election on November 6th to campaign for, and as she was always likely to win, that would mean becoming a national Representative in January – she’s bound to have areas of policy to brush up on. At the same time her sudden national spotlight gave her the opportunity to push an argument that the Democratic Party should become more boldly socialist – an argument she can push on bigger audiences than Shapiro’s podcast. On August 9th Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter, and Shapiro refused to take her rejection graciously, as you can see in the images at the top of this article.

Ocasio-Cortez did not slander Shapiro. If a speaker says that a woman is like a rose, they probably don’t mean that she is literally a flower. In a similie the speaker says that A is like B – in specific ways, which will probably then be explained, or left to be implied. If a speaker says that a woman is like a rose he’s probably complimenting her beauty, her scent, her style. Or perhaps saying that skin falling away because of her eczma is like petals falling from a flower. (Hey, you never know.) Ocasio-Cortez explained the way that she thinks Shapiro is like a catcaller – his sense of entitlement. Why should Ocasio-Cortez, probably the hottest name in American socialist politics right now, spend the busiest time of her life preparing for a debate she and her future constituents have nothing to gain from? She is entitled to refuse the invite and has. As much as I dislike President Trump, he is entitled to reject calls for debate with opposing partisans who raise a bit of cash, and prioritise his day job. Ocasio-Cortez is entitled to make the same choice. But like a catcaller, Shapiro wouldn’t take no for an answer.

Children understand how similes and metaphors work. When Romeo says that “Juliet is the sun” he’s not saying that she’s literally a fiery ball of gas. As a writer and public speaker raised in America, Ben Shapiro has no excuse for seemingly not knowing the basics of how the English language works.

Maybe Shapiro is bad at debate or maybe, as Ocasio-Cortez argued, he’s approaching the idea with “bad intentions”. Shapiro is a former editor-at-large of Breitbart News, and at one point took part in a debate on transgender rights where he repeatedly referred to transwoman Zoey Tur as “Sir”. The fact that Shapiro lacked the basic politeness to…do anything else implies that he’s just interested in scoring cheap victories to publicise himself, rather than digging deeper into political issues, educating both himself and his audience.

So is Shapiro genuinely bad at debate? An article written shortly after the Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal (broken down by Dan Sloan on Twitter) suggests that he is. The basic linguistic error of claiming that “the president shined [sic] lights representing the gay pride rainbow flag” was the least significant of the flaws in his opening paragraphs. The argument is so poorly constructed that it reminded me of the satirical quote credited to Shapiro’s fellow young right-winger Charlie Kirk: “If liberal college professors don’t discriminate against conservatives, then why do conservative students get lower grades?” Shapiro’s reaction to the gay marriage ruling appears not to be a serious exploration of an unfolding political issue, but merely a twisting of the facts to reach a conclusion that his readership want to hear.

Shapiro’s Youtube channel includes titles such as “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Argument”; “Ben Shapiro CRUSHES Atheism Question”; and “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Piers Morgan on Gun Control”. The Daily Wire, the political website Shapiro founded and edits, has ran stories with the headlines “Shapiro Breaks Him On The Wheel of Logic” and “Ocasio-Cortez Slanders Shapiro After Debate Offer. His Response Flattens Her.” On twitter Shapiro has accused Ocasio-Cortez of “slandering someone as a sexist catcaller” and drawn false comparisons between Ocasio-Cortez demanding that Crowley (an opponent in an election) debate her, and her own rejection of a debate with Shapiro.

Personally I agree with Ocasio-Cortez that Shapiro is acting with “bad intentions”, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he just doesn’t know how to debate and listen to other people’s points of view. Maybe he’s just dumb.

 

Is there evidence that Ben Shapiro understands how similes work?

If Keith Olbermann offers $500,000 to debate Donald Trump, is he obliged to accept the offer?

Is Shapiro acting with bad intentions, or is he just bad at debate? Is there a third option that I’m not seeing?