Ben Shapiro - How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument

Copyright 2014

Truth Revolt

c/o

David Horowitz Freedom Center

PO BOX 55089

Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

www.TruthRevolt.org

Printed in the United States of America

eBooks created by www.ebookconversion.com

How To Destroy Leftists In Debate

By Ben Shapiro

How The Left Wins Arguments

All that matters is victory.

Thats a message that seems to have been lost among conservatives, who are constantly focused on the virtue of their message, the intellectual honesty of their cause, and the frustration of having nobody care about either.

But its because conservatives dont think about how to win that they constantly lose.

Take, for example, the election of 2012.

Conservatives lost the 2012 election for one blatantly obvious reason. It wasnt just their technology was no good, though the Obama campaign did have an obvious technological advantage. It wasnt just that conservatives did a poor job with the media -- although they did.

The reason that conservatives lost the 2012 election was garishly simple: most people in America dont follow politics that closely. What they see about the various candidates are what the candidates say about each other, and what the media say about the candidates.

So, lets assume for a moment that youre a typical American voter: you care more about Miley Cyrus twerking on the Video Music Awards than you do about the vagaries of Obamacare. Lets assume all youve really seen about the elections is the coverage in the mainstream press and what the candidates said about each other during the debates.

What exactly did the candidates say about each other during the debates?

Heres what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said about Barack Obama: Barack Obama is not a very good President. He said Barack Obama doesnt do a very good job on the economy; he said that Obamas foreign policy has a lot of holes in it; he said Obama has done a pretty poor job across the board of working in bipartisan fashion. But, Romney added, Obamas a good guy. Hes a good family man, a good husband, a man who believes in the basic principles espoused by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is not someone you should be afraid of in any way. Essentially, Romneys campaign slogan was this: Obama: Good Guy, Bad President.

And heres what Barack Obama and his surrogates said about Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney is the worst guy since Mussolini. Mitt Romney is the guy who straps dogs to the top of cars. Mitt Romney is the kind of guy who wants to put yall back in chains. Mitt Romney is leading a war on women and, in fact, has compiled a binder full of women that he can then use to prosecute his war. Mitt Romney is the type of guy who would specifically fire an employee so that five years later his wife would die of cancer thanks to lack of health insurance. Mitt Romney would take his money and put it in an overseas bank account specifically to deprive the American people of money. The Obama campaign slogan: Romney: Rich, Sexist, Racist Jackass.

Now, back to the American voter. Lets assume youve been watching this messaging battle, and now you have two choices: Barack Obama, Not a Very Good President vs. Mitt Romney, The Worst Guy Ever. Who are you going to vote for? Most people would pick nice guy, bad politician over Mussolini. And they did.

The exit polls showed that on the major issues of the day, Americans agreed with Mitt Romney. They didnt like Obamas record on jobs, the economy, Obamacare. But when it came to the key question which candidate cares more about people like me? Romney got blown out, 81 percent to 18 percent.

Now, thats not because Barack Obama is a warm and fuzzy guy. Even those who surround Barack Obama all day describe him as a cold fish. Obama is not someone who will bring over a bowl of chicken soup when you have the flu; hes not even the guy who will drive you to the airport when it inconveniences him. Yet, somehow, he was considered the more empathetic of the two candidates. Why? Because Romney was perceived as so darn mean.

No wonder the left seeks to avoid political debate at all costs. Why bother? Members of the left are not interested in having a debate about policy. They are not interested in debating what is right or wrong for the country. They are interested in debating you personally. They are interested in castigating you as a nasty human being because you happen to disagree. This is what makes leftists leftists: an unearned sense of moral superiority over you. And if they can instill that sense of moral superiority in others by making you the bad guy, they will. People on the left are taught from childhood that they are better than conservatives it makes them feel good to hate conservatives. And that hatred is justified because, after all, conservatives are bigots.

This is why its so comfortable to be on the left: that unearned sense of moral superiority. Unearned, because folks on the left havent done anything positive for decades. College students sense of moral righteousness doesnt come from achievement it comes from believing that you are a bad person. You are a racist and sexist; they are not. That makes them good, even if they dont give charity, have never met a black person, stand for policies that impoverish minority communities across the United States, and enable America-haters around the globe. It doesnt matter that if they pointed out a KKK member to you, youd run across the lot to knock him out; in order for them to be morally superior, you must be morally inferior. Calling you a racist and sexist, a bigot and a homophobe, gives them a sense of satisfaction with their status in the universe, even if they never help a single individual human being.

This is a bully tactic. When someone calls you a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe because you happen to disagree with them about tax policy or same-sex marriage or abortion, thats bullying. When someone slanders you because you happen to disagree with them about global warming or the government shutdown, thats bullying. When someone labels you a bad human being because they disagree with you, they are bullying you. They are attacking your character without justification. Thats nasty. In fact, it makes them nasty.

The Institutional Takeover

The leftist bullies have taken over the major institutions of the United States.

The university system has been monopolized by a group of folks who believe that its no longer worthwhile debating the evidence on tax rates, or whether the Laffer curve is right, or whether Keynesian policies actually promote economic growth. They dont want to debate those issues. What they want to teach instead is that is you are personally ignorant, bigoted, corrupt, and mean if you disagree with them. Their opinions are not opinions; they are fact.

This is the hallmark of being stuck inside a bubble. The people who occupy the professoriate have not had to work a real job a job with real-world consequences -- in over 30 years. Theyve lived on a campus where everyone agrees with them, convincing them that their beliefs are universally-held. Anyone who disagrees is a flat earther. Anyone who disagrees is a monster. You are a monster.

They used to call this Pauline Kael syndrome. Pauline Kael used to be a columnist for The New Yorker. Back in 1972, writing about the George McGovern/Richard Nixon landslide election, she famously observed, I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I dont know. Theyre outside my ken. But sometimes when Im in a theater I can feel them. She could feel the evil rolling off those people.

At the university level, this perspective is commonplace and that leads to ideological discrimination. That discrimination generally doesnt manifest as purposefully giving conservatives bad grades; most professors try to stay away from that, and do not attempt to destroy people in the classroom, except for a few not-that-rare exceptions. Professors