Ben Shapiro is going around giving his college speeches.
The latest was at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro specifically.
And this was part of the young Americans Foundation tours that he does.
And he loves doing this because oftentimes there's a Q and A section.
He and his crew have control of the mic.
And so he likes to put out these videos where he engages in these debates where
the students end up looking like they don't know what they're talking about.
Well, he was challenged by a student recently in ways that were savory and
unsavory.
Without further ado, let's take a look.
>> I'm a mathematician and physicist here, a double major.
And I also just won the most prestigious award in the country to pursue
research at any institution I want,
the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
So I think I'm pretty qualified to say that most of what you're saying is based
on like old data.
But my question to you [CROSSTALK] >> Make sure.
>> Like for example, gender identity disorder, that's the DSM4 bro.
We use the DSM5 now for psychologists to be able to talk-
>> I literally,
cited the DSM5 in the speech.
And it's called gender dysphoria, which- >> I literally.
>> That I used throughout the speech, not gender-
>> You sound like a bother bro.
And you can't even make your wife wet bro.
So it's good.
>> [NOISE] >> So, let me just say,
the nice thing about having- >> The real question is
if we're using a Western colonial idea of gender.
Then why should it apply, if we're using because the gender binary is a Western
colonial is a Western colonialist framework of gender.
>> Many women don't exist in any other calls.
>> No, think about native Americans, third gender people.
I'm not saying that third gender people just native American societies,
Western African societies like Southern native american societies like Mexico.
So in other places that are not white dominated and the United States or Europe.
And so you're saying nonwhite people, I'm a mathematician and physicist.
You cannot tell me- >> I have a question.
>> And also you're not a biologist.
>> So I have a question- >> I'm 20-
>> As a mathematician and a physicist,
what in the hell do you know about human biology [INAUDIBLE]
>> An you got your bio degree
from Harvard.
What do you know about biology?
>> So this is getting a lot of attention.
Mostly because of that very quick mention of Ben Shapiro and
his inability to pleasure his wife or whatever.
But I hate that because I actually learned something from that student
that I didn't know before.
And I think he's super smart and I think he was making great arguments.
John maybe you disagree with me but
I feel like even though it was funny mentioning the wife's stuff took away
from a really interesting argument and smart argument he was making.
What do you think?
>> No, I actually thought you'd be on the other side of that.
Yeah, no, I mean it obviously felt good for their side.
But no, it's I don't necessarily it's very easy to just insult someone.
They do it constantly.
And if he were to do it, his fans would applaud, this guy does it and so
their side applauds.
That whole video, by the way, is a reminder to me of why so
much of what passes for debate in the modern era.
It's the worst and it doesn't make our country any better.
It is done as a branding thing.
That is why he's doing this tour.
For one, because he's being paid large amounts of money.
Two, o bamboozle and
delude young people into being supportive of low corporate tax rates.
Low individual tax rates on the wealthy and for them to be obsessed with things
that they know nothing about and are interested in learning about.
That's what his job is.
That's what he's paid for.
And this is one tool of that.
And well, yes, the student that's on the screen right now did make good points,
that is irrelevant in this format.
It doesn't do anything.
None of those generally adults that are sitting on the floor cheering for
everything Ben Shapiro says care at all.
They don't actually care about gender.
And while they are ignorant about it, they're not interested in learning.
He just said those cultures are wrong biologically.
Well, we're not talking about biology. We're talking about the social construct
of gender, but Ben Shapiro doesn't know that.
And they don't see any inconsistency in him saying you're a mathematician,
what do you know about gender?
He's not a biologist and he's talking about biology.
Again, it's all cheap point scoring and the entire thing is biased.
You can say anything you want on your side will like it and the same for the other.
It's not just a bad debate.
It is the inverse of a debate.
It is the exact opposite of the quest for truth or a venue for
persuasion except very much on the periphery.
There might be a couple of people who watch it maybe, and
maybe that makes it worth it.
But for the most part, he is not there to change people's minds.
He has no faith he'll change people's minds.
He has already been paid before he even walks up on the stage.
>> Yeah, look, I think that you make a few good points that I definitely agree with.
But there's an overarching point you're making here
that I do disagree with, right?
And that's why I as dumb as this story might seem on the surface.
I think it's worthy of a discussion because it has to do with strategy and
look, we might differ.
But here's what I think and I wanna hear your thoughts.
So I debated Ben Shapiro, and I debated him in an environment where
literally every single person in that audience.
It was the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce was not on my side.
There was one moment in that debate where you hear someone in the audience cheering,
literally one person and it was Christian my husband.
So I didn't do that debate because I wanted to change the hearts and
minds of the members of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce.
Of course that's not gonna happen.
The reason why I engaged in that debate was because whether we like it or
not, Ben Shapiro has a massive following, a massive platform.
