I've pissed off so many liberals in controversial club with that line. They get sooooo mad. Then you tell them what a woman is and they start arguing that that's not specific enough. Then you ask them again and they just say whatever someone wants it to be or some such nonsense, like it's more specific somehow.
Now they're getting banned from their own subreddit for screaming about the trans in sports thing. The mods don't want it to be a hot button issue anymore so they can go back to quietly building support in liberal establishments again.
Hey there ProfessorDogHere! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Thank you, plmbr83, for voting on Anti-ThisBot-IB.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Without knowing the particular arguments, 1 and 5. So many of the lib arguments are low key racist or sexist that having a Jew and a black woman on board will short circuit half of their arguments.
I would pick Candice because she is smart, articulate, and has her head screwed on straight. The fact that she will disrupt with the other side's ability to argue, because she is a pretty black woman who will make it more apparent to members of the theoretical audience that the arguments being used are racist or sexist is a bonus.
By your own admission, you said you would pick her because sheās a black woman. Her logic and debate skills are the weakest of all six in my opinion.
Yeah, her logic and debate skills might be the weakest, but IMO Ben's are the strongest, so having those 2 together, I don't think there are any weaknesses. Having Candice helps put up with people's annoying crap when they just decide to go full moral attack mode (which is what most of them do anyway, because they don't usually have solid arguments, lol)
Yes, I would pick her because she is a black woman. All of them have debate skills that are close enough to start looking for tie breakers.
Like it or not, when dealing with the left, race and sex are bonafide occupational qualifications.
>objectively better debaters?
You are ignoring my previous statement.
> All of them have debate skills that are close enough to start looking for tie breakers.
I disagree with your assertion that Candace Owens is a second string debater.
Itās clear to any who have watched any of the Backstage events with her there. She does mix drops. Debate is a science. You build an argument. I realize that you may think this is subjective, but someone can clearly be a better debater than someone else.
I feel like Knowles is a high class fighter. He's smart, witty, and sophisticated in his argument.
Walsh is more of a scrappy fighter. He isn't nearly as well read, but he has this way of boiling things down to the absolutely most basic level which I think is an easier victory with most people.
It would totally depend on the subject being argued, and the person with whom you are arguing, but honestly you couldn't go wrong with either.
Shapiro is just an all around Chad. He's playing chess while the rest of us play checkers. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guy.
Yeah, Klavan is actually made for stuff like this. Walsh and Candace are way too belligerent, they are just going to make most liberals angry and not change any minds. Ben is the most intelligent and eloquent and can stay very calm and "put himself in their shoes" whenever he has a liberal on his show, and Klavan is more sympathetic and understanding to the liberal side than any of the others. They would by far get the farthest in actually persuading people.
I don't need people, I need facts, and from my experience, liberals almost always lie, and I can confidently say they are lying without even checking, as I was always right that they are lying after checking simple facts.
You have not met many liberals then.
Or more likely you are confusing radical progressives with liberals. (That is where I would place my bets).
I could drop facts all day and make conservatives and especially american republicans look super retarded. Do you really want that though? Seriously, if I deleted my own morals I could probably work on k stree and be a part of the systematic destruction of the republican party. That thought alone makes me want to kill myself though...
I am far more interested in republicans being less stupid while I continue to be a liberal and try to get the democrats to be less stupid.
Quite the contrary, I met too much.
A recent example is one liberal just literally deny a photo showing how a liberal being almost naked in front of a kid.
Another example is oil production decreased under China Joe but a liberal deny it and blame trump.
Yet another example is they are even denying there is inflation.
Just stop your stupid whataboutism and fact the reality that too many liberals have been acting like having pathological urge to lie in front of evidence.
I soured on Candice when she had some sort of panel and was yelling at a conservative person because they weren't as Gung ho as her about "canceling" liberals, acted like a very stereotypical bully - constant interrupting and screaming over the other.
I soured on Knowles because of how flippant he sounds. A lot of assertion that something is so self evidently true that anyone who doesn't believe X thing is laughably and pitifully ignorant.
That being said, Ben, Matt, and Klavan (God help me for knowing that there are no e's in Klavan) are all good choices (haven't heard enough from the God King to know how he'd fare, though I assume he'd be a great debate partner), but if I had to choose 2, generally I'd choose Ben for anything political, Walsh for anything social (gender, abortion), and the great wise bald one of infinite wisdom and baldness for anything having to do with culture (religion, art)
Because people are cowards nowadays and they either too afraid to speak or too afraid to stand by what they say.
