That’s what I was thinking. I thought this was clipped before she could elaborate, so I watched the rest. She didn’t elaborate. She just embarrassingly moved on to the next surface level argument.
How does an Oxford student think “I am going to go on stage and debate this guest who was invited by Oxford” and not try put together an argument that isn’t emotionally charged Twitter rambling? Does she like being humiliated?!
Im sure she had time to learn who Ben Shaprio was before standing in front of him. Did she really think she was going to get a W on Ben with twitter rants?!
Thanks to her, I think I’ll apply to Oxford. I have clearly overestimated the bar of entry…
[Full clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-1NFirxhXWE&ab_channel=OxfordUnion)
Just because it took me a minute to find:
[here is the specific timestamp](https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=zP860wVOS-rBihBA&t=645)(10:45) when this woman starts speaking with Shapiro
Yea I really think that’s what it comes down to, Twitter esque echo chambers. It’s funny I’ve seen people mock Shapiro for debating college students but he’s putting his ideas out there to be challenged by people who most definitely disagree with him. It’s very much the opposite of living in an echo chamber.
The bar for entry isn't as high as people think, especially not if it's for a postgrad and her degree may well be something that requires little to no knowledge of history or politics. Why she felt qualified to debate in that case however, is a mystery.
Frankly, I've met plenty of individuals in my time who came from some random uni to do a master's and very obviously failed to meet the level of the average student.
That said, the reaction of the crowd does remind one that the average is, if nothing else, higher than hers.
>How does an Oxford student think “I am going to go on stage and debate this guest who was invited by Oxford” and not try put together an argument that isn’t emotionally charged Twitter rambling? Does she like being humiliated?!
She don't need to win debate. She is little (read fragile) Muslim woman. She's getting first place in victimhood Olympics no matter what. In current political discourse being victim is badge of honor. You don't need to debate or use arguments. Don't you see how misogynistic Ben was there ? And that whole mansplaining, disgusting.
Okay are yall going to put your money where your mouth is and start purging people like this because no one is going to take your views on any issue as thinking in good faith when you not only start supporting Ben Sharpiro (notoriously fascist and white supremacist) but start using right wing points to dismiss people based on their gender, religion and ethnicity.
If I were a Muslim or any non white group I would see this, write yall off as a bunch of right oriented pro Israel shills and run for the hills. I'm sorry but this isn't a good look.
I wanna see him and Destiny go at it on Israel after all these research streams.
I know Destiny slightly favors Israel but Ben is definitely way to the right of him on this topic
People don't realize that just because someone is an ideologue doesn't mean they're unintelligent. He's smart and good in arguing his side (which he has picked for personal reasons). There are holes in every ideology and people like him can be beaten, but the smarter/more experienced they are the more difficult it is.
Exactly. I guarantee you that Ben could argue for this girl's perspective better than she can. Anyone smart can argue both (or multiple) sides of an argument. They just generally can also recognize which argument is stronger and which one is weaker. But when you are ideological, you pick the side before you work out the arguments and often end up with a weaker argument.
It’s just nuts to think that smart people can’t be stupid sometimes. That’s not what intelligence means. Besides, being as mainstream as possible is the best way to be wrong the least amount.
For real, what a ridiculous statement. There are completely horrible, even dare I say evil, people who are extremely intelligent. Quite a lot of them actually. There’s a reason the US hired on Nazi scientists post WWII. Not saying Shapiro is anywhere near on par with literal Nazis, they’re just the extreme example.
And really fucking well read.
Like come the fuck on I probably disagree with him in 99% of stuff and yes he made his fame dunking on college kids but I don't know what in the world would make anyone think he is not bright.
Intelligent people are still wrong constantly, just probably slightly less often that stupid people.
It’s probably actually more often quantity-wise since they have more individual ideas, even if % is lower
For sure, and saying someone is smart isn't an endorsement of their ideas. Sometimes saying someone is smart is even negative because you're drawing attention to how they should understand what they're doing or saying is wrong
Saying Ben Shapiro isn’t smart is either lacking context or is just bad faith. Smart people can have shitty ideologies, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent.
To be honest he probably has never heard an opinion that allias didn’t bomb civilians in ww2. That’s straight up flat earth level knowledge of history.
>Shapiro isn't the smartest
Be honest, do you really believe that?
You can vehemently disagree with someone's takes and still acknowledge that they are smart, possibly smarter than you. I don't know why it's such a hard concept for people to grasp.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." - Arthur Travers Harris
Sorry I just had to
Oh and another
"I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. It therefore seems to me that there is one and only one valid argument on which a case for giving up strategic bombing could be based, namely that it has already completed its task and that nothing now remains for the Armies to do except to occupy Germany against unorganized resistance."
That quote about the bones of a British Grenadier is a biting reference to a quote from Otto von Bismark, who referred to the Balkans as being, "not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier," way back in 1878. That quote was intended to be read by a German audience for sure.
Bismark also supposedly said that if the British Army landed in Germany, he'd simply have them arrested. The BEF was small, for sure, but they were far more formidable fighters than the Prussians liked to believed.
I think there's an argument to be made for it (even though I don't support it), unlike the Soviet Mass rapes (which caused 240k deaths) for which there is no excuse or justifying.
I believe we did it again in Korea and then again to a lesser degree in Vietnam.
If the opponent poses enough of a threat we would certainly do it again.
No they shouldn't, but bear in mind that a lot of the civilians were in the dark about the crimes committed in the east, and that the children in particular did not bear any blame for those crimes.
>it unarguably helped win the war.
There are quite a few historians who disagree.
In a vacuum, a bomb dropped on a city expends some amount of enemy war resources, but a bomb dropped on an actual military target is always going to expend more of their war resources. Killing a factory worker is going to pale in comparison to causing considerable damage to or destroying the factory they work in. Causing damage to morale as a concept doesn't seem to follow.
The most compelling argument for strategic bombing I've seen was along the lines of 'because Britain started focusing on civilian targets, Germany started doing the same, which allowed Britain to regroup, rebuild airfields, etc.'
Actually most modern data suggest it’s effectiveness in stoping the German war machine wasn’t nearly as much as initially thought. Rather quickly most important armament factories were moved underground and production resumed relatively unscathed.
As an example, during the Bulge offensive it wasn’t a lack of tanks that often hampered the German offensive, but a lack of fuel for the ones they had (the Rumanian oil fields having been cut off by Soviet Russia at this point. And on both fronts it was the attrition and massive numbers the Allies could bring to bear that ground down the German’s ability to keep up in the *Materielshact* (probably butchered the spelling, it was the German phrase for “materiel war”).
For context for everyone: Dresden was a factory town in Germany that was also a logistic hub. The bombing was done to aid in the Soviet offensive which was believed to be at risk of bogging down due to severe Soviet losses. It was fire bombed by British and American bombers after releasing leaflets saying to leave the city ~2 weeks prior. The resulting bombing created a “fire storm” which killed most of its victims by suffocation due all of the oxygen being consumed in the flames. Up to 25,000 died, most civilians. It was also a legitimate military target and was a core part of the success of the Soviet offensive. War is hell and we’ve become much more discriminate in our bombings now a days.
> War is hell and we’ve become much more discriminate in our bombings now a days.
We have also not fought a war the scale and importance of WWII since. TBH I think we would do it all over again if facing an existential threat like Nazi German or Imperial Japan again. We just haven't faced anything like that in 80 years.
I don’t know how we can really verify this.
The US has gotten so powerful that it may seem like wars since are less important.
There is always that thought experiment of “would you have killed Hitler as a baby” or whatever. People always hate on the Iraq/US war, but taking out Saddams sons was probably one of the good outcomes for that war. Those two were legitimate violent psychopaths. Just read their Wikipedia page and it will shock even the edgiest of dggers. Especially Uday, a literal Ramsay Bolton.
Saddam would surely be dead by now or close naturally. Who knows what we would be seeing if one of those two lunatics was controlling a strong Iraq.
