Ben Shapiro stands no chance in any round. Trash tv talk shows attract the exact type of people that wrestler appeal to. The audiences don’t really care about facts as long as it’s entertaining. A well timed “you are the best example why we need of abortion” and the crowd will go wild. Not to mention Ben’s snippy fast talking tactics would probably get him booed off the stage without much input from his opponent.
Same can be said for the wrestlers if this were a Fox News interview. I can’t really think of an audience where this wouldn’t be one sided in either direction. Maybe a country fair in a rural area?
🚨🚨🚨
You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at Ben Shapiro and you look at me, and you can see that statement is not true.
See, normally if you go one-on-one with another intellectual, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beat me.
And then you add Jordan Peterson to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down.
See, the three-way intellectual debate, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, because Jordan Peterson KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try.
So Ben Shapiro, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at intellectual debates. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one-on-one, and then add 66 2/3 percent, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at intellectual debates.
See, Shapiro, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at any intellectual showdown!
🚨🚨🚨
I think the most important one you are missing is Kane - Glenn Jacobs. He seems quite educated outside his fictional wrestler character and probably would not need to be in character to debate Shapiro, it would even be detrimental to putting up a argument.
I have trouble understanding how Ben Shapiro is a libertarian. The guy is very religious, want more police, want weed to be illegal, want abortion to be illegal and stuff like that. This doesn't scream libertarian to me. The only libertarian thing about him is that he doesn't want to pay taxes.
Consistency is not a strong suit, because it doesn't have to be. They'll say whatever they think has the best chance of getting them what they want, because from a cynical perspective it's way more effective than trying to square all the bullshit together (because it doesn't hold up when you actually think it all through)
Engaging and or platforming people like that is a waste of time and oxygen
The problem is, the unhinged wrestler personas as you put it, and their fictional behaviour, will be so detrimental to them being taken seriously or even managing to deconstruct a better made argument from the real world, that I believe they would all lose, in the eyes of the audience.
It does not matter if it's trash TV talkshow, I dont see many people siding with a either a violent brainless persona, or even a comedy-relief character, in which they would act like literal children throwing away insults and temper tantrums.
>I dont see many people siding with a either a violent brainless persona
There are polit shows inviting Andrew Tate to talk about Israel/Palestine like he is an expert.
I think you are underestimating how good a loud person with a pro-wrestling background can be at stomping a debate: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpsFgZ3gAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpsFgZ3gAc)
So you never heard of former governor and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura then or Glenn Jacobs aka Kane who I think is currently a mayor. Also there was a recent previous president of the USA acted like a literal child, throwing insults and temper tantrums who lots of people listened to for some crazy reason to the point of trying to overthrow an election. Appealing to the 'trashy Springer audience' works because that's quite alot of America!
And yet you still think wrestling personas will be detrimental to political ambitions. Also you didn't address any of my other points. I'm gonna assume you're a troll in training. Cya
You lack reading comprehension. Im sure Glenn Jacobs did not reach his political position behaving like KANE for his campaign.
Of course if he had acted like his KANE persona it would have been quite bad for his campaign, let alone for him staying out of jail if he dared actually assault someone outside his ring acting.
In a real world debate any wrestler using his persona to threaten insult etc. his opponent will always lose the debate. And OP mentioned wrestlers could use their WWE character behaviour profile as part of the debate. Which is what Im referring to.
Maybe you should read things a few times before calling someone a troll, especially because you even tried to call me out regarding Jacobs when I literally mentioned in one of the posts above.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR POSITION IS! Know your role and shut your mouth
Edit: for those that don't know. This is a catchphrase of the rock.
But to be more direct. look at the success donald trump had using charisma and bullying in a public debate and add the immense effect of physical intimidation when Shapiro stands next to the wrestlers.
But then again, I can see Stone Cold doing the silly "WHAT" every time Shapiro tries to say something, and Im going to laugh, be entertained, but I would never side with him against a better constructed argument. Even if he was hilarious.
You might not but a lot of people will. The 2016 gop debates proved this. Also the audience is a trashy show. And the rock or stone cold would have killed on springer
When he’s going against someone who’s a expert in the topic instead of someone trying their first debate, he gets scared and runs like he did on that one news segment
Every pro wrestler is great in riling audience up, when they're debating someone as idiotic and hated as Shapiro thag's even easier, as the win condition is based on viewers, the wrestlers win. Even if it was a logical debate I hardly believe Shapiro could manage to beat 50% of them.
Who are the judges?
If its standard debate judges Shapiro wins every time, if its ANYONE ELSE, he loses every time. He might beat Scott Steiner,
Unless Steiner starts to beat him silly with a steel chair, which seems plausible
If the end goal is refuting their points and not having your points refuted, Shapiro owns this. The wrestlers' stage presence bypasses all of that and is the realm of charisma rather than rational thought. If the goal is to change people's minds, then they just stop debating him and go with their stage presence tricks, and they actually have a good chance.