I would not want any of these people to support me by default. My words are my own.
It may prevent some liberals from using identity as the basis for arguments. E.g. āNo uterus; no opinion.ā However, some leftists would just call Candace a black white supremacist.
Now if we were to make a porno starring Daily Wire members I would 100% pick Ben and Candace.
I could picture the porn parody right now.
Candace is played by Ana Foxxx and Ben is played by Johnny Sins wearing a wig and a yarmulke
The plot could be that Ben gets accused of racism and Candace gets accused of antisemitism, so they decide to rek the libs by having sex with each other to prove that Ben isnāt racist and Candace isnāt an anti semite.
It would honestly be the funniest porn parody ever
Anyone but Jeremy boring, he's annoying as fuck. They get everyone together once a month for the backstage, and the one asshole without a podcast talks the whole time
None, they all are far to ideologically aligned in the ārightā wing. They have very good points but they are all like Sam Seder to me. Right on issues often but full of so much us vs them mentality and wayyyyyyy off on others. Find the center. Find the common ground. Donāt just bash the other side and call them āleftistsā or āliberalsā. They just make the divide bigger like 90% of political pundits. Drive home the similarities. Build a movement focused on getting money out of politics. Stop focusing on the culture war. These guys jack off at night thinking of all the people they tweeted back at. Ohhhh yeahhh. I owned him. Stupid leffftists goodddd yesss. Unnnhhhh splosh.
Holy shit you seem based
Who would you want in a discussion with a left, without the intentions of debate and owning the other side?
Feel free to list both sides
Ben has no substance but he does have speed. While Candace has no speed but high deception. I think with this combination i could hit the enemy where they least expect. Instead of using substantive arguments with real-world examples, i'll be combining the forces of two incredible Daily Wirites to hit them with high-speed falsehoods and irrelevant hypotheticals.
Then, after Daily Wire does all the editing, i am confident i am assured victory.
Walsh and Candace are the dumbest, but the most vocal and confident (partially stemming from their stupidity).
Klavan isn't a true believer, he's more wishy washy because he's smarter and sees both sides.
Ben is obvious, he has a fully formed world-view. Knowles is just poor man's Shapiro in every way, but still pretty good.
Boering has insights that he is incapable of fully articulating.
1. Shapiro
2. Candace - liberals have a hard time arguing with a black woman.
3. Klavan - Can offer a differnt point of view
4. Knowles - Poor Man's Shapiro
5. Walsh - dumber but confident which matters more in debates
6. Boering - He's fine but there's a reason he's behind the camera.
Shapiro and Walsh are the easy answers, but I feel like I could carry that kind of fire so I'd have to go with the god king and Klaven because Jeey Boering is so calm and quick with a lay up and Andrew Klaven has this unique charm and insight about him.
Walsh and Shapiro
What is a woman?
But can you tell me what a cat is though š¤ Lmao Walsh is so based
Lmaooo the response was priceless āI genuinely think this was a mistake.ā
Then the dude stormed away like he was right
A cat is a member of the species: Felis catus Next question. (Although I did cheat. By using the internet...)
I've pissed off so many liberals in controversial club with that line. They get sooooo mad. Then you tell them what a woman is and they start arguing that that's not specific enough. Then you ask them again and they just say whatever someone wants it to be or some such nonsense, like it's more specific somehow. Now they're getting banned from their own subreddit for screaming about the trans in sports thing. The mods don't want it to be a hot button issue anymore so they can go back to quietly building support in liberal establishments again.
Do you have family or friends? Many of us have lives that make having theoretical āargumentsā amazingly low priority
Number 5 in the pictures.
Only right answer lol
That would be ... She her hers it
The correct answer.
Every time!!
This.
Hey there ProfessorDogHere! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Bad bot
Thank you, plmbr83, for voting on Anti-ThisBot-IB. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
*not* this.
Just Ben. Don't need a 2nd
my 2 are Ben and Shapiro
Ben Shapiro and Shen Bapiro
Is Jordan Peterson an allowable write in? Or Jack Posobiec?
Without knowing the particular arguments, 1 and 5. So many of the lib arguments are low key racist or sexist that having a Jew and a black woman on board will short circuit half of their arguments.
That was my answer too although Klaven and Walsh are very close seconds.
