Who's a Stronger Debater: Louder with Crowder or Ben Shapiro?

The world of political debate is often dominated by personalities who bring their unique perspectives and speaking styles. Two of the most prominent figures in this domain are Louder with Crowder and Ben Shapiro, both of whom can engage viewers with their passionate and often controversial speech. However, when it comes to debating, are they equally strong or are they miles apart in their techniques and approaches?

Shapiro: The Morality-driven Debater

When it comes to Ben Shapiro, his approach to debate is deeply rooted in his moral and religious beliefs. Ben Shapiro presents himself as a morality-based individual, relying heavily on his ethical and religious principles to construct and defend his arguments. This approach often imbues his speeches with a sense of conviction and purpose, making his debates energetic and engaging. Neither an apologist nor a moderate, Ben Shapiro is renowned for his zeal and the clarity with which he delivers his points.

Crowder: A Pundit with a Unique Speaking Style

Philip Martin 'Crowder' Fisher, known as Louder with Crowder, is a veteran of the political punditry world. His style of communication is more flamboyant and energetic, often aimed at provoking thought and engagement from his audience. Crowder, however, is not without his critics. Some viewers find his approach obnoxious, primarily due to his tendency to take trips down tangents or engage in what can be seen as shaming. His style is less about logic and more about sheer volume and engagement. However, it's worth noting that this hasn't stopped him from gaining a significant following.

Bloviating vs. Gish-Galloping

The conundrum, as Jonathan Peress astutely pointed out, is that neither of these two debaters are actually debate in the traditional sense. Bloviating, which refers to the tendency to speak or write at length about a subject in a way that is irrelevant, exaggerated, or pompous, and Gish-galloping, a debating tactic in which the debater presents many accusations or proofclaims in rapid succession, without enough evidence to support them, are two strategies that both Crowder and Shapiro might employ.

Approaching Debate: Style vs. Substance

The key issue in assessing the strength of these debaters lies in the difference between style and substance. Ben Shapiro’s reliance on religious and moral reasoning can sometimes make his arguments more convincing to those who share his views. Yet, his sometimes confrontational approach and willingness to engage in bloviating can also leave him open to accusations of dogmatic and unsubstantiated claims. Meanwhile, Crowder's gish-galloping and tendency to bloviating can make his arguments appear less credible, even if his enthusiasm and passion engage his audience.

Conclusion: A Contested Field

In the end, the debate over which is the stronger debater between Louder with Crowder and Ben Shapiro comes down to personal preference and the specific values one prioritizes. Ben Shapiro’s morality-driven approach can make him a compelling and sometimes controversial debater, while Crowder's flamboyant style and willingness to engage in bloviating can still capture and hold the attention of a wide audience.

Ultimately, both debaters bring unique styles to the table, and viewers and critics will have to decide for themselves who exhibits stronger debating skills. The strength of a debater often lies not just in the delivery but in the depth and validity of the arguments presented.