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

by Ben Shapiro

The problem, as Ben Shapiro puts it in this must-read, is that “because conservatives don’t think about how to win that they constantly lose” in confrontations with leftists. The solution is to stop taking the bullying and learning to argue for victory.Among Shapiro’s rules for beating the left in confrontations Be willing to take a punch. (conservatives tend to shy away from confrontations because the left is rhetorically violent; but it is important “to walk toward the fire.” ) Hit hard, hit first. (leftists stage muggings; instead of fighting by Marquis of Queensberry rules, conservatives need to accept the strategy Mike “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”) Immediately frame the debate. (“When you’re discussing global warming , for example, the proper question is not whether man is causing global warming but whether man can fix global warming—a question to which the universally acknowledged answer is no unless we are willing to revert to the pre industrial age.”) There are eight more rules that will allow a conservative to debate a leftist and destroy him. How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them is not just a “how to” book. It is a survival manual.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Psychology, Political Science, Self Help, Education

25 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2014

About the author

Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 and entered UCLA at the age of 16, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in June 2004 with a BA in Political Science. He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in June 2007. Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S.

His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall, ABCNews, WorldNet Daily, Human Events, FrontPage Mag, Family Security Matters, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBS News, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.

The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004), Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005), and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House (Thomas Nelson, 2008), Shapiro has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows around the nation, including "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "Fox and Friends" (Fox News), "In the Money" (CNN Financial), "DaySide with Linda Vester" (Fox News), "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), "The Dennis Miller Show" (CNBC), "Fox News Live" (Fox News Channel), "Glenn Beck Show" (CNN), "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News) and "700 Club" (Christian Broadcasting Network), "The Laura Ingraham Show," "The Michael Medved Show," "The G. Gordon Liddy Show," "The Rusty Humphries Show," "The Lars Larson Show" (nationally syndicated), "The Larry Elder Show," The Hugh Hewitt Show," "The Dennis Prager Show," among others.

Reviews

[Amy Juras · Rating 1 out of 5]

Arrogant and ignorant. He must think conservatives are idiots that can't form an opinion of their own. Ignoring science and compassion doesn't make you a better conservative it only makes you an ass.

[Jesse · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are morons on both sides of the Right/Left spectrum and this book pretty much encourages those on the Right to continue being one and paints everyone on the Left as equally stupid.

“There’s 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”. Millions of Americans surely would bust out laughing reading this. You could fill a library with examples of Conservatives not focused on virtues or their message and displaying the exact opposite of intellectual honesty. I know this is meant to be an "echo chamber" audience, but wow...you get the idea of where this one is going.

“Professors will, however, grade conservative perspectives down unconsciously, because they believe those perspectives are wrong, and the people would advocate for them are bad. That’s why when I was in college, I wrote like a communist on my tests...” Sounds like someone is mad about that D he got Junior year? I’m not sure which school Mr. Shapiro went to, but he should have done a better job scouting them out. Both my post-HS institutions were nothing like this...quite the contrary. Such comments are problematic in that they contribute to the ease in which people ignore evidence compiled by people who spent their life being educated in a field when they feel they can poo poo studies done by academics because all colleges are liberal dens of indoctrination.

“The left no longer makes arguments about policies’ effectiveness. Their only argument is character assassination.” He must not have watched the last Presidential debates or any of the Republican primaries. I can’t remember a Left candidate actually giving insulting nicknames to his opponents and calling them by that throughout a campaign. This is a problem with both sides, but to act like the Right has risen above such things is hilarious at best.

“You can try to hide from the attacks of the left; you can run away from them, attempt to ignore them...live and let live. That will last until the protesters are outside your business, the government regulators are outside your house, or the administrators are inside your child’s classroom. Then you’ll realize that while you were willing to let live, the left simply wasn’t.” True. And for those that believe progress has been made in certain areas in part because of protests, thank God for that.

“To that end, I handed Morgan a copy of the Constitution. I told him I was happy to discuss the evidence on gun control, happy to discuss risks and rights and rewards of particular policies. But we had to bring the Constitution into the conversation” I agree the Constitution should be at the center of this issue. The Right may find it interesting the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what they think it does.

“When you’re discussing global warming, for example, the proper question is not whether man is causing global warming. The question is whether man can fix global warming…” This starts a good point, but ignores a major problem with many on the Right, who are not like Mr. Shapiro, and do not believe global warming exists. If your opponent hasn’t conceded on the basic premise, you can’t really get to a discussion on solutions. If you think debating Leftists about global warming is irritating, imagine having to try to convince someone it’s not a hoax created by the Chinese government. You’ve lost just having that conversation.

