Ben Shapiro offers to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She deems it catcalling

Who exactly is Ben Shapiro and why is it a big deal if she doesn't debate him?
A dumb persons idea of a smart person.

It's a big deal because 'lol she scared' and any debate denied is won by the opposing side, I guess. A lot of people seem to think open debates are a right given to anyone, toward anyone. If Sean Hannity or David Duke gave this same offer, she should not take it. The reason this pisses off a large portion of the people here is because they know they're political beliefs have been rightly marginalized, and they want a seat at the table. Too bad.
 
A dumb persons idea of a smart person.

It's a big deal because 'lol she scared' and any debate denied is won by the opposing side, I guess. A lot of people seem to think open debates are a right given to anyone, toward anyone. If Sean Hannity or David Duke gave this same offer, she should not take it. The reason this pisses off a large portion of the people here is because they know they're political beliefs have been rightly marginalized, and they want a seat at the table. Too bad.
Nobody is mad about the debate not happening (at least as far as I can tell), they are just annoyed her and her party continued to use a disingenuous (see: bullshit) IdPol analogy to decline.
 
Still waiting for people to explain the analogy behind "men with bad intentions". Is she likening Ben Shapiro to a male rapist?
It's funny because the part that was an analogy you took literally, and this part here you should've taken literally, but you've chosen to take as an analogy. Bad intentions is just a reference to the way that Ben Shapiro "debates". He has no interest in a debate. His only interest is to score points against the libs by setting up gotcha moments.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
He literally just replied with stop catcalling me "pie_tears_joy:. Well done but the point still stands. Does cruz owe Cenk a debate? I would argue he doesn't. Others in this thread should argue he does to be consistent.
See that is the part I agree with. Nobody owes anyone a debate unless they otherwise agreed to it, or it is a part of the political platform/duty; and anyone has a right to offer and be declined/accepted/ignored.

I just disagree with the typical IdPol tactics used in the analogy, because let's be honest, they know what they are doing by using that angle. A normal decline and there would have been far less fuel poured on that spark.
 
Last edited:
He is only doing this because she is a female representative that goes against his political beliefs. You seriously wanna sit there and tell me that if a guy had won that seat and held the same political beliefs that Shapiro would be chasing him down for a debate?

No. He would not.

Shapiro doesn't care about her vagina. He cares about what she believes and that she won.
He wants to debate her so in his view he can expose her views with someone actually debating her.

It is kind of amazing that Shapiro of all people is talked about as some sort of nazi or something.
I don't agree with Shapiro o many things but he isn't some shit flinging idiot and his stance of many things is calm and logical.

Though in her shoes i wouldn't debate him. Because he is really fucking good debater and she already won so there is no reason to have chance to became fool.
 
Last edited:
Does cruz owe Cenk a debate? I would argue he doesn't. Others in this thread should argue he does to be consistent.
No he doesn't owe anyone a debate. And I think you can rightfully call him out for not choosing to debate in that circumstance. If you are confident in your position, and a good faith offer to debate has been made to you, I would ask anyone why they don't want to engage.
 
Lets be real here. Shaprio would absolutely destroy her in a debate. it would be political suicide for her to accept.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner here. Ill give her a modicum of credit though for being smart enough to know that Shapiro would wipe the floor with her in a debate, ha.
 
Why are we pretending she is a good candidate? Lots of angles to come at her from like her next to nothing education on the Israeli-palestinian relationship but let's go with economics which seems to be her fortay since she majored in economics right!

1. “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs”

No. People working multiple jobs has no distorting effect on the unemployment rate.

2. "Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week.”

Again, no. The number of hours worked also does not affect the unemployment rate

3. “One of the largest drivers of wealth inequality in the United States is inherited wealth.”

Actually inheritances decrease wealth inequality

Look, she's still young, but she's wildly off base when it comes to a myriad of issues. All these people labeling her as the new face of the Democratic party. Jesus.
Shapiro doesn't care about her vagina. He cares about what she believes and that she won.
He wants to debate her so in his view he can expose her views with someone actually debating her.

It is kind of amazing that Shapiro of all people is talked about as some sort of nazi or something.
I don't agree with Shapiro o many things but he isn't some shit flinging idiot and his stance of many things is calm and logical.

Though in her shoes i wouldn't debate him. Because he is really fucking good debater and she already won so there is no reason to have chance to became fool.
Shapiro is one the best technical debaters I've seen, in the sense of how Havard scores points (use of Gish gallop being his primary attack). What he isn't is supremely intelligent, honest, or consistent. He's just another slightly above average pundit with a lot of billionaire money to pump his marketing.

Ding ding ding you seem to behave like pedophile rapist who touches his own kids.

but hey, i never said that you are one "wink wink"
We've already addressed your lack of unstanding of semantics on page 2. Try and keep up.
 
Last edited:
See that is the part I agree with. Nobody owes anyone a debate unless they otherwise agreed to it, or it is a part of the political platform/duty; and anyone has a right to offer and be declined/accepted/ignored.

