Ben Shapiro is never one to shy away from a debate, but his latest foray into the arena may take the cake. In a scene that I don’t think has ever played out in politics, the podcast host and owner of The Daily Wire faced off against 25 Kamala Harris supporters, and the results were incredible.
ALSO SEE: UCLA Administrators Attempt to Upcoming Ben Shapiro Speech
If you thought leftists were vapid and unable to articulate basic defenses of their positions before, just wait until you hear some of this.
Let’s start with the topic of abortion, which every Democrat believes they are an expert in, and get ready to have your mind numbed.
Surrounded by 25 Kamala supporters and leftists, @benshapiro patiently explains what abortion actually is:
Pro-abortion woman: “Why does the definition of abortion have to do with the death of a fetus?”
Ben: “Because that’s literally the definition of an abortion.” pic.twitter.com/SfiGokQ2eo
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) October 24, 2024
WOMAN: Nice to meet you. Oh, wow, you look better in person.
SHAPIRO: That’s very sweet of you. I don’t often get that.
WOMAN: But yeah, so yeah, how do you define an abortion really quickly?
SHAPIRO: Abortion would be the forcible termination of an unborn human life.
WOMAN: Yes, but why do you like hold that definition? Like, would you not assume something like a c-section would be considered an abortion?
SHAPIRO: No, because the baby is born alive.
WOMAN: But I’m a little bit…why does the definition of abortion have to include the death of the fetus?
SHAPIRO: Because that’s literally the definition of abortion.
WOMAN: It literally isn’t, though. Where are you getting this definition from?
SHAPIRO: Where are you getting your definition from?
WOMAN: Let’s go to like, do you like ******* like Mayo Clinic, like any ******** hospital you’ve ever gone to before?
SHAPIRO: A c-section ends with the birth of the child. I know, both I and all three of my siblings were born via c-section.
WOMAN: Right, but abortion generally…I understand this, but like yes, but like no, well yes, but like no, but no, you can simply say that abortion is the ending of a pregnancy, right?
SHAPIRO: No, you can’t say that. No.
WOMAN: So the ending of a pregnancy outside of the natural birth of a fetus. So I don’t see why you say that it has to end in the death of a fetus which is why I’m pro-abortion all nine months, right? Because say if a woman is not able to pass a fetus in the natural way, we have these other abortion processes that say, “Okay, she needs some kind of induction that doesn’t include the actual natural expulsion of a fetus.” But it doesn’t always end in the death of a fetus so I don’t see how you could say that Kamala Harris’ stance is immoral.
SHAPIRO: I just don’t understand how you a removing the death of a fetus from the equation. That’s literally the entire moral issue. You and I would not even be arguing if we were talking about c-sections or natural births.
It just keeps going from there, but I needed to stop transcribing it before my brain rotted. To summarize, what that woman was trying to do is what pro-abortion fanatics always do: They seek to invent any argument that avoids dealing with the moral issue of ending a human life. As Shapiro notes, no one could care about abortion if it only included c-sections in which the babies live. The entire point of the argument is over the termination of human life.
Pro-abortion radicals always seek to deflect because deep down, they know what is happening is morally wrong. Thus, they hang onto “exceptions” and the redefining of basic terms instead of just owning what they claim to support. It’s transparent, and that Shapiro was able to keep his cool in that exchange is a credit to him.
Next up we had the issue of transgenderism.
“I have a vagina”
“I’m not interested in what genitalia you have”
“Clearly you are”
“I think you can read on my face I radically am not” @benshapiro reminding people that only women can get pregnant🔥 pic.twitter.com/jUkpdOILfq
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) October 24, 2024
(Man slams chair)
MAN: So, first question. Can men get pregnant?
SHAPIRO: Men can not get pregnant.
MAN: Okay, awesome.
SHAPIRO: Definitionally.
MAN: Defitiationally, okay. Do men experience SA…sexual assault?
SHAPIRO: Sure.
MAN: Got it. What about the existence of trans men?
SHAPIRO: What about the existence? Do you mean women who believe they are men? People who are experiencing gender dysphoria.
MAN: So my other question is, do you benefit from white supremacy in any way, shape, or form?
SHAPIRO: I’m going to need more specifics on what you mean by white supremacy.
MAN: Well, let me give it to you then.
(Slams chair again)
SHAPIRO: Please.
MAN: So, I’m a transgender man. I’ve experienced SA, and abortion rights affect me directly. So, if we’re talking about the American dream that you live, why don’t I have access to that? Because there’s no legislation, what, in the history of America that legislates a man’s body, so why does mine have to be legislated? I have a vagina.
SHAPIRO: I’m not interested in what your genitalia are.
MAN: Clearly, you are, it’s all over everything you make, buddy. I hate to say it to you…
SHAPIRO: I think you can read it on my face that I’m radically am not. When we’re talking about abortion…
MAN: Yeah, I know, you can present it here, but in most of the content that you have, you attack my community constantly. And you don’t even realize guys like me exist who actually share alot of similarities to you, and everything because I’m a married man of 20 years…
SHAPIRO: I recognize that you exist.
MAN: So if I was…
SHAPIRO: I just don’t agree with you that you’re a male.
The mental illness emanating from that guy is just astonishing to witness. First, he tries to intimidate Shapiro by slamming his chair multiple times. Then he asks a series of silly questions in rapid-fire succession in an attempt to appear intellectually superior. Yet, in the end, all Shaprio has to say is that he’s not a male, and the entire exchange is mooted. Nothing else matters. All the appeals to “SA” and claims of being married are irrelevant in the face of biological reality. Full stop.
Moving on, DEI was also talked about, with Shapiro nuking the very basis of the scheme.
“I think we are each individual people with individual ideas and if that person represents my ideas, I don’t care what sex, race, or sexual orientation they are.”
– Ben Shapiro pic.twitter.com/dsBYjVwrtn
— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 24, 2024
SHAPIRO: As far as your generalized point, which is that we are supposed to identify people by group identity, that if we don’t have a black female president that somehow black females have not been represented so Barack Obama was in no way representative of black females because he’s not a female.
WOMAN: No, he was representative, but that’s the point…
SHAPIRO: So he was half representative. How do you do the math on this and why?
WOMAN: You shouldn’t do the math on it completely, statistically, but the fact is…
SHAPIRO: You shouldn’t do the math on it at all. You should treat people as individuals.
WOMAN: …that it is clearly unrepresentative.
SHAPIRO: You should treat people as individuals.
WOMAN: Well, if you don’t even want Kamala Harris to attempt to create DEI initiatives in office, then there isn’t even going to be a conversation about it.
SHAPIRO: I mean, I don’t think there ought to be a conversation about why we ought to be represented by race or by sex. I think that we are each individual people with individual ideas, and if that person represents my ideas, I don’t care what sex, race, or sexual orientation they are.
Representation is irrelevant to government, or at least it should be. Policy is what matters and affects the lives of Americans. What race, sex, or sexual orientation someone is does nothing to help people. It holds zero sway in lowering prices, handling foreign affairs, or securing the border. Any focus on it is a complete and utter waste of time. That DEI supporters can’t grasp that is part of the problem with DEI.
Of course, I think some of them can grasp that. So what’s all of this really about? It’s about being given an advantage over others via DEI programs. Someone like that woman believes she has an inherent right to advancement based on representation over merit. That’s not the American way, and it never should be. To go down that path any further would lead to the complete destruction of innovation and fair governance.
That’s just a taste of the full debate. If you’d like to see the rest, check out the below video.
