Hi, I really just wanted to make a direct
appeal to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the future
of the democratic party according to Tom Perez
head of the DNC.
Last week, Ben Shapiro offered a (borderline
illegal) $10,000 to convince rising Democratic
star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to debate him.
I am going to have so much fun with this.
Not only am I eager to discuss the issues
with you, I am willing to offer $10,000 to
your campaign today for you to come on our
Sunday Special.
We can have an hour long conversation about
all the topics under the sun, really probe
your belief system; frankly if you want to
raise money for charity and we'll do it as
a debate, we can do that too.
However you want to do it, I am more than
willing to talk to you.
I would love to have this conversation.
So let's make this happen.
Let's make America a more civil and interesting
place.
Let's do this thing.
The very first point I made in my piece, "How
To Debate Ben Shapiro" is that to Ben, debates
are not opportunities to make America more
"civil" or "interesting".
It's how Ben virtue signals to right-wing
partisans who have already made up their minds
about opposing viewpoints.
Ocasio-Cortez avoided falling for this trap,
responding with "Just like catcalling, I don't
owe a response to unsolicited requests from
men with bad intentions."
Make no mistake -- Alexandria is not wont
to run away from debates.
Before she won her election, she challenged
the incumbent she was running against, Joe
Crowley, to a debate that he didn't accept
until shortly before the election.
But this isn't an electoral race, it's internet
fodder.
The right wing is throwing a tantrum because
AOC won't play their deceptive game, and it's
delicious.
Prager U tweeted a fake "word of the day"
in response to it.
One writer for Fox News and The Hill wrongly
claimed that AOC wouldn't debate men.
Another pundit said that Ocasio-Cortez "pretended"
that Shapiro sexually whistled at her.
Alexandria never said that.
You, you watching this, you saw the tweet
yourself.
Dozens of other prominent pundits and conservative
keyboard warriors contorted her comments,
showing their true troll colors.
Shapiro responded by incorrectly claiming
that AOC tried to slander him as a sexist.
AOC's original tweet is clearly making a comparison
between Shapiro's antics and the act of feeling
entitled to approval from someone you're propositioning.
Yet another example of Shapiro's feelings
obstructing the facts.
You see, in a debate with good intentions,
you don't bully, harass, lie about, or name-call
the person you're trying to debate.
When you proposition someone who wasn't talking
to you, and they decline your advances, and
you still complain about it, catcalling is
not that far-off a comparison.
But Shapiro isn't coming into this debate
for a fair and honest exchange of ideas.
He debates people so that others can perceive
him, and by extension his ideas, as the "winner".
But beyond impressing an audience and filling
his own pockets (not hatin', just elaboratin'),
he doesn't actually want to give ideas their
fair chance, he just wants to make people
he disagrees with look bad.
I'm not just saying that because of Ben Shapiro's
book "How To Debate Leftists and Destroy Them:
11 Rules for Winning the Argument."
He's also indicated out loud that he's not
actually interested in hearing opponents out
in a debate:
"If you're on the defensive, you're losing.
There's no such thing as playing defense in
politics.
You're on the offensive all the time; you're
forcing them to answer questions.
Any time you're asked a question, you should
think 'how can I flip this'?
so that I'm asking them a question.
So that I'm putting them on the defensive."
If your debate opponent is just bombarding
you with barely-logical questions and accusations
the way Ben does, and that opponent considers
it a weakness to defend yourself against what
they said, then how, in Ben's own framing,
do you explain your ideas thoroughly and not
get perceived as a "loser"?
The answer is that he doesn't want you to.
Shapiro debates serve no ideological purpose,
they just help him build his brand the same
way calling him and others out on their deceptive
political bullshit is how I'm building mine.
I hold this opinion strongly: if your goal
is to change people's minds and get them to
challenge their preconceived notions, contemporary
debates are largely pointless.
Ideas are best tested through real world implementation
and analysis of such.
In a debate on the other hand, the burden
of proving a victor lies in the impressionable
imaginations of an unrepresentative audience.
It's like deciding a sports match not off
of points scored, but by whose highlight reel
got more likes on YouTube.
Also, all of these right wing critics are
hypocrites.
No one saying Ocasio-Cortez is weak or afraid
to debate is also criticizing the sitting
U.S. president Donald Trump for refusing to
answer questions from the press.
These same right-wingers sew distrust in the
media in order to provide cover for Trump's
fear of being publicly humiliated.
But now that the shoe is on the other foot
and the moral faith of *their* media institutions
is being called into question, they've found
the courage to stand up for journalism.
How courageous.
Luring opponents into fake, one-sided political
discourse is how Shapiro has built his following.
Right wing trolls will say that not playing
along with Ben Shapiro's game shows weakness
or lack of confidence in her political beliefs.
Well, the debate is over.
It's a B.S. argument.