“And yet the left won’t argue in favor of a blanket gun ban, because they know they will lose” This feeds into a bizarre myth about Liberals and the gun control debate that they are trying to “take away your guns!” The reason they don’t argue for a blanket gun ban is because most of them don’t want one and imputing a position to someone that doesn’t exist is no better than calling them a racist without evidence to support it.

“Body language matters...The left is expert at imagistics” This segment laments the advantage Obama had being a good-looking black guy (something that has for decades given people a huge leg up in society in general and in National politics)? and shreds the physical presentation of John McCain. I never had a problem with McCain’s looks; it’s not a beauty contest. Romney is a very good looking guy. And, of course, considering our current POTUS is the only truly physically revolting person (he almost makes Nixon look kind of hot) to ever old the office, his point on imagistics is a bit lost.

Absent from his advice on winning debates is a suggestion to have actual evidence to back up your point, what would count as such evidence, and what to do when your opponent has some. His advice will probably succeed in having you "win" a useless slinging of verbal diarrhea by framing things better and avoiding pitfalls (like spending the whole debate defending an accusation of racism), which moves the ball down the field...well, not at all.

[Mattaddis · Rating 1 out of 5]

I normally stay far away from books like this but, to quote Macklemore, "Shiiit...it was 99 cents". The first line of this 20 page "book" sums it up perfectly: "All that matters is victory". Shapiro doesn't give a shit about honest debate. He would rather project his own faults onto the opposition, make baseless claims, and whine about being "bullied" when called out on his racism and ignorance. Like most on the right, he lacks the balls for self reflection.

[Will Conrad · Rating 1 out of 5]

If this is the best the Republicans have to offer they better find another billionaire to buy the presidency

I hoped this may have some substance and intellect and provide some well thought out arguments. I've thrown away Kleenex with more debating skill and intellect. If Trump hadn't proved it already then this book shows how intellectually low the Republicans have fallen.

[Anthony Hoskelis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ben Shapiro's "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them" is handy guide for surviving political debates. Read it, study it, commit it to memory, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on. Obviously more helpful to those on the right than those on the left, I feel that "leftist" can use this book as a way to sharpen their debating skills: if you know what tactics the right is going to use against you can anticipate and counter. I've found that too many political arguments end up with one side calling the other "Nazi", "racist", "bigot", and other unpleasant things. Guess what side most commonly uses those tactics. We need better political discourse in the country and Shapiro's guide can serve as a useful starting point.

[Barbara Kacic · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’ll only consider the time I wasted reading this abomination well spent if it turns out to be a parody
Full review and commentary here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA7o7...

[Greg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Until we learn to talk to each other civilly and listen with a non-judgmental ear, in the spirit of winning together, we will continue to live in a fractured world fraught with fear. This book serves only to widen that fracture and stoke that fear. I'd give it less than 1 star if I could.

[naji · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sophistic trash
Shapiro's placeholder for leftism is Piers Morgan LOL

Let me summarize the 11 rules in 1 sentence: "Anybody that points out your bigotry is a bully"

Stupidest text i've ever read, i'd love to debate (bully) this clown.

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a good guide on how to have a debate with a liberal. I would've liked to see him get into how emotional liberals are and how to use that against them but Ben is living proof that he knows what he's talking about and smartly uses his debate with Piers Morgan to emphasize several of his points.

[Josh Evans · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha

[T · Rating 1 out of 5]

Even worse than I thought, wow this book is awful!

[Matthew Gault · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ben Shapiro is regarded as something of an intellectual powerhouse on the right but as far as I can tell he just repeats old conservative talks points mixed with evidence that couldn't even be considered anecdotal.

I was initially willing to give a pass on the equating of Liberals and Leftists because Shapiro is writing for an American audience and even if it is incorrect it's not worth arguing. That was until he gave an example of a "leftist" he had "destroyed" in a debate - that "leftist" being Piers Morgan. Yes, apparently the former editor of The News of the World and writer for The Sun is a leftist. You really have to wonder how far right someone has to be to view an avowed Thatcherite as left wing. There are two possibilities here, either Ben Shapiro did not do his research and thus doesn't follow his own advice or Shapiro is being incredibly disingenuous (I suppose there is a third possibility, that he doesn't think his audience will fact check anything he says).

