In a recent video entitled “7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates” Charisma on Command notes Ben Shapiro uses “snuck” premises as a debate tactic to win arguments in a pseudo-gimmicky fashion. Or in other words, he introduces points of contention as a ‘given’ in order to dominate his opponents.
To begin, Charisma on Command provides two examples of a “snuck” premise.
The first is in a widely popular video on the topic of planned parenthood and abortion. Ben points out to the contender, “I don’t have a problem with Planned Parenthood, I have a problem with killing babies” and Charisma on Command notes that the words killing babies makes the assumption everyone in the room already believes an unborn fetus is a person. I strongly disagree that this is a tactic Ben is using, and I believe the harsh language is a byproduct of the individual proposing a number of questions unrelated to the original topic.
It is important to note the individual in the video raises four different arguments to Ben on the topic of Planned Parenthood and abortion yet never actually brings up the topic of personhood. What I actually believe Ben is doing here is baiting the person into arguing about personhood by using the overly visual phrase, ‘killing baby.’
Why do I believe this?
Because Ben knows the real question for most people on the topic of abortion is at what point do you draw the line of personhood. In fact, Ben debates this topic with other students in many other videos.
If Ben was trying to mislead the other person through making assumptions on personhood, why would he have this open debate in various other forums? Why would he even bring up the topic in the original video when the individual had already made four other arguments and was not likely to bring it up herself?
Charisma on Command then provides another example when Ben Shapiro states “a checker at a grocery store doesn’t have a right to Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates money.” He believes the “snuck” premise here is that a socialist or communist wouldn’t necessarily think they have a right to another’s money but may believe in redistribution of wealth.
Let’s take a step back here and better understand the arguments at hand.
The topic of discussion is redistribution of wealth and it stems from the prior discussion Shapiro had with this individual on income inequality. Income inequality is the disparity in income between two individuals. For example, there is large income inequality between myself and Bill Gates. The reason why Shapiro is rightly pointing out you do not have a right to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos’s money is because the socialist perspective is that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos should be giving their wealth out to the masses; in other words, a form of ‘redistribution.’
See this Tweet from Bernie Sanders on the subject:
Notice how Bernie is implying few are getting more and more wealthy while the masses are getting more and more poor? Shapiro is attacking a redistribution policy by giving it moral context. If you do not agree that you have a right to Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates money than you probably do not agree with redistribution of wealth. You therefore probably do not side with Bernie Sanders, but you side with Ben.
In both of these cases Charisma on Command implies Ben Shapiro is using charisma and charm to sneak in premises on arguments the debater may not agree with and Ben uses this as a tactic to win debates. This is not only an incorrect reading of what Ben is doing, but it implies he is trying to win through a gimmick rather than facts and logic.