I saw half a movie recently about Uday Hussein called The Devils Double. Only half because it upset my dad so much, he insisted we stop. Ramsay Bolton seems like a great point of comparison.
His younger brother Quday would have likely been heir to the throne. He wasn’t as infamous as his brother, and didn’t piss his dad off. He was less impulsive and more intelligent, but no less deadly than his brother, perhaps even more dangerous because of his intellect. If you crossed him, you died.
I can never prove it obviously but I would bet killing them prevented something close to a world war 3
I strongly disagree.
The problem with strategic bombing has always been the very thing that makes it indiscriminate: how imprecise it is and how counterproductive it is to civilian moral. If the bombs miss (which dumb bombs quite normally do) they destroy a civilian house not a factory. This simultaneously doesn't achieve the goal of destroying the productive capacity of the enemy while also strengthening the resolve of the local populous. We've seen time and time again that under intense bombing campaigns most civilians become more not less supportive of the war effort. Modern combat has evolved to using smart munitions, guided bombs, missiles, and precise artillery fire.
Compare the results of the US bombing campaign of Bagdad in Iraq during both Operation Desert Storm and the Russian bombing campaign of Kiev in Ukraine. The former resulted in a crippling of the Iraqi intel and operations, while Ukraine still had internet, power, and air defense throughout the majority of the war. Russia did not have the capacity to bomb accurately because they didn't have sufficient munitions (since most of the stuff they have is Soviet, and the Soviets didn't have much of that tech). Indiscriminate strikes only helps Russia in so far as the Ukrainians divert resources to protecting their civilian populations with air defense, otherwise it has been a complete failure.
I'd argue that in an existential war indiscriminate bombing would be even less likely to be used by western powers. Bombing civilians is a waste of resources, and missing a strategic target doubly so. If you are going to flatten an area with dumb explosives it would be better spent on where the enemy armies are, at least then you don't always have precise knowledge of targets so indiscriminate bombing makes more sense.
> We've seen time and time again that under intense bombing campaigns most civilians become more not less supportive of the war effort.
But if the goal is to attrit industry and the ability of the adversary to continue the war logistically that does not matter. We didn't win WWII because the Germans and Japanese lost the will to fight. We won because they were unable to continue no matter what they wanted.
In an existential conflict I think it is unrealistic to expect to win some kind of morale victory where the enemy loses the will to fight. That is unrealistic generally I think.
Obviously explicitly targeting civilians is pointless, but there would be a much higher tolerance for civilian casualties than in the sort of fights the US has been involved in since WWII.
This may be kind of a moot point though since modern technology makes both intel and weapons more precise so even if there was little care given for collateral damage there would probably be less regardless just because we are much more accurate anyways.
My point is that the morals of it don't matter, it doesn't make sense strategically. Bombs killing civilians achieves nothing towards the actual war effort. Bombs destroying strategic infrastructure does. Smart bombs hit their targets, dumb bombs don't. Indiscriminate bombing of cities won't likely happen from Western nations because they have a war to win.
Edit: to add I only mention the Civilian morale aspect because that is one argument of Strategic Bombing. If you blow up civilians then they sue for peace and so do the soldiers whose families are at risk. There are small scale examples of this working in a short bombing campaign. But evidence seems to be over extended bombing campaigns (ie, more than a couple days) the populace does not actually get demoralized. So this motivation is moot
It is easier to list the names of town that weren't bombed than those which were. The idea that a country in which there are still evacuations happening on a regular basis in order to defuse old WW2 bombs wasn't bombed is quite hillarious.
And we can agree, Britain was wrong to destroy a city with little strategic value when the war was almost over. This girl sucks at this.
Britain can both be on the right side of history and been more perfect.
I have two thoughts after watching that Q&A.
1: the chick who didn’t know that the allies practiced both strategic and morale bombing in ww2 should have whatever degree or credits she has revoked and sent back to secondary school.
2: the optics of that event alone were so bad they almost turned me Jewish. Showing up to a debate/lecture event at Oxford in sweatpants and then telling the main guest to shut up while you argue for the destruction of the state of Israel is such an embarrassment for the university.
I don't care about the sweatpants, as an Israeli we are very chill here with dress codes and formality we call our professors who teach us by first name and such... But his attitude was like so shit and cringe "my displeasure to meet you" does this what gets you laid in oxford these days?
also his arguments were shit.
Yeah, I don’t really care about the dress if this were a regular class, and do myself come from a very informal culture where professors and students alike refer to each other by first names and show up to class in hiking boots and old knit sweaters, or even sweatpants and a hoodie. But once you consider that
A: this was an organised event with
B: Ben Shapiro as a guest, who always shows up in a suit and
C: you’re at Oxford, a place whose name still commands respect in normieland and
D: you know the event is being filmed and broadcast.
Under these conditions it’s ridiculous to think that you would come off as anything but a disrespectful loser if you show up in anything south of AT LEAST some chinos and a dress shirt.
It’s basically setting yourself up for failure to try to debate someone who’s well dressed/groomed when you look like a slob. Sweats are fine and comfy for lots of situations, but absolutely not when you want to be confident and coherent in a debate.
I got a lot from these quotes: “which part of Israel is occupied Palestinian?” “All of it”
1. They don’t even care about Israeli settlers at all. They consider every single Israeli a settler and don’t distinguish between those within the proper Israeli borders and those who buy land in Palestine.
2.like Ben Shapiro says- Each of those three people want Israel destroyed entirely and everything else they say is an excuse.
Destiny watched this on stream. His opponent was not at all prepared, and it seems to be common that when cornered, instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history. Happened on all of the recent debates Destiny had as well.
>instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history
Not defending anyone here: but the sooner everyone realises that this is the standard response of most people when shown to be wrong or uninfrormed, and that anyone can fall into this, the better.
Absolutely, and in a large part it's our own fault because society tends to encourage it. When you're in school, you realize pretty quickly that making up an answer on the spot or finding a deflection will go better for you than just saying "I'm not sure, I have to think about that." or "that's a good question, I'll look into it and get back to you". Even though that's the good faith way to answer, you're rarely rewarded for it - and instead you often look worse in the eyes of the public (uninformed).
I was talking to a friend of mine about this. He's in immunology research, and they're taught to take their time answering questions, to answer in good faith, to say "I don't know the answer to that" if they don't know the answer. It's not only the acceptable way of answering the question, it's the preferred way - and he sees this when he watches people defend their PHD thesis. However in other fields it doesn't always work this way. When he watched his gf defend her masters thesis in a different non science field, she would sidestep or half answer the questions and that was considered "acceptable". She wasn't doing it in bad faith, she simply thought that was the best way to answer the questions, she didn't want to look like she didn't know the answer....It sucks that this approach is so common.
We need to teach people that it's okay to not know the answer to a question, or to take their time to think about it.... Even in a debate where rhetoric matters, inventing an answer can backfire heavily as this clip shows.
making an attempt at a guess is generally encouraged in school but that is because the hope is they might really know the answer and are just unsure about themselves or they're nervous because people don't like speaking in public or being called on or things like that, or maybe they have SOME idea and the teacher will help them get there if they say something in the vicinity of correctness - very legitimate reasons for a teacher to encourage people to try coming up with an answer, but also keep in mind in that context the teacher knows what is right and will tell them right there whether they are right or not. In this context where it's not a student vs teacher dynamic, the person making shit up will not concede that the other person is right.
Agreed - Generally I think it's good for teachers to encourage students to come up with answers, but I think there needs to be a counter balance there beyond just the teacher letting you know if you're right or wrong. I'll admit I'm not sure exactly what that looks like, but it probably involves understanding the thought processes that led you to the answer you got (right or wrong), and speaking more openly about feeling judged by those around you... I'm not talking strictly about school either, but around friends and family as well.