There's not a lot to this book and many of the claims are unsourced and, in some cases bizarre. Does Shapiro really believe that Keynesian Economics is no longer taught in universities because Professors don't like it? Many of the claims in the book are of this nature and as such can be really dismissed out of hand - to quote Hitchens "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

This book really feels like an attempt to make money off conservatives. Shapiro paints a caricature of "Leftist" and of "the Right" which aren't even close to being true and invalidates his entire argument. The only thing he gets correct is that Morgan has the least helpful style of debating.

[47Time · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best thing this article has for it is just how well it applies to debates I'm seeing on television or even debates between regular people on the street in my own country. It's not that much of a revelation to me personally, but I thoroughly enjoyed his solution to debating people who go for emotional blows instead of using facts. His method at least sounds effective and even manages to be funny.

The author describes a case of being misinformed by the media and using bully tactics to win an argument and, ultimately, an election. During presidential elections the media and the campaigning groups that support each side are in a frenzy to show their viewers or supporters the good sides of their candidate and how much the other guy is the devil. There are plenty of people who already dislike a candidate and this gives them reason to outright hate him. The problem is that some of that information is exaggerated or even false, but the people who don't inform themselves from more than one source can't know any better, so they take the slogan or catchphrase straight to the voting booth, ignoring any opposing argument.

The bulk of the article focuses on the leftists' strategy for winning arguments using emotional responses and accusations, instead of logic and hard fact. This is a viewer manipulation technique to gain votes, because clearly the initial points of view of the left and rightwing opponents won't change just because they debate one another. The leftwing strategy is to convince the viewer not that the left is right, but that the right is wrong. The author recommends a way to debate the leftist and win: hit back twice as hard. In fact, hit first. This may not win the debate, but will win the audience - and that's what counts in the long run.

[Wayne Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recently, a friend loaned me his copy of this book, actually a pamphlet, to read. The problem, as author Ben Shapiro puts it is that “because conservatives don’t think about how to win that they constantly lose” in confrontations with leftists. The solution is to stop taking the bullying and learning to argue for victory. Three of Shapiro’s rules for beating the left in confrontations are as follows.
1. Be willing to take a punch. Conservatives tend to shy away from confrontations because the left is rhetorically violent; but it is important “to walk toward the fire.” 2. Hit hard, hit first. Leftists stage muggings; instead of fighting by Marquis of Queensberry rules, so conservatives need to accept the strategy of Mike Tyson. “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” 3. Immediately frame the debate. “When you’re discussing global warming , for example, the proper question is not whether man is causing global warming but whether man can fix global warming—a question to which the universally acknowledged answer is no unless we are willing to revert to the pre industrial age.”
There are eight more rules that will allow a conservative to debate a leftist and win the argument. Some reviewers, undoubtedly leftists, totally misunderstand what Shapiro is saying and conclude that all conservatives are being told to do is call liberals bad names. Well, when leftists constantly call George W. Bush a Nazi with the mantra “Bush lied—people died” (which we now know was in itself a lie since ISIS has found the chemical weapons which Sadaam Hussein had and cleverly hid), say that Republicans are promoting dirty water and polluted air, and picture conservatives as wanting to starve little children and throw old people out over the cliff, we have to fight back, fighting fire with fire. There is a time to “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). Sometimes it’s necessary to call a spade a spade. The booklet doesn’t give any formal rules for debate and really doesn't address issues that are topics of debate. I myself wished that it had a little more substance, but it’s a quick, easy read that describes how to frame arguments, which is the first and most important step in a debate and which liberals are very good at. It is also available to buy for downloading to a Kindle and to read free in a PDF from the publisher’s website.

[booklady]

I think it was the $.99 price that got me to try it because usually I hate even listening to debates, much less participating and it goes against everything I am and believe to destroy anyone. Shapiro's point is to meet fire with fire. I prefer to stay away from fire or have water handy, but then someday I may end up as Joan of Arc did, toast. Guess I will worry about it when it happens because I will never be able to follow this advice. Still at times I have very much admired how Shapiro has been able to hold his own, so not sure how to rate this little book.

Mostly, I take issue with the title, because in the examples the author gives in the book, he doesn't actually "destroy" anyone, he merely shows his opponents don't have a case. Well, I suppose that could be called "destroying" them.... Not the word I would use though... Shapiro's writing and word choice can be inflammatory, but he is also very very funny, although certainly not if you are debating him.

