So what exactly are you saying??  If a group believe something you don't, you do not take that group serious.  So do you dismiss all Christians or Muslims which is a pretty large group or anyone who believe on conception the embryo is alive. Are you saying what you believe is the only thing worth considering and everyone else is wrong.  Exactly what are you asking??  When is life defined based on the embryo.  Hasn't that always been the debate on Abortion or do you believe only when the embryo is a certain age.  Do you believe there is a soul or do you dismiss that as well.  

Not sure what interview you watched but I saw someone question a person pass and the action was the person got upset.  What that person did not do is explain their position.  Ben makes a living on questioning other people who make statements so do not act as if he is somehow above the same.  I just watched a bunch of videos by Ben and what I see is that he has a platform to speak his mind without anyone questioning him on his opinion.  I watched him question Ben Hodge, Piers Morgan Ocario and others.  He himself quotes those people then goes on about their statements.  So No Ben isn't beyond approach from this interview and when directly question on his own bad statements he showed he can only give it but not take it.

No Ben wanted to be treated with kid gloves as if he ever did the same for others and when he was challenged he came up short.  No matter how we discuss this issue, we both will not see it the same.  I have no skin in the game with Ben so I have no rose colored glasses to see him any different then his performance.  So you can take all your lefty this and conservative that and put it in a placed directly representative of the toxic nature we currently live today.  You paint everyone into a group so you can apply your labels and have the comfort of mind putting them into a box.

Last but not least, you are so quick to be the savior of Ben and give him a pass but even Ben himself did not give himself a pass on the interview which I do give him props for in his tweet.

Ben tweeted: “@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro! So that’s what that feels like ;) Broke my own rule, and wasn’t properly prepared. I’ve addressed every single issue he raised before; see below. Still, it’s Neil 1, Shapiro 0.”

He earlier apologised on social media to Neil, saying he had “misinterpreted his antagonism as political leftism”.

Interesting enough the guy who was interviewing Ben is a big conservative and is part of conservative group which during the interview he stated if Ben knew him he would know he wasn't the lefty he proscribed him to be. As always you are the apologist.

When everyone is out to get you, every empire eventually gets cocky and loses battles. What's important is learning from that loss and using it to win the war. There's no doubt he's going to want a round 2 and he's not going to make the same mistake next time. If he doesn't get a round 2, he's going to know and point out they were simply poking the bear.

do you take flat earthers seriously?

if you are determined to force women to have children they do not want to have, are you willing to personally take care of those children yourself?

I never said the interviewer was a lefty, but the way he was questioning Ben was in opposition to him and he was acting like many of the lefties do, which would be why Ben acted and responded like he did. A conservative there is also not the same as a conservative in America either.

Below...

You're always pointing out my devotion to the right. I wonder why people take sides when they show they aren't bound to either, yet you do everything to ignore that fact and put a label on them.

It's not easy to have a meaningful conversation with someone when they are pretending to be something they're not wouldn't you say? Just like trying to have a meaningful conversation when you're constantly being portrayed as something you're not?

So you want rape or incest victims to just accept what happened to them and bare the child or face prison time?

No I'm not but there are people who will.

I've started going back over it to compile excerpts but I do have a summary prepared.

Russia Interference in the 2016 Election - It is concluded that this did take place by way of massive social media campaigns from bots (unattended computer accounts), paid trolls and ad campaigns. They organized grass roots rallies by posing as US citizens. They also hacked and phished (a social engineering method to obtain access credentials) networks for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and released infiltrated information to Wikileaks.

Collusion - It is concluded that direct conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia did not happen. It is noted that attempts to open communication between the two entities failed. It is also noted that while they did not work together, they did work in concert. The Trump Campaign knew of the above referenced interference and not only did not act on mitigating it but encouraged further activity. It wasn't so much coordinated collusion as it was welcomed, accepted and requested interference. Much of the requested evidence was either destroyed or not stored on devices with long term storage.

Obstruction - It is concluded that the President Trump had directly interfered with the Special Council investigation but that because of the rights and authority granted a president, he cannot be charged with any obstruction based crime. It is the Department of Justice policy to not indict a sitting president. Robert Mueller has specifically given indictment purview to Congress. Much of the requested evidence was either destroyed or not stored on devices with long term storage.

Further actions - Several aspects of all three facets of the investigation were handed off to other investigating bodies depending on the nature of the crime being investigated. We have already seen many of those reach their conclusion but several more are still on-going. Much of the Mueller Report was redacted due in part to those on-going investigations.