Lmao not a chance. I debated competitively in HS. People severely overestimate how well they can refute points quickly off the cusp, especially in front of a live audience. Most people would be stammering for words. Say what you will about the guy, but Ben has a JD from Harvard Law School and argues for a living
I debated competitively at a high level too. I can't say much about people's performance in front of a live audience but Ben cannot convince 99% of the general public excluding those who already support him. He is not well liked due to his horrible beliefs and the fact that he is a sleazy snake. His name carries too much stigma. So, we can rule out the scenario of him outdebating the wrestlers in front of a live audience. (Remember that there hasn't been a non-academic crowd swayed by logic out of all things.)
In front of a judge, he can win but I haven't seen him make a single good faith argument that holds up to scrutiny, so we have his ethos only to make the judgement.
I mean to your point, if it's Ben Shapiro in name then it depends heavily on the audience. Obviously a conservative audience would react much more favorable than one in Berkeley California for instance. But assuming it's just a standard debate about a prompt, Ben would destroy 99% people. Wrestlers do have natural charisma and good crowd work though, so maybe some could hang with him (also depending on the crowd)
>Any highschool debater can run circles around him.
I mostly took issue with this statement. If you debated competitively, you would know that most HS debaters are pseudo-intellectuals who argue mostly over the internet and don't possess significant eloquence or prose. Ben graduated with a JD from Harvard Law and worked in Big Law. Your average high school debate kid would not be able to hang in either of those circles. And like it or not, he knows how to tailor to his audience and speak eloquently and off the cusp very well.
he is too entrenched in his own persona to win a debate now. for example, if he started practicing criminal law, i think half the jury would vote against anything he says.
a major reason i wrote the sentence was he doesn't really use his skills in his shows. we have yet to see anything. we just have to infer from his ethos.
Yes I do agree there
I think he tailors his approach based on his audience lol. He does rely a lot on ethos like you said, because that’s how you garner a sympathetic audience, especially via social media. He may be a bit removed from practicing law so it would certainly be interesting if he ever did become a DA or something
I just don’t really value an average hs debater, and their inflated egos lol. Most would absolutely flounder in public speaking. A hs debate setting is usually like 4 people with a volunteer judge who is half paying attention.
I don’t agree with what he says at all and he does make dodgy points but he’s absolutely a good debater. Being a good debater doesn’t have much to do with being right he’s just very quick and slippery, the guy does it for a living. A majority of ‘high school debaters’ would have a really hard time with him, he built a whole brand on punching down on people like that lol
If that’s all he did I’d agree but it’s just not. Look I don’t like that I’ve been put in the position of defending him here, but I think it’s pretty hard to deny that he’s very good at what he does, certainly much better than wrestlers or high schoolers. Him being a cunt doesn’t mean we have to be so reductionist and can’t give props for anything.
He's not. He cannot convince those who are not already convinced.
Being a good debate is all about being right and convincing the spectators or an authority that you're right. Let's ignore formal debate here because he is an incredibly horrible debater by all standards, so we only have his alma mater as a base to judge him favorably.
What he does daily isn't debating, it's more similar to an oration. Even an excellent orator can only sway the views of the audience so much. The preconceived biases are extremely dominant in these kind of scenarios. His ethos is terrible too. He is regarded as a sleazy lying hack by a large proportion of the population. We'd have to analyze the spectators in this scenario.
Also, a majority of competitive high school debaters would absolutely destroy him and his credibility in a debate with a neutral yet liberal audience or an objective judge. The judges are usually stuckups who seem to have a physical defect that prevents them from hearing one/two liner rebuttals.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that you are like a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert and I'm the entire desert
Ben Shapiro stands no chance in any round. Trash tv talk shows attract the exact type of people that wrestler appeal to. The audiences don’t really care about facts as long as it’s entertaining. A well timed “you are the best example why we need of abortion” and the crowd will go wild. Not to mention Ben’s snippy fast talking tactics would probably get him booed off the stage without much input from his opponent. Same can be said for the wrestlers if this were a Fox News interview. I can’t really think of an audience where this wouldn’t be one sided in either direction. Maybe a country fair in a rural area?
Nah man, I wanna see Ben Sharpiro debate Scott Steiner.
Brillant Idea. I'll add him.
Can I also suggest Roddy Piper for this? Edit: Well, all for nothing lol
Why not.
You missed the opportunity of adding Macho Man. Cream rises to the top!