[Daniel Greear · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listen to Ben Shapiro's radio show every day and have found him to be a logical and reasonable conservative voice. He calls out President Trump when he disagrees with him and always uses facts and logic to back up his opinions. This book was short, sweet, and to the point. It was published in 2014, and a lot has changed since then, but the point of the book is still the same.

A few tips from the book: attack principles, not people. Don't fall for the classic leftist traps of calling you a buzzword (i.e. racist, sexist, etc). Frame the argument. Be composed. Hit them first. Don't be afraid to walk towards the fire. I am willing to debate with any reasonable person. I will not debate someone who degrades my character; I will be happy to debate anyone who challenges my beliefs.

"The moment you don't give a damn what they say about you because you realize they're lying is the moment you have the upper hand."

[Donald Trump (Parody) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shit, I knew these rules before this kid was even born, but hey, its nice to know a strong, handsome, smart guy like this agrees with ya. If you wanna give traitorous bastards a real pounding, the way I did that freak Jimmy Acosta, here's how. Really can't go wrong with valuable information like this. I call Bobby Muller every night and tell him that he's never gonna get anywhere with his investigation, there just ain't no chance. I told him he's so hopeless he should just cut his losses and scram. Hell, I felt so bad for him I offered him a couple million bucks so he wouldn't go and kill himself. I was being charitable, like a great and brave leader should.

[Lu Bielefeld · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 ⭐⭐⭐ - OK decent reads.
=======================

The author describes exactly how the left behaves in Brazil. They hate people who think differently and attack political opponents personally and destroy reputations.

Quotes:

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.

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 it’s so comfortable to be on the left: that unearned sense of moral superiority. Unearned, because folks on the left haven’t done anything positive for decades.

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.

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, that’s 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. That’s nasty. In fact, it makes them nasty.

Anyone who disagrees is a “flat earther.” Anyone who disagrees is a monster. You are a monster.

This sort of bullying isn’t just present at the universities. It has taken over the media wholesale. For the media, all arguments are character arguments. If you disagree with the members of the media about something, you are a fundamentally bad human being. The same is eminently true in Hollywood, where moral narrative is the heart of the business.

The left no longer makes arguments about policies’ effectiveness. Their only argument is character assassination.

No matter how nice or polite you are, they will come after you.

The left knows this is war. And they know you are the enemy. You will be castigated. You will get punched. That’s the way it will go because that’s how the left wins: through intimidation and cruelty.

There is no way to convince someone that you don’t hate him or her. You can convince him or her, however, that your opposition is a liar and a hater. When a leftist calls a conservative racist, the conservative tendency is to defend yourself by explaining why you aren’t racist. This is a losing battle.

The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence, is the actual racist: it is he who waters down the term racism until it is meaningless by labeling any argument with which he disagrees racist.

The left doesn’t have a playbook. They have a play. One play. The play: you’re a jerk. they have a play. One play! The play is you’re nasty. Take that away from them, and they have nothing.

They have buzzwords they use to direct the debate toward unwinnable positions for you. They are tolerant, diverse, fighters for social justice; if you oppose them, by contrast, you are intolerant, xenophobic, and in favor of injustice.

The left is wildly intolerant of religious people and conservatives;

The question is whether man can fix global warming – a question to which the universally-acknowledged answer is essentially no, unless we are willing to revert to the pre-industrial age.

“Global warming is man-made. Don’t agree? That’s because you’re stupid and hateful.” As a general matter, the left’s favorite three lines of attack are (1) you’re stupid; (2) you’re mean; (3) you’re corrupt.

On abortion, the left says it is for choice, but ignores that the baby has no choice.

If you force a leftist to answer why we should all give up our nice cars while the Chinese and Russians continue to dump toxic waste into the atmosphere, they will avoid.

You Don’t Have To Defend People on Your Side. Just because someone is on your side doesn’t mean you have to defend everything he or she says.

if the left is attacking someone, he must be worth defending. But that’s not true.

Ronald Reagan was not a god. He himself would have said that. Don’t follow people. Follow principle.

If You Don’t Know Something, Admit It.

The left is expert at imagistics. The right is not, because the right falsely believes that shallow imagistics can be beaten with substance.

You have to look like you’re a nice person in order for people to believe that you are a nice person. Scientific studies show that people will judge you literally within milliseconds of seeing you. Make them see what you want them to see.

The moment you don’t give a damn what they say about you because you realize they’re lying is the moment you have the upper hand.