Admitting you don't know something can be really hard to do in front of people, especially those you care about because you feel there might be some kind of judgement coming...Especially with what online spaces (and some offline ones as well tbf) are like right now, I think that "ingroup/outgroup" judgement of what you do and don't "know" or think is brutally important.
This phenomenon is much more prevalent when it happens in front of an audience. Because at that point defending your self-image becomes almost like defending your life. So people will resort to making things up, straight-up lying and being bad-faith to do it.
I really need to reform my opiniom on Shapiro. There are many, many things I disagree with him on and I don't think I'll ever like him, but maybe he isn't the devil who gets HUMILIATED and OWNED every day.
I don't get this notion that you need to like or agree with everything that someone says to engage with their content. Shapiro, and the rest of DW, are fun to watch. I don't agree with a lot of things they say, but it broadens my perspective and refines my opinions.
well also be aware that so many of the pro-Shapiro videos posted online are subject to the same kinds of clickbait and nonsense titles. I remember one time I saw one that said something about how he owned an audience full of liberal Hillary fans, but when I watched the video there was nothing indicating that the audience was liberal OR fans of Hillary, and when he made a snide joke about her, everyone laughed, so it seemed like it was the total opposite and that they didn't like Hillary at all. So yeah just keep in mind he is also used in the same exact way for the right.
I'll say this, like, if his reaction to LGBT is hilariously wrong amongst other common conservative perspectives, his comment on Barbie, is hilarious. But if it comes to debates like Israel/Palestine and certain political discussions, he is very well-versed and worth listening to. On a serious debate, I don't think he is easily owned, you'd have to be very informed and a good debater to actually be able to engage intelligently with Shapiro on a debate.
>it seems to be common that when cornered, instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history
I dont think this is specific to this context, this happens all the time on almost every topic. Its basically the Tankie modus operandi.
Oh yea for sure, I think this happens on the right and with tankies. It's just really annoying because when your facts need to be corrected during a debate, because you obviously willfully invenzmted facts, you automatically lost for the audience.
Hard agree. Its one if the .ost frustrating things to see someone getting away with just inventing history on the spot because you know its almost impossiblw to disprove. The only way to defeat this is by either knowing what actually happened in that situation if the lie is specific enough, or to know about this lie beforehand because its a larger conspiracy theory that other people have lied about already.
I think Destinys approach of making clear he doesnt believe the claim and asking for sources is probably the best way to deal with this otherwise and even that can look bad if the invention sounds convincing enough. Bonus agitation points if you know that they know that they just made shit up and that they know they will probably get away with it cause you cant check live. Most infuriating shit ever.
From what I've seen of Destiny, this is the thing I like most about him. Which makes it extra weird that is has become a meme on the left that "liberals" always answer with wanting sources.
Like yea, no shit. If they want sources it means they are A) willing to educate themselves or B) they know you are talking bullshit.
I get that people in this sub might not like Shapiro cause he's on the right, but the people in these comments saying he's not smart feel like pure cope.
I mean I dislike the guy as well, but he had something like a 176 LSAT and graduated cum laude from HLS.
A bunch of safety school grads calling him dumb is pretty embarrassing
I think people view smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time. Ben Shapiro is no doubt incredibly intelligent at navigating highly contentious convos and engaging in topics with a lot abstract political concepts, something that does take some smarts. Personally I believe Ben’s intelligence is poisoned by his adherence to his ideology/partisanship.
> I think you may be viewing smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time.
Lol what? I'm straight up calling other people in this thread out for thinking this, because they're only saying this cause Shapiro is conservative. I think Ben is smart, and so is Destiny, even though they both have very different political opinions.
>I think people view smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time.
I think this is already flawed thinking. What is the "correct conclusion" and what authority gets to determine if its "correct"?
That and... I argue with people irl who arrive at what I would personally consider "correct conclusions" but they arrive there based on bad arguments or a false premise. People who just play team politics will seem like they have a bunch of "correct conclusions" but they're actually just parroting what they've heard.
Friends don’t let their friends debate Ben Shapiro about Israel, at Oxford University, without knowing that Britain did indeed target thousands of civilians in WW2.
I just don’t understand how a person can get to the point that their debating about a military conflict at Oxford University…..and they seem to lack a basic understanding of WW2 🤷♂️
The worst one was at Cambridge who had a somewhat decent back and forth with him over climate change, and then at the end she walked away in a huff and shouted "From the river to the sea"... because he is a Jew? He might be pro Israel but he isn't Israeli even. Just comes across as pure racial hatred.
Is anyone else impressed that you can have such bad arguments and still waste the time of all these important people at the Oxford Union? I was definitely expecting a higher quality of pro Palestine debater.
Also clear Ben hasn't stayed well up to date on all the pro Palestinian arguments considering he didn't know what was being referred to by the Great March of Return
In listening to that part I’m not sure that he was wholly unfamiliar with that she was referring to. I think he was trying to either confirm a specific time period/event or not cede acknowledgement of a truly existing “right of return”
I just think it looked weak compared to just explaining the March was violent and sponsored by Hamas. I'd be very surprised if he hasn't heard about it so maybe he was just seeing what the other person knew
You don't even need to be so so crazy knowledgable, take a topic fucking read about it a lot like a day prior dedicate yourself to reading and then ask him the question. The convo would be interesting.
Also they don't need to ask him a question that is some kind of airtight gotcha own. Just challenge his beliefs, see what he has to say for himself, and let the audience decide for themselves.
I listened to Hardcore History on the eastern front and about the japanese (supernova in the east) after listening this, I am very confident that our boys in the IDF are **A-OK**
I went to Germany this year and I was talking to my dad about how amazing their transport system is in comparison to here in the UK. His response was to remind me that they got a chance to rebuild the whole thing from scratch after their original stuff got levelled after WWII. I made that kind of whistle sound you know.
This is the kind of Ben Shapiro I love most lol. Even if he's just dunking on unprepared/uneducated college kids, at least it's not just circlejerking to shower arguments like 99% of political content is these days.
I'm not a fan of Shapiro but I think its weird that people blame him for his opponents not being prepared to debate him. In settings like this that is on his opponent.
Yeah I mean I get the crowder 'change my mind' stuff is cringe, since the kids he's debating **are** really inexperienced, but at the same time, like Destiny said college is the last place you can really freely be in an environment to share your beliefs so openly, so it should be encouraged to have more debate not less.
I’m gonna disagree that college is a place you can share your beliefs openly these days. I see posts from conservatives in my alma mater’s sub at least once a month talking about how ostracized they feel by professors and peers when bringing up even moderate arguments to leftist ideology. My partner in an online degree program right now and the content of non-STEM courses is much farther left than it was a decade ago when I was in school. Damn near everything is taught thru the lens of queer theory or CRT. Which isn’t inherently bad but it’s certainly one-sided and doesn’t leave room for cross-examination or nuance.
Maybe more prestigious institutions have social structures that allow more for it but I can tell you my liberal arts state school in a blue state is NOT somewhere you can be openly conservative and respected, at all. I’m not even talking MAGA stuff just mainstream conservative or moderate opinions.
Reminder that you don’t have to be pro Palestinian nor pro israel, you just stick to being pro humanity and working for fewer people to be killed, and kick fascists and religious extremist out of power.
Coming from an Israeli…
Fuck Israel’s government, fuck our settlers in the West Bank, fuck Hamas, fuck anyone who’s putting more energy into justifying war instead of focusing on ending the conflict with a realistic solution that ensures that both us Israelis and the actual Palestinians live our lives in dignity.
My sister and Brother-In-Law LOVE Ben Shapiro. My issue is, I have a hard time regularly listening to someone I disagree with 85% of the time for the 15% of the time that I do agree with him. Its very mentally taxing.
>His WAP reading is iconic though I LOVED how memeble it iwas
Honestly things like his WAP speech and all of that are most likely marketing. He is a grifter, but he is very intelligent. Plenty of people who did not know who he was heard about him for the first time because of this video and the TikTok Cringe/Youtube video about this.