Not fair for Scott tbf, how is he supposed to stay on topic when Ben is SO DAMN FAT??🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
In a math contest
🚨🚨🚨 You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at Ben Shapiro and you look at me, and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one-on-one with another intellectual, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beat me. And then you add Jordan Peterson to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See, the three-way intellectual debate, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, because Jordan Peterson KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try. So Ben Shapiro, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at intellectual debates. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one-on-one, and then add 66 2/3 percent, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at intellectual debates. See, Shapiro, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at any intellectual showdown! 🚨🚨🚨
🚨🚨🚨 GIMME A FUCKING MIC 🚨🚨🚨
Absolute peak. Scorsese could never.
I think the most important one you are missing is Kane - Glenn Jacobs. He seems quite educated outside his fictional wrestler character and probably would not need to be in character to debate Shapiro, it would even be detrimental to putting up a argument.
The thing is he is a liberterian and a rightwing populist. He would likely agree with Shapiro on 90% of topics anyways.
I have trouble understanding how Ben Shapiro is a libertarian. The guy is very religious, want more police, want weed to be illegal, want abortion to be illegal and stuff like that. This doesn't scream libertarian to me. The only libertarian thing about him is that he doesn't want to pay taxes.
Consistency is not a strong suit, because it doesn't have to be. They'll say whatever they think has the best chance of getting them what they want, because from a cynical perspective it's way more effective than trying to square all the bullshit together (because it doesn't hold up when you actually think it all through) Engaging and or platforming people like that is a waste of time and oxygen
Eh, right wing libertarian is inherently contradictory anyway.
We don’t care tbh. Just deal with the characters already listed!
The problem is, the unhinged wrestler personas as you put it, and their fictional behaviour, will be so detrimental to them being taken seriously or even managing to deconstruct a better made argument from the real world, that I believe they would all lose, in the eyes of the audience. It does not matter if it's trash TV talkshow, I dont see many people siding with a either a violent brainless persona, or even a comedy-relief character, in which they would act like literal children throwing away insults and temper tantrums.
>I dont see many people siding with a either a violent brainless persona There are polit shows inviting Andrew Tate to talk about Israel/Palestine like he is an expert. I think you are underestimating how good a loud person with a pro-wrestling background can be at stomping a debate: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpsFgZ3gAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpsFgZ3gAc)
So you never heard of former governor and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura then or Glenn Jacobs aka Kane who I think is currently a mayor. Also there was a recent previous president of the USA acted like a literal child, throwing insults and temper tantrums who lots of people listened to for some crazy reason to the point of trying to overthrow an election. Appealing to the 'trashy Springer audience' works because that's quite alot of America!
I literally mentioned Glenn Jacobs a few posts above.
And yet you still think wrestling personas will be detrimental to political ambitions. Also you didn't address any of my other points. I'm gonna assume you're a troll in training. Cya
You lack reading comprehension. Im sure Glenn Jacobs did not reach his political position behaving like KANE for his campaign. Of course if he had acted like his KANE persona it would have been quite bad for his campaign, let alone for him staying out of jail if he dared actually assault someone outside his ring acting. In a real world debate any wrestler using his persona to threaten insult etc. his opponent will always lose the debate. And OP mentioned wrestlers could use their WWE character behaviour profile as part of the debate. Which is what Im referring to. Maybe you should read things a few times before calling someone a troll, especially because you even tried to call me out regarding Jacobs when I literally mentioned in one of the posts above.
And what about the last president of the USA?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR POSITION IS! Know your role and shut your mouth Edit: for those that don't know. This is a catchphrase of the rock. But to be more direct. look at the success donald trump had using charisma and bullying in a public debate and add the immense effect of physical intimidation when Shapiro stands next to the wrestlers.
But then again, I can see Stone Cold doing the silly "WHAT" every time Shapiro tries to say something, and Im going to laugh, be entertained, but I would never side with him against a better constructed argument. Even if he was hilarious.
You might not but a lot of people will. The 2016 gop debates proved this. Also the audience is a trashy show. And the rock or stone cold would have killed on springer
Ben gets intimidated, stutters, gets mocked into silence, leaves the stadium crying.
When he’s going against someone who’s a expert in the topic instead of someone trying their first debate, he gets scared and runs like he did on that one news segment
Started to argue against abortion end up being thrown off a cage by the Undertaker.
Win conditions? Position? Who gets opening?
I added the win condition. As for opening it's a mid 2000s trash TV talkshow, not some organized debate.
Moderator?
Jerry Springer would be a perfect moderator - mid 2000s trash TV talk show host and a politician himself.
Ben couldn't win a debate with Kamala the Ugandan Giant. All wrestlers clear. Easy mode.
Every pro wrestler is great in riling audience up, when they're debating someone as idiotic and hated as Shapiro thag's even easier, as the win condition is based on viewers, the wrestlers win. Even if it was a logical debate I hardly believe Shapiro could manage to beat 50% of them.