In 2009, Obama surrogate Jim Messina told Democratic Senators that they could defend Obamacare as stridently as possible – because, after all, “If you get hit,” Messina said, “we will punch back twice as hard.” For decades, conservatives have been hit by bullies. And there’s only one way to deal with bullies. In the words of the White House, punch back twice as hard.

[Christian · Rating 1 out of 5]

I haven’t had the misfortune to stumble across Ben Shapiro’s content very much, but his is a name that I seem to hear a lot so when I saw this book for about 50 cents it seemed reasonable to look at it. If Shapiro doesn’t want me to judge him by it then he should sell some better book for even less.
Shapiro starts his book by summarizing why Obama won the 2012 election: Because he’s such a big meanie.

“Here’s what presidential candidate Romney said about Barack Obama: Barack Obama is not a very good President….But, Romney added, Obama’s a good guy….And here’s 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 y’all back in chains.””

This gets to the heart of what Shapiro is doing in this book. He said he was going to show the difference between Romney and Obama, and so he said what Romney said about Obama and then he said what Obama and his surrogates said about Romney. This is clever because it means that to disprove his argument you have to find Romney insulting Obama, but if you can’t find Obama insulting Romney that does nothing because he included “and his surrogates.” What’s a surrogate? Pretty much anyone who said anything mean about Romney. The standards are different; Romney is responsible for his words and his words alone, but Obama is responsible for everything anyone vaguely “leftist” says. He then talks about how Obama is a “cold fish” who would never drive you to the airport. Later he rants about how Obama won the 2008 election because he was more physically attractive than McCain…

A good portion of the book is spent on this, in his attempt to demonstrate that the Left doesn’t care about facts they only care about insults. This is necessary because it provides the justification for Shapiro to do anything he wants to do. If the left insults a right-wing person they are being a bully, but if a rightist does it they are just performing self defence, even if they do it first. In fact, Shapiro instructs his readers to do it first. Since we know that these leftists will always use low rhetorical tactics, we can also know that it is acceptable to do whatever you want to them, and you should do this quickly.

Throughout the book Shapiro never defines what a leftist is, and seemingly uses the word very loosely to denote anyone who disagrees with him. At one point early on he mentions pretending he was a communist in college to pass tests (where are all these communist university professors? I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life in university and I haven’t run across their insidious indoctrination yet). At this point I thought that he must mean communists when he says leftists, but then later he uses liberal as a synonym for leftist. After that he starts bragging about an interview he had with Piers Morgan as evidence of his great rhetorical skills, so Piers Morgan is a leftist? The self avowedly conservative Piers Morgan who supported Trump? Is there another Piers Morgan I haven’t heard of? So I’m not clear exactly on what a leftist is, but I am clear that he thinks they are evil.

One of his rules is to spot inconsistencies. Why? Because the inconsistencies reveal the true agenda. The Left are a bunch of liars who really have extreme insidious agendas they hide behind lies: ”The left’s arguments are chock full of inconsistencies. Internal inconsistencies – inconsistencies that are inherent to the left’s general worldview. That’s because very few people on the left will acknowledge their actual agenda, which is quite extreme. Leftists prefer to argue half-measures in which they don’t truly believe.” Apparently when someone says they want gun control they actually want to ban all guns, and when someone says they want universal health care they want to force “people to practice medicine for patients deemed worthy by the government.” He also claims that the left don’t want to pay doctors very much, and want to force people to go to medical school, as well as stating that Canada has black market doctors. It is honestly quite bizarre.

The book also feels sloppy and confusing as though he forgot to edit it, or maybe got someone to record him speaking aloud. The two quotes below especially confused me:

“And as for social justice, if social is supposed to be opposed to individual, then social justice is by definition unjust.”
“If you force a leftist to answer whether he or she would prefer to give up mom or dad in the name of political correctness – after all, all families are equal, so what difference does it make? – they will avoid.”

What are you talking about, Ben? Can someone tell me what Ben is talking about?!

Shapiro claims to destroy his enemies with facts and logic, but here he advises to use neither. He never says to use facts, or even to learn any. He does advise research, but he specifies that he means researching your opponent, so you know how to humiliate them. Shapiro does claim constantly throughout this book that leftists don’t care about facts and he does, but his advice for debate is not on how to best cut through artifice to find truth. It’s how to humiliate your opponent publicly. Shapiro is right about one thing though; debates aren’t about who’s right, they are about showmanship. His debates seem to be especially about showmanship. If this book is useful for anything it should be to demonstrate why no one should ever publicly debate Shapiro, not because he’ll win, but because he doesn’t care about truth; he just cares about who can humiliate the other more efficiently.