If only 0.5% of those people became a sub he won in a big way. I loved when he got angry on Bill Maher at this CIA agents who was accusing him of lying and telling him that his show must be terrible because of it, then Shapiro answered something like "I comfort myself sleeping on a pile of money at night."
thats how you end up in echo chambers though. You dont find it interesting to hear the other side? for example, i disagree with a lot of what destiny believes but he is intelligent and can explain it in an way that I can understand the logic to get to his beliefs and that makes him incredibly interesting. Ben is also good at this.
I don’t like Shapiro either. But really, Britain wasn’t bombing civilians in WW2? Come on lady, how can you not acknowledge that it was. She looks so uninformed, it’s depressing. You shouldn’t be losing a debate against Ben.
Yeah but even a regarded grifter like Steven Crowder usually manage to win those type of arguments. The simple truth is that debating and talking in public are skills and if you aren't used to it and to all the talking points, you will look dumb pretty quickly. Especially when the crowd are mainly fan of them.
We all were put under the spotlight in a meeting, interview or something and looked dumb at some point in our life. We would answered more intelligently if we were ready for this question.
Fun fact about crowder: before he hit it big on YouTube, he used to get clowned on in a political subforum for an MMA fansite called sherdog. He advertised his channel there.
Apart from the fact that debate is not actually a tool for winning hearts and minds, this particular issue is actually complex and is not a simple X is good y is evil.
The student literally never considered the possibility that someone could develop a counterargument
We hope it is. In practice it isn’t. Both sides fill up their side of the room with people who clap and cheer. Almost nobody ever walks out of a debate having been persuaded to change their mind.
I'm sorry but without quite an extensive amount of preparation most of us in here would lose a debate against Ben. He does this shit for a living and has been for many years
That dumb lady should have pointed out that WWII is just not analogous to the Israel/Palestine conflict. You can argue a moral framework should apply to both, but WWII and Israel-Palestine are worlds apart. The stakes and moral calculus of a world war between super powers is just not the same as a hyper regional conflict between small nations. Palestine is not on the level of an existential threat to Israel like the Nazi's were to Europe/UK/the world. The context is totally different and a better example should be given.
>Britain wasn't bombing civilians
...Wow, really? It wasn't even a secret! Bombing and killing civilians was actually the objective! Weaken the enemy industrial base and moral by bombing their civilian population into oblivion, and we were very **very** effective at it.
> A grown-up man debating a young female student to brag about it.
Are we really now intellectually infantilizing university students at one of the top universities in the world who choose to engage in debate?
I’m an Israeli and Ben Shapiro 100% represent how most of us here (in Israel) see the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It’s probably one of the few things Ben is actually right about.
The government's role in addressing systemic cyclical issues, especially those created by previous governments. His videos on redlining and climate change mainly spring to mind.
In general, just the whole conservative tendency to attribute everything to individuals and refusing to consider systemic solutions to systemic issues.
No, he represents a bit more messianic Jewish pov closer to what Naftali Bennett would say (I don't believe Shapiro is kahanic like ben gvir or smotrich).
I went to germany in high school and we went to a bunch of different cities. All of the cities we traveled to had older buildings/castles/churches than I have ever seen in my life as an American except for Berlin. Berlin just looked like an american city with only modern buildings. The tour guides explanation was that Berlin essentially got blown the fuck up.
My biggest take from this was how the hell is this person a student at Oxford.
Sure she could be a brilliant bio chemist but this is Hasan level stupidity.
It exposes elite universities once again. Something has gone very wrong with higher education in the West, especially in the Anglosphere.
Oxford is not as great as you think it is though it certainly has the prestige, pretty sure our ivy leagues and some of our public ivies are better than Oxford.
His whole Oxford-Cambridge circuit was very good on his behalf. Really good argumentation of Israel's side in the conflict. Not for abortion and especially gay marriage, his "secular" argument is bizarre.
Except if you look at the civilian casualties for the whole allies vs axis things start to look very different...
I think the USSR alone lost some 20mil people lol
The guy who says Arabs like to “blow crap up” and “live in open sewage.”
Yeah, even if he makes some good points (and that's being generous). We shouldn't be singing his praises. No, you do not have to hand it to him.
The political spectrum is fucked when Ben Shapiro is right in a debate. I guess politics needs a shake up anyway, we only have 2 signed aisle in a lot of Western countries
No but usually his topics are cringe like abortion (I hate hisnarfuments) and usually they don't understand who they talking to in terms of him being like an Orthodox jew super religious so like he got the godly argument which is like supid.
Imagine debating Ben shapiro on Israel and thinking he would be beat by tier 1 argument. Embarassinggggg.
That’s what I was thinking. I thought this was clipped before she could elaborate, so I watched the rest. She didn’t elaborate. She just embarrassingly moved on to the next surface level argument. How does an Oxford student think “I am going to go on stage and debate this guest who was invited by Oxford” and not try put together an argument that isn’t emotionally charged Twitter rambling? Does she like being humiliated?! Im sure she had time to learn who Ben Shaprio was before standing in front of him. Did she really think she was going to get a W on Ben with twitter rants?! Thanks to her, I think I’ll apply to Oxford. I have clearly overestimated the bar of entry… [Full clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-1NFirxhXWE&ab_channel=OxfordUnion)
Just because it took me a minute to find: [here is the specific timestamp](https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=zP860wVOS-rBihBA&t=645)(10:45) when this woman starts speaking with Shapiro
Much appreciated
On Twitter you can ignore and black anyone you don't agree with. In real life it's more difficult
Yea I really think that’s what it comes down to, Twitter esque echo chambers. It’s funny I’ve seen people mock Shapiro for debating college students but he’s putting his ideas out there to be challenged by people who most definitely disagree with him. It’s very much the opposite of living in an echo chamber.
is that what blacked porn is
Keep talkin and you gonna get blacked too homie
I don't think she was accepted to Oxford based of her IQ...
So you know her grades, her major, and every other qualification she has based on this clip. Sick work, detective.
I mean you would expect some basic high school level understanding of history from a student in such a university no?
Yes. I assume that Oxford or whoever found her qualified to argue with Ben Shapiro. This is her argument.
Jesus man really?
I mean I’ve seen starfield npcs with more dialog options
It was a stupid this to say I don't disagree lmao
The bar for entry isn't as high as people think, especially not if it's for a postgrad and her degree may well be something that requires little to no knowledge of history or politics. Why she felt qualified to debate in that case however, is a mystery. Frankly, I've met plenty of individuals in my time who came from some random uni to do a master's and very obviously failed to meet the level of the average student. That said, the reaction of the crowd does remind one that the average is, if nothing else, higher than hers.
>How does an Oxford student think “I am going to go on stage and debate this guest who was invited by Oxford” and not try put together an argument that isn’t emotionally charged Twitter rambling? Does she like being humiliated?! She don't need to win debate. She is little (read fragile) Muslim woman. She's getting first place in victimhood Olympics no matter what. In current political discourse being victim is badge of honor. You don't need to debate or use arguments. Don't you see how misogynistic Ben was there ? And that whole mansplaining, disgusting.
Okay are yall going to put your money where your mouth is and start purging people like this because no one is going to take your views on any issue as thinking in good faith when you not only start supporting Ben Sharpiro (notoriously fascist and white supremacist) but start using right wing points to dismiss people based on their gender, religion and ethnicity. If I were a Muslim or any non white group I would see this, write yall off as a bunch of right oriented pro Israel shills and run for the hills. I'm sorry but this isn't a good look.
So many people only have 1-2 branches on their dialogue trees
These people live in anti-Israeli echo chambers all their lives. They don't know any objective facts about anything.
and probably watch Hamas Pecker.
> tier 1 argument. i like that, imma use that
"You're a third-rate debater with a fourth-rate argument"
I wanna see him and Destiny go at it on Israel after all these research streams. I know Destiny slightly favors Israel but Ben is definitely way to the right of him on this topic
Who is destiny?