I just disagree with the typical IdPol tactics used in the analogy, because let's be honest, they know what they are doing by using that angle. A normal decline and there would have been far less fuel poured on that spark.
While your intention to take every person’s words at face value, with no reference to the ethnic, gender, socioeconomic background of the parties involved, is a noble goal, you have to realize it’s unrealistic, right?

We’re made of meat, not silicon and aluminum. The psychology of our brains is still largely a mystery. Inter-gender and interracial dynamics are always going to matter in how we communicate, unless we’re all genderless and mixed to the point of racial homogeny. As much as you’d like Ted Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez to feel and be perceived the same way, it’s unrealistic to the point of fantasy. It’s just not how humans work, and we are after all participating in a human society.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
I always see a refusal to debate as a lack of confidence, i.e holding flimsy beliefs or just being straight up arrogant.

The idea you get to pick and choose who gets to challenge your views against scientific evidence is how we have so much chaos today. Imagine if before the Iraq invasion, Bush would have to debate why Iraq has WMD's? Do you think we would still go there?

But anyways, if she responds to such invitation by claiming "catcall" then Ben Shapiro dodged a bullet. You know in an actual debate she would just pull out multiple race cards from her deck.
 
Last edited:
Shapiro is one the best technical debaters I've seen, in the sense of how Havard scores points (use of Gish gallop being his primary attack). What he isn't is supremely intelligent, honest, or consistent. He's just another slightly above average pundit with a lot of billionaire money to pump his marketing.
I doubt you even watched his one debate. For sure he was wrong few times but that doesn't mean all other his points are wrong or got worse.

We've already addressed your lack of unstanding of semantics on page 2. Try and keep up.
That is fascinating considering i just joined subject and never posted anything on page 2. Maybe you should keep up instead.

Also "understanding of semantics" is viable only when you have SEMANTICS.
Asking for debate is not cat-calling. It is just her sexism showing.

But hey there are some ***tics there. Called "mental gymnastics" to cover for stupid answer of politician.
 
Last edited:
Don't give that cretin the attention he so desperately wants and let him crawl back into his hole.
A dumb persons idea of a smart person.
What are you trying to accomplish with that needlessly inflammatory language? It adds nothing to the discussion and if you can't bring your point across without personal attacks, you've already failed in the first place. I don't agree very much with Ben Shapiro, but that guy could run circles around your narrow-minded worldview. I'll take his wit and argumentative prowess over you parroting far-left buzzwords all day long.
 
Dismissing something is very different from addressing it.
Using an inappropriate and blatant effort to play some gender-victim smokescreen into the dismissal is really crass.

It's pitiable seeing the same people argue that someone raising their arm when addressing an audience is unequivocally a nazi salute with no room for interpretation or context, now employ mental gymnastics to change the meaning and intention of words in black and white to be something less damning than they are.

If these people had a shred of principle in their argument, they would not be so selective in how they apply them.
A principle has value and is worth something. When a principle is not applied consistently, it's no longer a principle.
It loses all value. It's merely a preference.
Masquerading preferences as principles is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
I was withholdng judgement on her... well it’s judgement time, and the judgement is not pretty.

She didnt have to accept the offer, she could have ignored it or declined.

But to make it out as catcalling is the very definition of identity politics. It’s the men cannot speak or express an opinion to a women without it being sexism nonsense.

Its gross. She’s gross. And sexist.

If this is how she handles a challenge to debate for charity imagine how she’ll handle people she disagrees with.

Gross.
 
A dumb persons idea of a smart person.

It's a big deal because 'lol she scared' and any debate denied is won by the opposing side, I guess. A lot of people seem to think open debates are a right given to anyone, toward anyone. If Sean Hannity or David Duke gave this same offer, she should not take it. The reason this pisses off a large portion of the people here is because they know they're political beliefs have been rightly marginalized, and they want a seat at the table. Too bad.
Why do you think he's not smart? From what I've seen of him, he articulates his points very well. Whether you or I agree with them or not is another matter entirely.
 
Why do you think he's not smart? From what I've seen of him, he articulates his points very well. Whether you or I agree with them or not is another matter entirely.
This is why they think he is not smart. they say the same thing with anyone they disagree with. Its the same with Jordan Peterson, Thomas Sowell, or Larry Elder. Well worse for Elder and Sowell, they are called coons, uncle Toms, or worse. All these guys have great educations and are experienced in their fields but they are just stupid for not agreeing with the Left narrative.
 
Last edited:
This is why they think he is not smart. they say the same thing with anyone they disagree with. Its the same with Jordan Peterson, Thomas Sowell, or Larry Elder. Well worse for Elder and Sowell, they are called coons, uncle Toms, or worse. All these guys have great educations and are experienced in their fields but they are just stupid for not agreeing with the Left narrative.
I've been a fan of Sowell for many years. He holds in his mind the keys to solving so many of the race inequalities. It's a shame that the people who should be listening to him aren't.
 
This is why they think he is not smart. they say the same thing with anyone they disagree with. Its the same with Jordan Peterson, Thomas Sowell, or Larry Elder. Well worse for Elder and Sowell, they are called coons, uncle Toms, or worse. All these guys have great educations and are experienced in their fields but they are just stupid for not agreeing with the Left narrative.
I think Peterson is very smart. I dont agree with everything he says, but you can't doubt his intellect or his attempt to be truthful. Again, straw-manning the other side to make your point isn't useful.
 