[Mit Sandru · Rating 5 out of 5]

Practical advice on how to handles leftist bullying.

[armin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Says the coward who sits down all alone in a one-man studio all the time and when he is called simply on air with Andrew Neil, he calls him a "leftist" and eventually leaves the show!!! Bullshit!

[kereru · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy Shit

[John Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fairly sound, if not exactly knock-out advice. His 11 rules make sense and can be used by either side of the political divide, it seems to me.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ben Shapiro is unparalleled as a debater, he is clear, concise, laser-focused, fair, but also brilliant as dismantling the opposition with the precision of a surgeon. This is a brief treatise outlining the skills Ben uses in his debates, which frankly are a joy to watch for anybody who has an interest in ideas and democratic discourse. Personally, I love the way he reframes debates from liberals who always believe, erroneously, that they possess the moral high ground. Liberals' winning tactic for years has been to marginalize opponents through name calling - racist, bigot, homophone, Islamophobe, mean, etc. Once forced to answer questions and defend their ideas, they are easily thrown off kilter and exposed for the flaws and fallacies of their positions.

I love this.

[Chandler · Rating 1 out of 5]

To get this out the way early: this is not a political review. I have attempted to judge this book on its own didactic merits and not let any bias -- one way or the other -- affect my review. With that in mind...

I don't usually get embarrassed when I read something, but Ben Shapiro has a way of surprising me when I least expect it. I'll absolutely admit there are a few good points here and there, but they're both generic and buried under the rest of this book's boring bloat -- remarkable to call it that, considering it clocks in at just under a dozen single-spaced pages. You're better off digging for tootsie rolls in a bag of razor blades.

Nonetheless, I hate my leisure time enough to have read it and I figure I should spare y'all the difficulty. Shapiro sets his audience up for failure in two primary ways: he gives both wretched and non-specific advice. Some of his points, if followed, would leave their practitioners coming up embarrassingly short in a real debate; the others are not tools against "liberals" or "leftists" but rather anyone with the specific traits of Shapiro's strawman interlocutor – the traits of the moralizing, self-righteous, anti-evidence bully. Now, I should be clear, it's perfectly possible to see any potential political opponent as such – and Shapiro ascribes just those traits to any leftist shortly before he dispenses his titular rules – but you can't really call yourself rational at the same time.

He starts out in excellent form, honestly – the first sentence is easily the peak of the book. "All that matters is victory." It's a shame he never helps you get any closer! It's even more shameful that right after he makes use of a collocation that never should have seen the light of day – and which I have only else seen attested on a drug-use subreddit, an amateur photography blog, and a video game review website...yes, I googled -- "garishly simple." Sorry, Ben, but that isn't how "garishness" and "simplicity" work!

He gives context for the debates one might encounter before he gives his rules, and it's pretty revealing.

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.

This unfair – yes, unfair – categorization admittedly makes perfect sense given the suggestions he offers in this "book" ("bully and frame them before they do it to you!"). At least, it would if it were meant for a debate. But isn't this meant to be an honest account of how to win such debates? If so, I don't see how this highly emotionally-charged (almost certainly too personal) characterization will help any potential reader who DOES come across the leftist who wants to "have an evidence-based conversation" – especially since Shapiro explicitly describes such a leftist as as rare as a "unicorn."

Also, this isn't really germane to the review, but I can't help but quote:

The people who occupy the professoriate have not had to work a real job – a job with real-world consequences -- in over 30 years. They’ve 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.

Limited ourselves to a quiet chuckle at this more distressing Doogie Howser's mentioning "real jobs," w— okay, we don't really need to limit ourselves. The only "real-world consequences" that would ensue if Ben Shapiro stopped writing are that the Village's nursing homes would have five or so fewer books to bulk-order 750 copies of for stocking their libraries. ALL THAT ASIDE, I have to say I really like how this quote is indistinguishable from what could appear in an actual flat-earther screed.

I'm also going to pass over quickly the bit where he advises you to, if necessary for a good grade under a liberal professor, to lie about your beliefs (?) on essays: as he puts it, "when [he] was in college, [he] wrote like a communist on [his] tests." It's really quite fascinating how soon after attributing to liberals an unearned sense of moral superiority he advocates for and admits to lying when it's in his best interest to do so. "Judeo-Christian values", I guess?