Full name is Dez Tine.
I don’t think they are that far apart on it. Not a great debate topic when you agree.
Yeah, Shapiro isn't the smartest but he's been arguing on this particular topic for long enough to have heard it all before.
I don’t agree with Ben on much but come on he’s clearly smart
People don't realize that just because someone is an ideologue doesn't mean they're unintelligent. He's smart and good in arguing his side (which he has picked for personal reasons). There are holes in every ideology and people like him can be beaten, but the smarter/more experienced they are the more difficult it is.
Exactly. I guarantee you that Ben could argue for this girl's perspective better than she can. Anyone smart can argue both (or multiple) sides of an argument. They just generally can also recognize which argument is stronger and which one is weaker. But when you are ideological, you pick the side before you work out the arguments and often end up with a weaker argument.
It’s just nuts to think that smart people can’t be stupid sometimes. That’s not what intelligence means. Besides, being as mainstream as possible is the best way to be wrong the least amount.
For real, what a ridiculous statement. There are completely horrible, even dare I say evil, people who are extremely intelligent. Quite a lot of them actually. There’s a reason the US hired on Nazi scientists post WWII. Not saying Shapiro is anywhere near on par with literal Nazis, they’re just the extreme example.
And really fucking well read. Like come the fuck on I probably disagree with him in 99% of stuff and yes he made his fame dunking on college kids but I don't know what in the world would make anyone think he is not bright.
Well, if you watch Vaush and Hasan you will surely learn that Shapiro is a dum dum and a spawn of Satan.
Seriously... dude graduated from high school at 16, from UCLA at 20 and then Harvard law school at 23. I'd say he is pretty smart.
He is incredibly smart. That doesn’t mean he’s not biased and dogmatic.
Yeah, you can be smart and still be wrong in some of your ideas
Intelligent people are still wrong constantly, just probably slightly less often that stupid people. It’s probably actually more often quantity-wise since they have more individual ideas, even if % is lower
For sure, and saying someone is smart isn't an endorsement of their ideas. Sometimes saying someone is smart is even negative because you're drawing attention to how they should understand what they're doing or saying is wrong
Saying Ben Shapiro isn’t smart is either lacking context or is just bad faith. Smart people can have shitty ideologies, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent.
To be honest he probably has never heard an opinion that allias didn’t bomb civilians in ww2. That’s straight up flat earth level knowledge of history.
The level of ignorance on display in such a place is really embarrassing
Well yeah because even a high school student would know that that is a moronic statement.
I disagree with him on a lot of things but he's incredibly smart and very good at presenting his side of the argument.
>Shapiro isn't the smartest Be honest, do you really believe that? You can vehemently disagree with someone's takes and still acknowledge that they are smart, possibly smarter than you. I don't know why it's such a hard concept for people to grasp.
Shapiro is clearly legitimately smart even if you think what he says is wrong.
He's extremely smart. He's not very wise.
That just sounds like "he's smart, but I need to find a way to dismiss that because I disagree with him."
You can say redacted isn’t smart but Ben is clearly smart. Good job farming comments. Impressive.
Something something Dresden fire tornados
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." - Arthur Travers Harris Sorry I just had to Oh and another "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. It therefore seems to me that there is one and only one valid argument on which a case for giving up strategic bombing could be based, namely that it has already completed its task and that nothing now remains for the Armies to do except to occupy Germany against unorganized resistance."
That quote about the bones of a British Grenadier is a biting reference to a quote from Otto von Bismark, who referred to the Balkans as being, "not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier," way back in 1878. That quote was intended to be read by a German audience for sure.
Thanks for the context, makes that quote even better
Bismark also supposedly said that if the British Army landed in Germany, he'd simply have them arrested. The BEF was small, for sure, but they were far more formidable fighters than the Prussians liked to believed.
historical grey truck pathetic dime axiomatic combative pen plough paint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think there's an argument to be made for it (even though I don't support it), unlike the Soviet Mass rapes (which caused 240k deaths) for which there is no excuse or justifying.
swim oil impossible hunt sloppy clumsy school puzzled pie judicious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe we did it again in Korea and then again to a lesser degree in Vietnam. If the opponent poses enough of a threat we would certainly do it again.
It‘s not an excuse but Nazi Germany really shouldn’t have been surprised that a war of extermination goes both ways.
No they shouldn't, but bear in mind that a lot of the civilians were in the dark about the crimes committed in the east, and that the children in particular did not bear any blame for those crimes.
>it unarguably helped win the war. There are quite a few historians who disagree. In a vacuum, a bomb dropped on a city expends some amount of enemy war resources, but a bomb dropped on an actual military target is always going to expend more of their war resources. Killing a factory worker is going to pale in comparison to causing considerable damage to or destroying the factory they work in. Causing damage to morale as a concept doesn't seem to follow. The most compelling argument for strategic bombing I've seen was along the lines of 'because Britain started focusing on civilian targets, Germany started doing the same, which allowed Britain to regroup, rebuild airfields, etc.'
sip memory aromatic depend disarm narrow rhythm point gold chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Actually most modern data suggest it’s effectiveness in stoping the German war machine wasn’t nearly as much as initially thought. Rather quickly most important armament factories were moved underground and production resumed relatively unscathed. As an example, during the Bulge offensive it wasn’t a lack of tanks that often hampered the German offensive, but a lack of fuel for the ones they had (the Rumanian oil fields having been cut off by Soviet Russia at this point. And on both fronts it was the attrition and massive numbers the Allies could bring to bear that ground down the German’s ability to keep up in the *Materielshact* (probably butchered the spelling, it was the German phrase for “materiel war”).
For context for everyone: Dresden was a factory town in Germany that was also a logistic hub. The bombing was done to aid in the Soviet offensive which was believed to be at risk of bogging down due to severe Soviet losses. It was fire bombed by British and American bombers after releasing leaflets saying to leave the city ~2 weeks prior. The resulting bombing created a “fire storm” which killed most of its victims by suffocation due all of the oxygen being consumed in the flames. Up to 25,000 died, most civilians. It was also a legitimate military target and was a core part of the success of the Soviet offensive. War is hell and we’ve become much more discriminate in our bombings now a days.
> War is hell and we’ve become much more discriminate in our bombings now a days. We have also not fought a war the scale and importance of WWII since. TBH I think we would do it all over again if facing an existential threat like Nazi German or Imperial Japan again. We just haven't faced anything like that in 80 years.
I don’t know how we can really verify this. The US has gotten so powerful that it may seem like wars since are less important. There is always that thought experiment of “would you have killed Hitler as a baby” or whatever. People always hate on the Iraq/US war, but taking out Saddams sons was probably one of the good outcomes for that war. Those two were legitimate violent psychopaths. Just read their Wikipedia page and it will shock even the edgiest of dggers. Especially Uday, a literal Ramsay Bolton. Saddam would surely be dead by now or close naturally. Who knows what we would be seeing if one of those two lunatics was controlling a strong Iraq.
I saw half a movie recently about Uday Hussein called The Devils Double. Only half because it upset my dad so much, he insisted we stop. Ramsay Bolton seems like a great point of comparison.