And I don't think that the people, all of the people who watch this show or
listen to his podcast are unlettable.
I do think that if you can essentially exploit his own platform or
the platform that he is providing for you, you can literally use
that to plant seeds in the minds of people who can be persuaded.
But you have to do it in a way that gives you the upper hand or
puts you in a better footing than just someone who comes across,
because when you start attacking him and insulting him in that way, right?
Like it's funny, I'm not taking away from that, but
it automatically gives this, it sends the message that you can't win the argument
by sticking to the points that you wanna persuade people about.
All you can really do is insult and I hate that because that's not the case.
I think that student was insanely smart.
I learned something from him.
So I actually appreciated those portions of the exchange.
And so I don't know, like do you hear what I'm saying or do you still disagree?
Do you still think this is, because I do agree with your perspective on Shapiro and
he does get paid for these speeches.
So there's, money to be made.
That's part of the reason why he does it.
But I think that you can kind of invade that for your own advantage.
You get what I'm saying?
>> Maybe a little bit.
I find the entire thing just so disgusting.
Even we agree on one micro point, which is when you just insult him,
that's seen as stepping outside of what this is supposed to be about.
Although again, it's such a biased playing field that we both agree maybe
he shouldn't do that and the other side won't like him for doing that.
But it's not like Ben Shapiro is being respectful in this.
So we identify this comment is being out of bounds.
Ben Shapiro's entire purpose in being there is to deny the humanity of millions
of people in this country alone.
That is what he's there for.
He is there to try to make sure that they receive no increased respect socially or
legal recognition or protection.
And that the protections or all of that they have now are stripped away.
He wants that.
But he gets to look respectful because he's the guy on the stage or whatever.
And I agree with your point that I guess you can try to co opt his audience
a little bit although no matter what you say,
the fact that you're fighting with him gives his side what he wants.
And it's really about the context of why is he doing this thing?
Why is he going there to talk about this?
Why are they always talking about gay Americans, trans Americans?
These sorts of things.
It is because so long as they are making politics, a gladiatorial sport
that is as far away from the money as possible, they are winning.
Now we do have to fight that battle because again,
they're attacking people who need to be protected.
We can't just ignore it.
They're literally stripping away people's rights.
They're outlawing reproductive rights and
they're trying to push people in the closet and all that.
But they also want to have that fight because they have been dispatched by
billionaires to protect the establishment's economic clout,
the unequal position that they have right now.
And so long as we're arguing about CRT and trans unicorns and all that stuff.
They're billionaires are sipping whiskey and they're smoking cigars and
they are not afraid at all of any new taxes or business regulations or anything.
And Ben Shapiro was fully aware of that.
That is what he has been- >> No, you're right.
>> Tapped to do.
>> Okay, so you're right about that.
But I would argue that they're gonna do that no matter what.
So whether we choose to debate them or engage with them, they're in on that
fight because that is what they've been instructed and paid to do.
And I think it's a problem to just let it stand without
having a strategic response to it.
>> I'm not saying you don't have a response.
I'm just wondering if this is the right one, is showing up to the debate.
Like what if it had just been a group of 40,
70 year old conservatives who were there to watch Ben Shapiro?
And what if all of his viewers tuned in and nobody was arguing with him?
And he was just doing his same rapid, rapid speech,
no affect, sociopathic rants.
And there's no one who engages with him.
How boring would that be?
Maybe it's worth a try.
>> I mean, he does that on a regular basis.
That's his podcast.
You know what I'm saying?
But I hear what you're saying.
I disagree, I do think that this can be done in a way.
Good faith actors can engage in this in a way that honestly
calls him out, and weakness is in his arguments.
What I found fascinating was how much he wanted to talk about culture war topics as
we were debating before the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce.
I was there to debate economic issues, but he got real uncomfortable with that and
constantly tried to pivot back to CRT or whatever.
And so we know their weaknesses.
That's my point.
So if we can co opt their platforms, if we can make good arguments because we know we
have the facts on our side, we should do it, but we have to be strategic about it.
Look, politics isn't just about fun emotional releases and
like dunking on people.
It's about strategy, it's about having the ability to plant seeds,
to persuade people there's an art associated with that.
And I think like the left were a little too self indulgent sometimes with like
the, let's make fun of these people, let's insult them, let's call them names.
Great, I'm sure that makes you feel awesome.
I'm sure you get that endorphin rush on Twitter when you do it.
But let's also get smart about what we can do to again take
advantage of their platforms.
Take advantage of their large audiences to make arguments against what they're
saying, to point out their weaknesses.
Because look, we don't have millionaires and
billionaires funding speaking tours for us.
So let's just invade there's, and I might be wrong.
Maybe it has no effect, but I'm willing to try it.
We just got to be smarter about it.