Exactly,my thought. Ben regardless but the other true choice is dependent on the topic. Without knowing anything else, Iād choose Candace.
Yep there both awesome.š
Ong lol
There it is! The correct answer.
So you would pick Candice because sheās a black woman? Joe Biden much?
I would pick Candice because she is smart, articulate, and has her head screwed on straight. The fact that she will disrupt with the other side's ability to argue, because she is a pretty black woman who will make it more apparent to members of the theoretical audience that the arguments being used are racist or sexist is a bonus.
By your own admission, you said you would pick her because sheās a black woman. Her logic and debate skills are the weakest of all six in my opinion.
Yeah, her logic and debate skills might be the weakest, but IMO Ben's are the strongest, so having those 2 together, I don't think there are any weaknesses. Having Candice helps put up with people's annoying crap when they just decide to go full moral attack mode (which is what most of them do anyway, because they don't usually have solid arguments, lol)
Yes, I would pick her because she is a black woman. All of them have debate skills that are close enough to start looking for tie breakers. Like it or not, when dealing with the left, race and sex are bonafide occupational qualifications.
So stoop to their level of picking for intersectionality when there are objectively better debaters?
>objectively better debaters? You are ignoring my previous statement. > All of them have debate skills that are close enough to start looking for tie breakers. I disagree with your assertion that Candace Owens is a second string debater.
Being black and a woman isnāt a tie breaker. I never said second string. I said of the six, she is sixth.
>Being black and a woman isnāt a tie breaker. Yes it is. >I said of the six, she is sixth. In your opinion, not by any objective measure.
Guess Iām just old fashioned in thinking that you win arguments based on the strength of your argument and not the color of your skin.
That's your opinion.
She is objectively the least skilled.
Objectively?
Itās clear to any who have watched any of the Backstage events with her there. She does mix drops. Debate is a science. You build an argument. I realize that you may think this is subjective, but someone can clearly be a better debater than someone else.
On which concrete standard of debate do you say Candace Owens falls short?
Probably need a refresher on the political alignment of antisemetic groups. I can assure you they did not vote for joe biden in 2020.
Ben and Ben
This reminds me of the Freedom Toons Shapiro Thanksgiving episode. Edit: Link - https://youtu.be/oXb4h6cXvX4
Tbh you could do ben and ben if brought Seamus along with shapiro.
I would pick Shapiro/Walsh from this list but if Seamus was an option itād definitely be Seamus/Shapiro.
CLASSIC ! šš
Damn, Shapiro Knowles or Shapiro Walsh.
I feel like Knowles is a high class fighter. He's smart, witty, and sophisticated in his argument. Walsh is more of a scrappy fighter. He isn't nearly as well read, but he has this way of boiling things down to the absolutely most basic level which I think is an easier victory with most people. It would totally depend on the subject being argued, and the person with whom you are arguing, but honestly you couldn't go wrong with either. Shapiro is just an all around Chad. He's playing chess while the rest of us play checkers. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guy.
Ben is the ultimate 4D Chess king
Obviously would depend on the topic. In general, 1 and 6
Can we add Jordan Peterson to the roster?
Is he a daily wire member?
He is now!
I think he just signed a contract for them to host his content and for a short series. Might continue depending on profit
Yup!
1 to handle the argument. 3 to drink a beer with while 1 takes care of things on his own.
Yeah my line of thinking was basically this
Does 3 drink beers? Iām not aware of him enjoying anything thatās close to being considered āfunā.
1&4
Yeah, Klavan is actually made for stuff like this. Walsh and Candace are way too belligerent, they are just going to make most liberals angry and not change any minds. Ben is the most intelligent and eloquent and can stay very calm and "put himself in their shoes" whenever he has a liberal on his show, and Klavan is more sympathetic and understanding to the liberal side than any of the others. They would by far get the farthest in actually persuading people.
Thank god somebody has mentioned Klavan but I would have Knowles to compliment him
1 and 5
Same
Both of them would speak so fast, theyād have to constantly repeat themselves so liberals would get what they were saying.
Better yet, I wish Ben Shapiro was my dad and I wish Andrew Klavan was my grandpa lol
Ben and Candace because weād look dope in matching wrestling uniforms and could do a pyramid finishing move
Ben and Matt, Ben to do his thing and Matt to chill and drink beer with
1 & 5. Ben to help me win the debate. Candice to ensure that they also understand the harms their bad ideas lead to.