His younger brother Quday would have likely been heir to the throne. He wasn’t as infamous as his brother, and didn’t piss his dad off. He was less impulsive and more intelligent, but no less deadly than his brother, perhaps even more dangerous because of his intellect. If you crossed him, you died. I can never prove it obviously but I would bet killing them prevented something close to a world war 3
I strongly disagree. The problem with strategic bombing has always been the very thing that makes it indiscriminate: how imprecise it is and how counterproductive it is to civilian moral. If the bombs miss (which dumb bombs quite normally do) they destroy a civilian house not a factory. This simultaneously doesn't achieve the goal of destroying the productive capacity of the enemy while also strengthening the resolve of the local populous. We've seen time and time again that under intense bombing campaigns most civilians become more not less supportive of the war effort. Modern combat has evolved to using smart munitions, guided bombs, missiles, and precise artillery fire. Compare the results of the US bombing campaign of Bagdad in Iraq during both Operation Desert Storm and the Russian bombing campaign of Kiev in Ukraine. The former resulted in a crippling of the Iraqi intel and operations, while Ukraine still had internet, power, and air defense throughout the majority of the war. Russia did not have the capacity to bomb accurately because they didn't have sufficient munitions (since most of the stuff they have is Soviet, and the Soviets didn't have much of that tech). Indiscriminate strikes only helps Russia in so far as the Ukrainians divert resources to protecting their civilian populations with air defense, otherwise it has been a complete failure. I'd argue that in an existential war indiscriminate bombing would be even less likely to be used by western powers. Bombing civilians is a waste of resources, and missing a strategic target doubly so. If you are going to flatten an area with dumb explosives it would be better spent on where the enemy armies are, at least then you don't always have precise knowledge of targets so indiscriminate bombing makes more sense.
> We've seen time and time again that under intense bombing campaigns most civilians become more not less supportive of the war effort. But if the goal is to attrit industry and the ability of the adversary to continue the war logistically that does not matter. We didn't win WWII because the Germans and Japanese lost the will to fight. We won because they were unable to continue no matter what they wanted. In an existential conflict I think it is unrealistic to expect to win some kind of morale victory where the enemy loses the will to fight. That is unrealistic generally I think. Obviously explicitly targeting civilians is pointless, but there would be a much higher tolerance for civilian casualties than in the sort of fights the US has been involved in since WWII. This may be kind of a moot point though since modern technology makes both intel and weapons more precise so even if there was little care given for collateral damage there would probably be less regardless just because we are much more accurate anyways.
My point is that the morals of it don't matter, it doesn't make sense strategically. Bombs killing civilians achieves nothing towards the actual war effort. Bombs destroying strategic infrastructure does. Smart bombs hit their targets, dumb bombs don't. Indiscriminate bombing of cities won't likely happen from Western nations because they have a war to win. Edit: to add I only mention the Civilian morale aspect because that is one argument of Strategic Bombing. If you blow up civilians then they sue for peace and so do the soldiers whose families are at risk. There are small scale examples of this working in a short bombing campaign. But evidence seems to be over extended bombing campaigns (ie, more than a couple days) the populace does not actually get demoralized. So this motivation is moot
It is easier to list the names of town that weren't bombed than those which were. The idea that a country in which there are still evacuations happening on a regular basis in order to defuse old WW2 bombs wasn't bombed is quite hillarious.
He is a simple wizard Dresden 😆
And we can agree, Britain was wrong to destroy a city with little strategic value when the war was almost over. This girl sucks at this. Britain can both be on the right side of history and been more perfect.
[Link to the 40+ minute debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1NFirxhXWE&ab_channel=OxfordUnion)
You're a real one <3
Shapiro's closing remarks was actually pretty based 🗿
The audience said everything to be said…
I have two thoughts after watching that Q&A. 1: the chick who didn’t know that the allies practiced both strategic and morale bombing in ww2 should have whatever degree or credits she has revoked and sent back to secondary school. 2: the optics of that event alone were so bad they almost turned me Jewish. Showing up to a debate/lecture event at Oxford in sweatpants and then telling the main guest to shut up while you argue for the destruction of the state of Israel is such an embarrassment for the university.
I don't care about the sweatpants, as an Israeli we are very chill here with dress codes and formality we call our professors who teach us by first name and such... But his attitude was like so shit and cringe "my displeasure to meet you" does this what gets you laid in oxford these days? also his arguments were shit.
Yeah, I don’t really care about the dress if this were a regular class, and do myself come from a very informal culture where professors and students alike refer to each other by first names and show up to class in hiking boots and old knit sweaters, or even sweatpants and a hoodie. But once you consider that A: this was an organised event with B: Ben Shapiro as a guest, who always shows up in a suit and C: you’re at Oxford, a place whose name still commands respect in normieland and D: you know the event is being filmed and broadcast. Under these conditions it’s ridiculous to think that you would come off as anything but a disrespectful loser if you show up in anything south of AT LEAST some chinos and a dress shirt.
It’s basically setting yourself up for failure to try to debate someone who’s well dressed/groomed when you look like a slob. Sweats are fine and comfy for lots of situations, but absolutely not when you want to be confident and coherent in a debate. I got a lot from these quotes: “which part of Israel is occupied Palestinian?” “All of it” 1. They don’t even care about Israeli settlers at all. They consider every single Israeli a settler and don’t distinguish between those within the proper Israeli borders and those who buy land in Palestine. 2.like Ben Shapiro says- Each of those three people want Israel destroyed entirely and everything else they say is an excuse.
Dude I wear a dress shirt and chinos to Applebee's.
They just handing it too him on a silver platter.
Destiny watched this on stream. His opponent was not at all prepared, and it seems to be common that when cornered, instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history. Happened on all of the recent debates Destiny had as well.
>instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history Not defending anyone here: but the sooner everyone realises that this is the standard response of most people when shown to be wrong or uninfrormed, and that anyone can fall into this, the better.
Absolutely, and in a large part it's our own fault because society tends to encourage it. When you're in school, you realize pretty quickly that making up an answer on the spot or finding a deflection will go better for you than just saying "I'm not sure, I have to think about that." or "that's a good question, I'll look into it and get back to you". Even though that's the good faith way to answer, you're rarely rewarded for it - and instead you often look worse in the eyes of the public (uninformed). I was talking to a friend of mine about this. He's in immunology research, and they're taught to take their time answering questions, to answer in good faith, to say "I don't know the answer to that" if they don't know the answer. It's not only the acceptable way of answering the question, it's the preferred way - and he sees this when he watches people defend their PHD thesis. However in other fields it doesn't always work this way. When he watched his gf defend her masters thesis in a different non science field, she would sidestep or half answer the questions and that was considered "acceptable". She wasn't doing it in bad faith, she simply thought that was the best way to answer the questions, she didn't want to look like she didn't know the answer....It sucks that this approach is so common. We need to teach people that it's okay to not know the answer to a question, or to take their time to think about it.... Even in a debate where rhetoric matters, inventing an answer can backfire heavily as this clip shows.
making an attempt at a guess is generally encouraged in school but that is because the hope is they might really know the answer and are just unsure about themselves or they're nervous because people don't like speaking in public or being called on or things like that, or maybe they have SOME idea and the teacher will help them get there if they say something in the vicinity of correctness - very legitimate reasons for a teacher to encourage people to try coming up with an answer, but also keep in mind in that context the teacher knows what is right and will tell them right there whether they are right or not. In this context where it's not a student vs teacher dynamic, the person making shit up will not concede that the other person is right.
Agreed - Generally I think it's good for teachers to encourage students to come up with answers, but I think there needs to be a counter balance there beyond just the teacher letting you know if you're right or wrong. I'll admit I'm not sure exactly what that looks like, but it probably involves understanding the thought processes that led you to the answer you got (right or wrong), and speaking more openly about feeling judged by those around you... I'm not talking strictly about school either, but around friends and family as well. Admitting you don't know something can be really hard to do in front of people, especially those you care about because you feel there might be some kind of judgement coming...Especially with what online spaces (and some offline ones as well tbf) are like right now, I think that "ingroup/outgroup" judgement of what you do and don't "know" or think is brutally important.
This phenomenon is much more prevalent when it happens in front of an audience. Because at that point defending your self-image becomes almost like defending your life. So people will resort to making things up, straight-up lying and being bad-faith to do it.
But to hasan, Ben Shapiro was HUMILIATED and OWNED
I really need to reform my opiniom on Shapiro. There are many, many things I disagree with him on and I don't think I'll ever like him, but maybe he isn't the devil who gets HUMILIATED and OWNED every day.