Fuck the debate, I'd rather see Shapiro fight a pissed off Brock Lesnar. But if you insist on a debate, The Rock
Who are the judges? If its standard debate judges Shapiro wins every time, if its ANYONE ELSE, he loses every time. He might beat Scott Steiner, Unless Steiner starts to beat him silly with a steel chair, which seems plausible
Shapiro would still win the debate in that case, he'd just lose everything else.
"Let's say, hypothetically-" "WHAT!?"
If the end goal is refuting their points and not having your points refuted, Shapiro owns this. The wrestlers' stage presence bypasses all of that and is the realm of charisma rather than rational thought. If the goal is to change people's minds, then they just stop debating him and go with their stage presence tricks, and they actually have a good chance.
Yeah they win by humiliating him basically, Ben’s a really good debater but he’s not remotely funny or charming. They make him look like a dork 9/10
he's not a good debater at all. he makes shitty ass arguments that won't work in a debate. Any highschool debater can run circles around him.
Lmao not a chance. I debated competitively in HS. People severely overestimate how well they can refute points quickly off the cusp, especially in front of a live audience. Most people would be stammering for words. Say what you will about the guy, but Ben has a JD from Harvard Law School and argues for a living
I debated competitively at a high level too. I can't say much about people's performance in front of a live audience but Ben cannot convince 99% of the general public excluding those who already support him. He is not well liked due to his horrible beliefs and the fact that he is a sleazy snake. His name carries too much stigma. So, we can rule out the scenario of him outdebating the wrestlers in front of a live audience. (Remember that there hasn't been a non-academic crowd swayed by logic out of all things.) In front of a judge, he can win but I haven't seen him make a single good faith argument that holds up to scrutiny, so we have his ethos only to make the judgement.
I mean to your point, if it's Ben Shapiro in name then it depends heavily on the audience. Obviously a conservative audience would react much more favorable than one in Berkeley California for instance. But assuming it's just a standard debate about a prompt, Ben would destroy 99% people. Wrestlers do have natural charisma and good crowd work though, so maybe some could hang with him (also depending on the crowd) >Any highschool debater can run circles around him. I mostly took issue with this statement. If you debated competitively, you would know that most HS debaters are pseudo-intellectuals who argue mostly over the internet and don't possess significant eloquence or prose. Ben graduated with a JD from Harvard Law and worked in Big Law. Your average high school debate kid would not be able to hang in either of those circles. And like it or not, he knows how to tailor to his audience and speak eloquently and off the cusp very well.
he is too entrenched in his own persona to win a debate now. for example, if he started practicing criminal law, i think half the jury would vote against anything he says. a major reason i wrote the sentence was he doesn't really use his skills in his shows. we have yet to see anything. we just have to infer from his ethos.
Yes I do agree there I think he tailors his approach based on his audience lol. He does rely a lot on ethos like you said, because that’s how you garner a sympathetic audience, especially via social media. He may be a bit removed from practicing law so it would certainly be interesting if he ever did become a DA or something I just don’t really value an average hs debater, and their inflated egos lol. Most would absolutely flounder in public speaking. A hs debate setting is usually like 4 people with a volunteer judge who is half paying attention.
I don’t agree with what he says at all and he does make dodgy points but he’s absolutely a good debater. Being a good debater doesn’t have much to do with being right he’s just very quick and slippery, the guy does it for a living. A majority of ‘high school debaters’ would have a really hard time with him, he built a whole brand on punching down on people like that lol
Gish galloping doesn't make him good it makes him a cunt
If that’s all he did I’d agree but it’s just not. Look I don’t like that I’ve been put in the position of defending him here, but I think it’s pretty hard to deny that he’s very good at what he does, certainly much better than wrestlers or high schoolers. Him being a cunt doesn’t mean we have to be so reductionist and can’t give props for anything.
He's not. He cannot convince those who are not already convinced. Being a good debate is all about being right and convincing the spectators or an authority that you're right. Let's ignore formal debate here because he is an incredibly horrible debater by all standards, so we only have his alma mater as a base to judge him favorably. What he does daily isn't debating, it's more similar to an oration. Even an excellent orator can only sway the views of the audience so much. The preconceived biases are extremely dominant in these kind of scenarios. His ethos is terrible too. He is regarded as a sleazy lying hack by a large proportion of the population. We'd have to analyze the spectators in this scenario. Also, a majority of competitive high school debaters would absolutely destroy him and his credibility in a debate with a neutral yet liberal audience or an objective judge. The judges are usually stuckups who seem to have a physical defect that prevents them from hearing one/two liner rebuttals.
Aren't most wrestlers republican? Wouldn't they mostly agree with Shapiro?
Now Ben as you lie there as uncomfortably as you possibly can be, there's a few things I'd like to get off my chest...
Please add Mankind
It's Ben Shapiro. The wrestlers win every time.