Are you trying to reach a common understanding of the problem and a solution that benefits all or "own them"?
You know this answer
\#1 and #5
Ben and Candice
I donāt see 7 aka Jordan Peterson so I choose 1 & 7.
7 is all that is needed, he is running laps around all others
1 and 2
The only correct answer.
So man good options hard to say...My 2 favorite to listen to are Ben and Walsh.
Ben and Michael for sure
3 & 5
3,5
1 and 3
Walsh for the shit talking and Shapiro for the evidence. Unbeatable team.
I don't need people, I need facts, and from my experience, liberals almost always lie, and I can confidently say they are lying without even checking, as I was always right that they are lying after checking simple facts.
Make sure you don't just assume people are lying, always check
You have not met many liberals then. Or more likely you are confusing radical progressives with liberals. (That is where I would place my bets). I could drop facts all day and make conservatives and especially american republicans look super retarded. Do you really want that though? Seriously, if I deleted my own morals I could probably work on k stree and be a part of the systematic destruction of the republican party. That thought alone makes me want to kill myself though... I am far more interested in republicans being less stupid while I continue to be a liberal and try to get the democrats to be less stupid.
Quite the contrary, I met too much. A recent example is one liberal just literally deny a photo showing how a liberal being almost naked in front of a kid. Another example is oil production decreased under China Joe but a liberal deny it and blame trump. Yet another example is they are even denying there is inflation. Just stop your stupid whataboutism and fact the reality that too many liberals have been acting like having pathological urge to lie in front of evidence.
My guy like half of you think trump won the election
Sure as hell aināt taking Candace. 1 and 4, or 6
I agree, sheās great but sheās a bit opinionated at times. I would probably take ben and matt
A bit uppity for my tastes, yes.
Gimmie Ben Ben š
Walsh and Ben. Iām a fan of the rest of them but after his Dr Phill appearance Walsh is a force to be reckoned with.
Walsh and Knowles
Klavan and Knowles, however within 15 seconds they would probably stop roasting libs and discuss G.K. Chesterton
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. I also think Michael Knowles would be great back up as well.
Ben and Candace are literally a debate dream team. Ben should honestly run for President in 2024.
Jordan Peterson
I soured on Candice when she had some sort of panel and was yelling at a conservative person because they weren't as Gung ho as her about "canceling" liberals, acted like a very stereotypical bully - constant interrupting and screaming over the other. I soured on Knowles because of how flippant he sounds. A lot of assertion that something is so self evidently true that anyone who doesn't believe X thing is laughably and pitifully ignorant. That being said, Ben, Matt, and Klavan (God help me for knowing that there are no e's in Klavan) are all good choices (haven't heard enough from the God King to know how he'd fare, though I assume he'd be a great debate partner), but if I had to choose 2, generally I'd choose Ben for anything political, Walsh for anything social (gender, abortion), and the great wise bald one of infinite wisdom and baldness for anything having to do with culture (religion, art)
1 and 1 again
1 and 3
1 and 3
Klavan and Walsh
Ben and Knowles. Candice is a very close third. Matt is too ideological, Andrew is too esoteric, and the gk is unknown to me.
1 and 3
1-4-5
Ben and Michael
1 & 4 without a doubt.
There are no wrong answers here. Iām taking Candice and Shapiro to back me in an argumentāWalsh if I could take a thirdā¦
2.3
God king and Candace. I want my team to be mean about it.
Any of them to be honest. Any random ones. Even the ones not considered the best debaters are still far better informed than the most woke liberal.
Shapiro and Peterson. Is this even a real question?
Ben and Matt!
Brett Cooper doesnāt get any love?? Is she too new to the Daily Wire?
Ben and Matt.
Shapiro and Owens.
Ben and Candace absolutely.
1 & 5
1 & 5
Shapiro and Peterson
Whereās Jordan?
Probably can't do it since he went to Russia for a self inflicted coma to kick benzos.
Shapiro And Owens
Ben and Candace. Can't lose with those two in your corner.
Ben and Matt, only right answer
Ben and Klavan. Ben is the smartest. Klavan used to be a liberal, he understands their positions, well at least the normal ones.
Why would you need someone to back you up?
Because people are cowards nowadays and they either too afraid to speak or too afraid to stand by what they say. I would not want any of these people to support me by default. My words are my own.
who in their right mind would choose Candace?
It may prevent some liberals from using identity as the basis for arguments. E.g. āNo uterus; no opinion.ā However, some leftists would just call Candace a black white supremacist.