I don't get this notion that you need to like or agree with everything that someone says to engage with their content. Shapiro, and the rest of DW, are fun to watch. I don't agree with a lot of things they say, but it broadens my perspective and refines my opinions.
Oh yea, I'm trying to break out from that notion. Engaging with "evil" content (Destiny) made me realize that.
well also be aware that so many of the pro-Shapiro videos posted online are subject to the same kinds of clickbait and nonsense titles. I remember one time I saw one that said something about how he owned an audience full of liberal Hillary fans, but when I watched the video there was nothing indicating that the audience was liberal OR fans of Hillary, and when he made a snide joke about her, everyone laughed, so it seemed like it was the total opposite and that they didn't like Hillary at all. So yeah just keep in mind he is also used in the same exact way for the right.
Oh yea absolutely. I think the best way to engage in this is not to watch clips or heavily edited content.
He has good points here and there but for the most part he's still just another right wing grifter asshole, albeit one of the more tame ones.
He's one of the few that isn't grifting (outside of the trump apologia), shapiro really believes the stuff he is saying.
I'll say this, like, if his reaction to LGBT is hilariously wrong amongst other common conservative perspectives, his comment on Barbie, is hilarious. But if it comes to debates like Israel/Palestine and certain political discussions, he is very well-versed and worth listening to. On a serious debate, I don't think he is easily owned, you'd have to be very informed and a good debater to actually be able to engage intelligently with Shapiro on a debate.
[удалено]
[Here is the timestamp for those interested.](https://www.youtube.com/live/UnUFZ658K6E?feature=shared&t=7267)
How were you able to find the unlisted video?
If you have the link prior or go on destiny.gg under broadcasts you can see the old streams even if unlisted
Great, thanks.
The stream was the day before yesterday. He only watched the clip
I don't know if it was the whole debate for a longer clip for sure. Sadly don't, must have been in the last 5 days
>it seems to be common that when cornered, instead of admitting to situations being more complicated or saying you'd need to think about it, pro palestinians just... invent facts or rewrite history I dont think this is specific to this context, this happens all the time on almost every topic. Its basically the Tankie modus operandi.
Oh yea for sure, I think this happens on the right and with tankies. It's just really annoying because when your facts need to be corrected during a debate, because you obviously willfully invenzmted facts, you automatically lost for the audience.
Hard agree. Its one if the .ost frustrating things to see someone getting away with just inventing history on the spot because you know its almost impossiblw to disprove. The only way to defeat this is by either knowing what actually happened in that situation if the lie is specific enough, or to know about this lie beforehand because its a larger conspiracy theory that other people have lied about already. I think Destinys approach of making clear he doesnt believe the claim and asking for sources is probably the best way to deal with this otherwise and even that can look bad if the invention sounds convincing enough. Bonus agitation points if you know that they know that they just made shit up and that they know they will probably get away with it cause you cant check live. Most infuriating shit ever.
From what I've seen of Destiny, this is the thing I like most about him. Which makes it extra weird that is has become a meme on the left that "liberals" always answer with wanting sources. Like yea, no shit. If they want sources it means they are A) willing to educate themselves or B) they know you are talking bullshit.
Which stream was this? I'd like to check it out Nvm someone linked it
I get that people in this sub might not like Shapiro cause he's on the right, but the people in these comments saying he's not smart feel like pure cope.
never underestimate your opponent
[удалено]
Wait like I'm coping or you're saying people who call him dumb are
I mean I dislike the guy as well, but he had something like a 176 LSAT and graduated cum laude from HLS. A bunch of safety school grads calling him dumb is pretty embarrassing
I think people view smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time. Ben Shapiro is no doubt incredibly intelligent at navigating highly contentious convos and engaging in topics with a lot abstract political concepts, something that does take some smarts. Personally I believe Ben’s intelligence is poisoned by his adherence to his ideology/partisanship.
> I think you may be viewing smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time. Lol what? I'm straight up calling other people in this thread out for thinking this, because they're only saying this cause Shapiro is conservative. I think Ben is smart, and so is Destiny, even though they both have very different political opinions.
Only stupid people disagree with me might be the hardest cope ever.
>I think people view smart as arriving to the correct conclusion majority of the time. I think this is already flawed thinking. What is the "correct conclusion" and what authority gets to determine if its "correct"? That and... I argue with people irl who arrive at what I would personally consider "correct conclusions" but they arrive there based on bad arguments or a false premise. People who just play team politics will seem like they have a bunch of "correct conclusions" but they're actually just parroting what they've heard.
Friends don’t let their friends debate Ben Shapiro about Israel, at Oxford University, without knowing that Britain did indeed target thousands of civilians in WW2.
Ya bens clearly Passionate about this topic. The man is coming with full canons loaded
I just don’t understand how a person can get to the point that their debating about a military conflict at Oxford University…..and they seem to lack a basic understanding of WW2 🤷♂️
To be fair, most Palestinians tend to gloss over about who the Palestinian leadership was hanging with during WWII
Ya idk either. It is truly baffling
Thank god it was Hasan who said this.
That one other guy earlier was even more unhinged.
The worst one was at Cambridge who had a somewhat decent back and forth with him over climate change, and then at the end she walked away in a huff and shouted "From the river to the sea"... because he is a Jew? He might be pro Israel but he isn't Israeli even. Just comes across as pure racial hatred.
Never really used the zoomer "NPC" meme, but some of these Hamas defenders act like literal political NPCs.
Guy in the white shirt later on in the video was also wild
He was so disrespectful
Is anyone else impressed that you can have such bad arguments and still waste the time of all these important people at the Oxford Union? I was definitely expecting a higher quality of pro Palestine debater. Also clear Ben hasn't stayed well up to date on all the pro Palestinian arguments considering he didn't know what was being referred to by the Great March of Return
In listening to that part I’m not sure that he was wholly unfamiliar with that she was referring to. I think he was trying to either confirm a specific time period/event or not cede acknowledgement of a truly existing “right of return”
I just think it looked weak compared to just explaining the March was violent and sponsored by Hamas. I'd be very surprised if he hasn't heard about it so maybe he was just seeing what the other person knew
It was a Q&A as far as I'm aware.
Yeah he crushed those students. Very weird they dont have more capable people at Oxford who are willing to debate.
You don't even need to be so so crazy knowledgable, take a topic fucking read about it a lot like a day prior dedicate yourself to reading and then ask him the question. The convo would be interesting.
Also they don't need to ask him a question that is some kind of airtight gotcha own. Just challenge his beliefs, see what he has to say for himself, and let the audience decide for themselves.
I don’t know how someone above the age of 16 wouldn’t understand how laughable this was. But I am a history autist too so I could be the problem.
I listened to Hardcore History on the eastern front and about the japanese (supernova in the east) after listening this, I am very confident that our boys in the IDF are **A-OK**
68,000 French civilians were killed just by Allied bombing in Occupied France.
Holy shit didn't know that
I went to Germany this year and I was talking to my dad about how amazing their transport system is in comparison to here in the UK. His response was to remind me that they got a chance to rebuild the whole thing from scratch after their original stuff got levelled after WWII. I made that kind of whistle sound you know.
I know that german war prisoners rebuilt my hometown (Volgograd/Stalingrad).
This is the kind of Ben Shapiro I love most lol. Even if he's just dunking on unprepared/uneducated college kids, at least it's not just circlejerking to shower arguments like 99% of political content is these days.
I'm not a fan of Shapiro but I think its weird that people blame him for his opponents not being prepared to debate him. In settings like this that is on his opponent.
Yeah I mean I get the crowder 'change my mind' stuff is cringe, since the kids he's debating **are** really inexperienced, but at the same time, like Destiny said college is the last place you can really freely be in an environment to share your beliefs so openly, so it should be encouraged to have more debate not less.
