Why Ben Shapiro Sucks at Persuasion (and how to care about the things you care about)

This article isn't really about Ben Shapiro. Sorry.

This article is about how to stop instigating and start influencing. It’s about the art of persuasion and how to positively manipulate the world around you.

Now, with that being said, Ben Shapiro is the worst persuader. He may sometimes seem like the best, but he’s actually the worst.

He’s a great debater. He’s a tremendous logician. But he’s the worst persuader.

If you are unfamiliar with the brilliant Harvard law grad, here is a stereotypical example of Shapiro in action, swatting leftist lobs like a Jewish Hakeem Olajuwon.

Impressive, right?

Whether or not you agree with Shapiro, he is objectively logical in his approach to debate. He wields reason like Thor wields his hammer - with precision, power and just a dash of razzle dazzle.

But it doesn’t work. I would even argue that he’s never won one of these debates.

The problem isn’t with Shapiro, however. He doesn’t need to be even more logical. The problem lies in argument itself.

Rarely does anyone win arguments, because the opponent across the table is also the judge. It’s a loaded deck. The person you are trying to beat is the person who decides the winner. Only they can choose to change their views based on your argument.

And when two people with differing views debate with the intent of converting the other to their perspective, no one will ever judge themselves as defeated. A winner requires a loser, and rarely will anyone volunteer as that tribute.

So, persuasion is hard. Arguments are almost impossible to win. 

But I think we make persuasion even harder than it already is.

Not only is our opponent the judge, but we also have heightened the repercussions for losing. We've raised the stakes. It would be like a judge who sentences himself to life in prison.

You need only to imagine that girl from the video. What were her next actions after Shapiro embarrassed her in front of her friends? Do you think she skipped away from the Q and A proclaiming the Shapiro gospel? Did she shout from the social media rooftops her radical repentance from the deception of her progressive views?

No chance. Her pride wouldn’t allow it. Shapiro made a fool out of her, and to admit that would be to concede foolishness, which her pride can’t afford.

So, the debate ends with Shapiro’s conservative devotees applauding thunderously, the girl and her liberal supporters angry at the seeming lack of empathy, and everyone is further cemented into their preconceived ideas. Reason loses, pride wins, and nothing changes.

And by the way, I have no agenda here. If my political views were any less developed, I’d be deported.

This pride is not a symptom of age or upbringing or political leanings. It’s a human thing. She reacted like anyone would. Liberals roast conservatives, too, and reason loses, pride wins, and still nothing changes.

And this makes me wonder.

Does Ben Shapiro really care about these issues he is debating? Or is he more concerned about winning? Does he really want people to change their values to better the world or is he content to appease his conservative following by meticulously crushing liberal arguments. Maybe he does care about the issues, but if so, he is not as aware and intelligent as I thought, because he doesn’t understand pride at all.

And do we, the casual Facebook debaters, do we really care about these issues? Do we really care about transgenderism or abortion or gun regulation or economic policy or educational equity or theology or any other issue we spout about?

Or do we raise the stakes, making persuasion even harder than it already is? Do we care more about our pride? Do we care more about being right and others being wrong? Do we want to be winners so we can gloat in our victory?

Because not only do we often require the concession of idiocy from our ideological counterparts, but also the concession of evil. We have raised the stakes even higher. Along with their admittance of our intellectual superiority, they also must admit our moral superiority.

We have made our neighbors out to be monsters with spikey teeth because they don’t agree on tax breaks or the best way to keep kids safe in schools. We want to be the good guys so badly that we create bad guys out of our coworkers and coaches.

That’s what I see when I spectate these debates. The way we “discuss” these issues is divisive, abrasive and void of any semblance of mutual respect. We approach argument like a battlefield, pretending to be the knight in shining armor fighting the evil dragon (except the evil dragon in this case is the formidable Cheryl from accounting, the lady who drives a Prius and brought brownies to work the other day).

And so, if someone like Cheryl were to flip their perspective on a certain issue like we claim we want, we require them first to admit that they are an idiot (which is hard enough), but now they also must admit they are evil, too.

If you really care about an issue, whether it be social, political, religious or whatever, and you want to persuade people to consider your perspective, then appeal to their pride, not their reason.

That doesn’t mean we should eliminate discussion or debate. On the contrary, friendship and respect catalyzes real, civilized argument, not discourages it.

(It also doesn't mean you have to stop listening to Ben Shapiro. I listen to him sometimes. That guy has a pretty way of talking.)

But this kind of persuasion does mean we should respect others’ perspectives and even give credit where credit is due. And it means we probably shouldn’t make a fool out of someone in front of a crowd of people.

It means we should listen more and talk less, and where we are wrong, consider it an opportunity instead of a failure. And when we do speak, maybe it shouldn’t be through the pretentious shriek of a metaphorical megaphone.

But above all, appeal to pride. If you want to persuade, then lower the stakes. Acknowledge the legitimacy of your opponents views. And if they decide to flip their perspective, allow them to save face in front of others. Don't require recognition of defeat.

(Unless, of course, you actually don't want to persuade people toward the things you say you care about and would rather your neighbor hate you and continue in their opposing views. In that case, be a jerk by all means.)

Those people you live and work with who think different than you are not idiots and they are not any more depraved than you. 

There aren’t any heroes and villains in this story. We are all just broken people trying to get along in the world. And if you care enough about this broken world, its broken people and its broken issues, then you will find the humility to approach arguments with the admittance that you are broken, too.

Persuasion is hard. Don’t make it harder.