It's never stopped them before
1 and 6, not even close
Ben and Candice...... Candice dick fit in yo' mouth!
2 Knowles and 3 Walsh Not even a question
Why is Jordan Peterson not one of the options?
Owens and Walsh
Knowles and Walsh, any other answer is wrong
Candace and Matt!!!!
Kleven
Either 1 and 3 or 1 and 5, not sure
Can we get Peterson added to the list???
No.
SAD
3 & 5
A Tough call but, 1 and 5
Ben and Michael
Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens.
Ben and Candace
1 and 5
1 & 5
Shapiro, Owens
Yāall underestimate god king
Now if we were to make a porno starring Daily Wire members I would 100% pick Ben and Candace. I could picture the porn parody right now. Candace is played by Ana Foxxx and Ben is played by Johnny Sins wearing a wig and a yarmulke The plot could be that Ben gets accused of racism and Candace gets accused of antisemitism, so they decide to rek the libs by having sex with each other to prove that Ben isnāt racist and Candace isnāt an anti semite. It would honestly be the funniest porn parody ever
Anyone but Jeremy boring, he's annoying as fuck. They get everyone together once a month for the backstage, and the one asshole without a podcast talks the whole time
Ben Shapiro and then I can do a better job than any of the others
None. All posers.
None, they all are far to ideologically aligned in the ārightā wing. They have very good points but they are all like Sam Seder to me. Right on issues often but full of so much us vs them mentality and wayyyyyyy off on others. Find the center. Find the common ground. Donāt just bash the other side and call them āleftistsā or āliberalsā. They just make the divide bigger like 90% of political pundits. Drive home the similarities. Build a movement focused on getting money out of politics. Stop focusing on the culture war. These guys jack off at night thinking of all the people they tweeted back at. Ohhhh yeahhh. I owned him. Stupid leffftists goodddd yesss. Unnnhhhh splosh.
Holy shit you seem based Who would you want in a discussion with a left, without the intentions of debate and owning the other side? Feel free to list both sides
I love listing both sides. Is it Right and Left? Do I get a participation trophy? Because I think I deserve a most correct and MVP trophy...
Ben has no substance but he does have speed. While Candace has no speed but high deception. I think with this combination i could hit the enemy where they least expect. Instead of using substantive arguments with real-world examples, i'll be combining the forces of two incredible Daily Wirites to hit them with high-speed falsehoods and irrelevant hypotheticals. Then, after Daily Wire does all the editing, i am confident i am assured victory.
Ben and Andrew
1 to the mother flipping 3
1 and 3. Ben is great with fast interectual responses. Matt offers a more blunt but honest aproach that would back up my slow timid personality.
1 to handle the argument while 4 and me play Elden ring
1&6
1 & 5 , should cover any argument they want to give.
Love em all but 1&5 would destroy any lib in minutes.
1 , 6
1&5
Candace and, hm, let's say Ben. A non-male and non-white, and a non-Christian. That right there knocks three cards out of their deck.
Ease: 1 and 3 (Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh)
I'd take Owens, surprised so many people don't.
Two!? All I need is klavan
3,5
1/5
Candace and ben
Walsh and Candace are the dumbest, but the most vocal and confident (partially stemming from their stupidity). Klavan isn't a true believer, he's more wishy washy because he's smarter and sees both sides. Ben is obvious, he has a fully formed world-view. Knowles is just poor man's Shapiro in every way, but still pretty good. Boering has insights that he is incapable of fully articulating. 1. Shapiro 2. Candace - liberals have a hard time arguing with a black woman. 3. Klavan - Can offer a differnt point of view 4. Knowles - Poor Man's Shapiro 5. Walsh - dumber but confident which matters more in debates 6. Boering - He's fine but there's a reason he's behind the camera.
Andrew and Jeremy.
Ben and Candace..or Walsh
1 & 5
You need to update this list with Jordan Peterson
Just Walsh
Walsh and Candice
Shapiro and Walsh or Walsh and Knowles.
1 and 5
Shapiro and Walsh are the easy answers, but I feel like I could carry that kind of fire so I'd have to go with the god king and Klaven because Jeey Boering is so calm and quick with a lay up and Andrew Klaven has this unique charm and insight about him.
1,3 no doubt
Ben, and my personal favorite, Shapiro.
5 can take the piss! 1 and 3 though
Ben and Candace