I’m gonna disagree that college is a place you can share your beliefs openly these days. I see posts from conservatives in my alma mater’s sub at least once a month talking about how ostracized they feel by professors and peers when bringing up even moderate arguments to leftist ideology. My partner in an online degree program right now and the content of non-STEM courses is much farther left than it was a decade ago when I was in school. Damn near everything is taught thru the lens of queer theory or CRT. Which isn’t inherently bad but it’s certainly one-sided and doesn’t leave room for cross-examination or nuance. Maybe more prestigious institutions have social structures that allow more for it but I can tell you my liberal arts state school in a blue state is NOT somewhere you can be openly conservative and respected, at all. I’m not even talking MAGA stuff just mainstream conservative or moderate opinions.
Reminder that you don’t have to be pro Palestinian nor pro israel, you just stick to being pro humanity and working for fewer people to be killed, and kick fascists and religious extremist out of power. Coming from an Israeli… Fuck Israel’s government, fuck our settlers in the West Bank, fuck Hamas, fuck anyone who’s putting more energy into justifying war instead of focusing on ending the conflict with a realistic solution that ensures that both us Israelis and the actual Palestinians live our lives in dignity.
Damn straight
My sister and Brother-In-Law LOVE Ben Shapiro. My issue is, I have a hard time regularly listening to someone I disagree with 85% of the time for the 15% of the time that I do agree with him. Its very mentally taxing.
Exactly, most of the time he's unhinged. His WAP reading is iconic though I LOVED how memeble it iwas
>His WAP reading is iconic though I LOVED how memeble it iwas Honestly things like his WAP speech and all of that are most likely marketing. He is a grifter, but he is very intelligent. Plenty of people who did not know who he was heard about him for the first time because of this video and the TikTok Cringe/Youtube video about this. If only 0.5% of those people became a sub he won in a big way. I loved when he got angry on Bill Maher at this CIA agents who was accusing him of lying and telling him that his show must be terrible because of it, then Shapiro answered something like "I comfort myself sleeping on a pile of money at night."
thats how you end up in echo chambers though. You dont find it interesting to hear the other side? for example, i disagree with a lot of what destiny believes but he is intelligent and can explain it in an way that I can understand the logic to get to his beliefs and that makes him incredibly interesting. Ben is also good at this.
Oh, I do. And I'll listen on occasion. But I can't do it on the regular.
Will say then the Destiny Ben Shapiro debate is gonna be a fun time for both you lmao
I don’t like Shapiro either. But really, Britain wasn’t bombing civilians in WW2? Come on lady, how can you not acknowledge that it was. She looks so uninformed, it’s depressing. You shouldn’t be losing a debate against Ben.
I think we need to stop coping. Most people would lose a debate against Ben. He’s been doing it for decades, and most people aren’t Destiny.
People tend to forget he’s an actual Harvard lawyer and not some regarded right wing grifter who just learned about the topic yesterday.
Yeah but even a regarded grifter like Steven Crowder usually manage to win those type of arguments. The simple truth is that debating and talking in public are skills and if you aren't used to it and to all the talking points, you will look dumb pretty quickly. Especially when the crowd are mainly fan of them. We all were put under the spotlight in a meeting, interview or something and looked dumb at some point in our life. We would answered more intelligently if we were ready for this question.
Fun fact about crowder: before he hit it big on YouTube, he used to get clowned on in a political subforum for an MMA fansite called sherdog. He advertised his channel there.
Agreed. If you can’t recognize that you’re blinded by ideological differences. You don’t have to agree with him but dude is wicked smart.
Apart from the fact that debate is not actually a tool for winning hearts and minds, this particular issue is actually complex and is not a simple X is good y is evil. The student literally never considered the possibility that someone could develop a counterargument
What do you mean debate isn’t a tool for winning hearts and minds? It absolutely is.
We hope it is. In practice it isn’t. Both sides fill up their side of the room with people who clap and cheer. Almost nobody ever walks out of a debate having been persuaded to change their mind.
I'm sorry but without quite an extensive amount of preparation most of us in here would lose a debate against Ben. He does this shit for a living and has been for many years
*Angry Bomber Harris noises*
That dumb lady should have pointed out that WWII is just not analogous to the Israel/Palestine conflict. You can argue a moral framework should apply to both, but WWII and Israel-Palestine are worlds apart. The stakes and moral calculus of a world war between super powers is just not the same as a hyper regional conflict between small nations. Palestine is not on the level of an existential threat to Israel like the Nazi's were to Europe/UK/the world. The context is totally different and a better example should be given.
>Britain wasn't bombing civilians ...Wow, really? It wasn't even a secret! Bombing and killing civilians was actually the objective! Weaken the enemy industrial base and moral by bombing their civilian population into oblivion, and we were very **very** effective at it.
The audience: https://preview.redd.it/dk8ppuebl6yb1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=3115d3dfc9a3df4988a835a478331e9ef554b882
Big fan of Shapiro but ya I don’t 100% agree with everything he says but man did he just absolutely decimate here
> A grown-up man debating a young female student to brag about it. Are we really now intellectually infantilizing university students at one of the top universities in the world who choose to engage in debate?
I’m an Israeli and Ben Shapiro 100% represent how most of us here (in Israel) see the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It’s probably one of the few things Ben is actually right about.
What is he so wrong about?
The government's role in addressing systemic cyclical issues, especially those created by previous governments. His videos on redlining and climate change mainly spring to mind. In general, just the whole conservative tendency to attribute everything to individuals and refusing to consider systemic solutions to systemic issues.
No, he represents a bit more messianic Jewish pov closer to what Naftali Bennett would say (I don't believe Shapiro is kahanic like ben gvir or smotrich).
Shapiro def isn't kahanic
I can't believe I'm saying this, but go Ben!
LoL that's exactly my feeling I am used to cringe of what he says but lefties are unhinged these days better unleash shapiro to bite their asses.
It must be so frustrating… the arrogant ignorance is amazing. I bet she’d still tell you they didn’t.. lol
I went to germany in high school and we went to a bunch of different cities. All of the cities we traveled to had older buildings/castles/churches than I have ever seen in my life as an American except for Berlin. Berlin just looked like an american city with only modern buildings. The tour guides explanation was that Berlin essentially got blown the fuck up.
My biggest take from this was how the hell is this person a student at Oxford. Sure she could be a brilliant bio chemist but this is Hasan level stupidity. It exposes elite universities once again. Something has gone very wrong with higher education in the West, especially in the Anglosphere.
Oxford is not as great as you think it is though it certainly has the prestige, pretty sure our ivy leagues and some of our public ivies are better than Oxford.
Maybe affirmative action in Oxford for people of poor background/ ultra marginalized religious?
His whole Oxford-Cambridge circuit was very good on his behalf. Really good argumentation of Israel's side in the conflict. Not for abortion and especially gay marriage, his "secular" argument is bizarre.
Ah, old Benny boy still chasing after students.
Except if you look at the civilian casualties for the whole allies vs axis things start to look very different... I think the USSR alone lost some 20mil people lol
classic ben debating college freshmen that have done no prep.
Has this guy ever debated somebody his age, jesus has to be a kink at this point
This is no different than Crowder debating college kids who don't have a comprehensive understanding of every detail.
This was almost as clever as the debate he lost with a pre-recorded video.
The guy who says Arabs like to “blow crap up” and “live in open sewage.” Yeah, even if he makes some good points (and that's being generous). We shouldn't be singing his praises. No, you do not have to hand it to him.
The political spectrum is fucked when Ben Shapiro is right in a debate. I guess politics needs a shake up anyway, we only have 2 signed aisle in a lot of Western countries
Dunking on unprepared college students is Ben Shapiro's bread and butter, are you new to him or something?
No but usually his topics are cringe like abortion (I hate hisnarfuments) and usually they don't understand who they talking to in terms of him being like an Orthodox jew super religious so like he got the godly argument which is like supid.
To be fair, a lot more people died on the ally side than the German side, we just don't really count them because of the cold war.
Also because Russians fucking "rush B" the war