Fresh cuddly special Shrew

Well, his "debate skills" are mainly being able to talk faster than his opponent and memorizing a buttload of logical fallacies that sound good when you dont have time to think about them.

I’d say so more or less. I mean, as a “positive” that I can say, he sometimes has witty or at least quotable sarcastic quips which got better to entertainment than debate- but his ability to attack opponents in a way many find humorous is often mistaken for effective argument as opposed to simply a zinger an opponent isn’t prepared or capable of deflecting.

But yes. He is full of logical fallacy- his oft quoted or memed response to the question of what makes it so the boy scouts need to be boys- “it’s in the name...” is one example of such a quasi “witticism” that many see as unimpeachable proof or as a mark of his steady logic- but...

The clothing “dungarees” rarely have dungaree in them at all- and would better be called “dungaree cut <insert material>.” “Koala Bears” aren’t bears, a “life sentence” in most countries is not imprisonment for a persons entire life - I mean... I could go on for many posts as I’m sure most others could add a very long list of things or organizations who’s name is not really accurate in describing the thing we are talking about beyond being the known identifier.

Ben Shapiro is like an angrier, more conservative Neil deGrasse Tyson. He isn’t a moron. He CAN be right about aspects of a thing or even a general subject- but both try to sell politics and agendas and personal bias as clinical and indisputable fact. Both rely more on cult of personality and others perceptions of them being “smart” to make unqualified statements on things outside their area of expertise. Both appeal because they believe they have an answer for almost everything, or at least can tell you what answers are wrong even if they don’t have a “right” answer.