He begins his rules with one borrowed from his "late (ed. note: lol) mentor Andrew Breitbart": win! The rules, like the book, start on their highest note. He (correctly) indicates that if you don't play to win, you don't win. Good advice.

He jumps straight off the three-story balcony of "fine enough advice" into the dumpster with his second rule, of course. "Hit first!" How? Well, he doesn't exactly say. He does tell us that, done right, "any debate on a single topic can be over within the first 30 seconds." He says it takes research...okay...that's true, but he doesn't tell us at all how the research helps you strike first as opposed to whatever else research enables you to do. He just recommends you "[k]now your opponents’ tendencies – particularly if he has a tendency to lower his hands. That’s where you punch." Come on. That's not a place. That's a situation. "WHEN," BEN.

To be fair, his third rule ("Frame your opponent!") really does expand on the second rule (and has around 1400 words to the second rule's 200), which makes you wonder why they're separate. Did he really need eleven rules instead of ten? Regardless, he lets you know you're going to immediately be called racist, or bigoted, or whatever, and that (since that is basically game over), you need to preempt it by...saying it's going to happen, and calling it unfair. Let me quote:

The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence, is the actual racist: it is he who waters down the term racism until it is meaningless by labeling any argument with which he disagrees racist.

Let me quote again:

your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence,

I'm...not really sure how much we can assert that for this book's intended audience. It's an interesting sleight-of-hand Shapiro pulls:

No rational conversation is possible with someone who insists you are not worthy of debate. In fact, if your opponent thinks you’re not worthy of debating, he isn’t worthy of debating. If your opponent wants to enter a world in which we can have rational conversations about the costs and benefits of particular policies, you’re happy to do that. If not, the conversation is over. There will be no conversation in which you call me a racist, and I explain why I’m not a racist. That’s a conversation for idiots.

First of all, he pretty blatantly contradicts himself from earlier. He claimed that these sorts of discussions are basically all you get with liberals – the trick is to do it publicly, so that an audience will see how unreasonable the liberals are. So why is someone all of a sudden not worthy of debating? I guess it's because they're hitting a nerve. Regardless, the the more interesting point is the second: does he think it's impossible to have a "rational conversation" about whether someone is a racist? Like, I can understand if he says "in our political climate!" But the set-up described – "you call me a racist, I explain why I'm not" – certainly CAN be rational. Why does he seem to dismiss that very possibility out of hand?

He goes on to quote a debate he had with, um, supposed "leftist" Piers Morgan. I have no loves for the man, but he honestly seems to come off alright in this exchange. Shapiro: insults Morgan, claims he wants a "rational...conversation" but Morgan stands in the way, insults him again, is told by Morgan he "sounds absurd," calls Morgan a "bully" explicitly for calling him "absurd", hears Morgan deny any bullying, insults him again, justifies it by saying he's "punching back twice as hard" at Morgan, is told he's really the bully, justifies it by saying he's just quoting Obama, is told again by Morgan that that's actual bullying, calls that "astonishing," and wraps up by complaining that Morgan calls him a bully because (as he sees it) he calls MORGAN a bully...and then says it's all "absurd."

Thank me later!

I can't see anyone thanking Shapiro for this, of course. He gives the "helpful" advice that

[t]he left doesn’t have a playbook. They have a play. One play. The play: you’re a jerk. they have a play. One play! The play is you’re nasty. Take that away from them, and they have nothing.

*Gulp* Good luck, audience!

Now, don't get me wrong. As he puts it, it seems like this...worked? At least, it threw Morgan off his guard and certainly left SHAPIRO with the impression that he had won. Like we said, victory is what matters! But you think someone as moralizing as Shapiro would at least...try to come off less sleazy? Who can say.

His next rule is about successful ways to frame a debate and avoid buzzwords. He gives us this wonderful nugget, that "as for social justice, if social is supposed to be opposed to individual, then social justice is by definition unjust." If you ever feel like putting your head in the oven, just mutter that mantra to yourself a few dozen times with your eyes closed. I promise it'll have the same effect.

Okay. It's actually 2:42 a.m. here so I want to wrap this up. I'll just hit you with a few choice quotes.