I think Peterson is very smart. I dont agree with everything he says, but you can't doubt his intellect or his attempt to be truthful. Again, straw-manning the other side to make your point isn't useful.
It's not really strawmanning when Era, which I believe is representative of the kind of loony partisan politics we are criticising, has a 4500 post thread sneering at him, doubting his intellect, and painting him as some kind of untruthful villain: https://www.resetera.com/threads/jordan-peterson-the-intellectual-we-deserve.30669/page-90

If anyone is strawmanning, it's you for assuming that monegames is painting all lefties as Era types. He's only criticising the latter, and I think the main point of contention between us would be on how prominent their kind of irrational groupthink actually is on the left.
 
Still waiting for people to explain the analogy behind "men with bad intentions". Is she likening Ben Shapiro to a male rapist?
I think it means that she knows Shapiro is essentially a professional debater, and he's trying to draw her into a formal debate to dunk on her with his speed talk techniques and rhetorical devices rather than drill down in honest, mutually productive steelmanning ways about the differences between their opinions.
 
I think this article is pretty solid and can put it together better than I can.

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher
I'm not sure that an article that opens with a sneering line like "It’s easy to laugh, as some of us do, at the phrase “conservative intellectual.”" is going to be objective and unbiased. The author is basically saying that only the left can have intelligent people and ideas. The link to the author's profile was dead so I googled him and he would have to be the prototypical m'comrade type. Are you sure this is who you want to be formulating your political views from?

https://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/nathan-robinson

 
Last edited:
I wish she would reconsider, as she and others are focusing too much on the debate side of the offer. He also offered her to come onto his Sunday show, which is more of a long form discussion, in which Ben has had other liberals before, to get at the heart of eachother's ideas. These conversations are indispensable in this climate, and we really do need to start having more of them. We also need to stop dismissing eachother outright and or impugning secret and malicious motivations to those on the other side.
 
I wish she would reconsider, as she and others are focusing too much on the debate side of the offer.
Not really concerned about her not wanting to debate, especially against someone like Ben Shapiro who is extremely hard to debate against (gee, I wonder if that's why all this talk about him "not being worth it" :unsure::geek:), but it's more the route she took in refusing to debate.
 
Not really concerned about her not wanting to debate, especially against someone like Ben Shapiro who is extremely hard to debate against (gee, I wonder if that's why all this talk about him "not being worth it" :unsure::geek:), but it's more the route she took in refusing to debate.
Agreed, she would have been much better off just ignoring it than the response she gave. Responding with accusations of sexism just confirms the conservative narrative about what has happened to the left.
 
I wish she would reconsider, as she and others are focusing too much on the debate side of the offer. He also offered her to come onto his Sunday show, which is more of a long form discussion, in which Ben has had other liberals before, to get at the heart of eachother's ideas. These conversations are indispensable in this climate, and we really do need to start having more of them. We also need to stop dismissing eachother outright and or impugning secret and malicious motivations to those on the other side.
Yeah exactly, he actually asked her for a conversation not a debate. He isn’t going to throw her softballs like Cuomo but he isn’t going to character assassinate her. And we don’t know if she not responded to requests already like other conservatives have claimed.
 
This article is hillarious. In the first paragraph he takes 3 people out of context, and in the next he admits he knows nothing about his subject, and plans on remaining ignorant about him but we should take his criticism very seriously.

Edit: oh shit, great minds think alike.
Poor Milo, for someone to take his words out of context and make the accusation that he thinks feminism is a bad thing.

I'm not sure that an article that opens with a sneering line like "It’s easy to laugh, as some of us do, at the phrase “conservative intellectual.”" is going to be objective and unbiased. The author is basically saying that only the left can have intelligent people and ideas. The link to the author's profile was dead so I googled him and he would have to be the prototypical m'comrade type. Are you sure this is who you want to be formulating your political views from?

https://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/nathan-robinson

Yes, I'll take his heavily cited and long essay over your accusation that he's a 'prototypical m'comrade'. Can you guys do better? Can you go into any detail at all?
 
Are you:
A) high
B) trolling
C) too far into your politics to reason
D) all of the above

I can’t even have a discussion with you. You are taking the piss and passing off your opinion as fact.

Wait. I forgot one.

E) Bigot
F) Delusions of grandeur in regards to his own intelligence.

(I wouldn’t say this if he wasn’t constantly insulting other people’s intelligence).
 
Poor Milo, for someone to take his words out of context and make the accusation that he thinks feminism is a bad thing.



Yes, I'll take his heavily cited and long essay over your accusation that he's a 'prototypical m'comrade'. Can you guys do better? Can you go into any detail at all?
He takes Shapiro out of context multiple time and dredges up things from a decade ago. He also flat out lies about some of Ben's arguments and make a laughable defense of transgenderism at the end.

You posted a smear article from a writer who literally states in the 2nd paragraph he is writing a smear article. What is there to respond to?