As a general matter, the left’s favorite three lines of attack are (1) you’re stupid; (2) you’re mean; (3) you’re corrupt. Sarah Palin is supposedly stupid; Mitt Romney is supposedly mean; Dick Cheney is supposedly corrupt.

lmao

the left suggests that their entire goal is to make healthcare available to everyone. But they don’t mandate that a certain percentage of the population go to medical school. That’s because in order for government to guarantee a product’s availability, the government must either hire workers or force workers to get into a given industry. The government hiring workers would require paying money for doctors – and the left argues that doctors already make too much money. And the left won’t argue openly for what they would prefer: forcing people to practice medicine for patients deemed worthy by the government.

I really want to see this argument play out live. I thought he was a "supply and demand" guy? idk!

One of his rules is to "force leftists to ask questions."

If you force a leftist to answer whether he or she would prefer to give up mom or dad in the name of political correctness – after all, all families are equal, so what difference does it make? – they will avoid. If you force a leftist to answer whether they would force churches to perform same-sex marriages, they will avoid.

I honestly don't get the Sophie's choice he's presenting at the beginning. Does he mean, like, your own parent? Or which parental role "has got to go"? "Fellas, you can only keep one"?? Regardless, good luck to his audience crowing a little "nyeeeeh, well, what is it? you really want to KILL priests who won't marry gay couples?" because I'm not sure if the hemispheres of their brains will stay connected after the "what? huh? no?" comes.

He then asks that you not get "distracted" by leftists bringing up off-topic subjects. For instance, um, apparently discussing the Bush presidency at all in (checks publication date) 2014 is completely irrelevant to any political discussions. Interesting!

Arguing with the left is like attempting to nail jello to the wall. It’s slippery and messy and a waste of resources. You must force them to answer the question. So the next time they mention Bush, your reply should be, “WILLIAM MCKINLEY.” Bush has nothing to do with anything.

Okay, for one, please don't do that. Ben Shapiro has one of the worst senses of humor any biped could hope for, so you shouldn't take advice on "epic moments" from him. But further, what? What's that jello analogy? And why did it come THREE paragraphs after he equated "forcing the left to answer questions" to "trying to pin pudding to the wall – messy and near-impossible." ?????

His example for not being distracted is that he refused to, with Piers Morgan, discuss the lack of restriction on ammunition purchases in connection with regulation of Sudafed purchase. "I’d be happy to discuss either in isolation, but I found the connection unnecessary and distracting. He had to move on."

Why doesn't Shapiro just tell us how he really plays, instead of dressing it up as "rhetorical advice"? Say it plain -- if your opponent is making you uncomfortable, refuse to talk until they give up. Simple as!

Okay. It's like three now and I hate this even more. Good night.

[Tristan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This glorified pamphlet essentially boils down to a main point: don't feel the need to defend yourself when someone calls you a bigot for making a substantive argument that they disagree with. Instead throw their ad hominem back in their face by pointing out how they are not engaging in the substance of your argument and are actually cheapening the suffering of others by standing it in for their lack of argument (ie. call out the bully tactics). Once you get this out of the way you can focus on debate rooted in facts. Do not be afraid to bring up their bullying tactics early on if that is their usual habit of argument.

To get the gist just watch Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan discuss gun control.

[John Warden · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lot of Truth in this!

Ben is logical, rational, well composed when discussing the topics covered in his books. He teaches you to disengage from a conversation if you think the other person might get violent, but teaches you how to use FACTS to destroy arguments. I want to make something very clear. For all you crazy leftist ( they're the violent liberals that won't engage in a rational exchange of ideas) Ben has been labeled a Nazi. Funny because he's Jewish lol. I hope this guy sticks around for awhile. There's not many like him. O, also he's not a huge fan of trump, and basically wants to limit the powers of the federal government. Yes and yes 2 thumbs up!

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick and Easy field guide!

Body language and finesse matters. You don’t have to defend other conservatives. Call their bullshit at the start, by demonstrating their lack of evidence to the character assassination, and make sure they answer questions about SPECIFIC policy. The left thrives on half baked emotional appeal and aesthetics, know that, and do your homework! Politics matter!

[Howard Granger · Rating 5 out of 5]

How to crush the Left

Helps to have read his other book 'Bullies', so you already have information about the various deeply flawed non-arguments of the Left. What he could do is integrate more example debating situations into the book to illustrate the principles better. Nevertheless, a rare insight into how the Left's destructive character assassination.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short but useful essay on tactics conservatives can use to win political debates. Not change their opponents' minds or engage in substantive idea exchanges...just win.
Some good advice here, but I can't help feeling that Shapiro overestimates his performance on PIERS MORGAN just a bit.