The 1 Preparation Trick That DEMOLISHED Piers Morgan

So on page 81, you talk about how you're a liberal who respects free speech. And on that page, you say the Republican party, and I quote, is ferociously free speech. Yet Donald Trump two months ago signed an executive order banning the burning of the American flag. So how does that work? — I don't agree with him. — Yeah, but then how are they ferociously free speech? — What a joy it is to watch Peers malfunction when confronted with his own words. Tyler cites the page number, quotes the exact phrase, and confronts it with reality. And Piers, well, he retreats to personal opinion as if his book said Piers Morgan is ferociously free speech rather than the Republican party. — It's an act of evasion, and it's the first of many. — No, you can be ferociously free speech and still occasionally do things which are hypocritical. — Okay. Like Well, like yourself. But um so — where have I been hypocritical? — So okay so on um page 245. — Why hello my fellow apes. I hope you are well. Piers Morgan is a veteran of the media landscape. From tabloid editor to prime time host. He has built an entire career on being the loudest person in the room. Usually winning arguments through steamrolling interruption and bluster. He relies on the freedom to change the subject whenever the heat gets too high. But on this episode of Jubilee Surrounded that freedom was revoked. Pierers ran into a guest who didn't come to debate feelings. He came to audit the text. You see, Piers recently wrote a book lambasting the woke left for threatening free speech and praising the right. And when you make absolute claims in print, you better be ready to defend them in person. Today, we're watching what happens when a professional talking head is put into that vice, unable to wander off topic, unable to deflect, and forced to answer for his own words. So, let's get to it. — My final surrounding claim is that cancel culture is real and a serious threat to free speech. — Okay, then before we really kick off, let's define terms. Cancel culture is coordinated social punishment. The goal is accountability, but the result is often job loss, social exile, and a pylon that leaves little room for apology or growth. Now, this is not a partisan phenomenon. It's frequently blamed on the left. Think accusations of transphobia or racism, but the right plays the same game. Think book bans in conservative school districts, mass advertiser boycots like the Budlight backlash, and blacklists such as Turning Point USA's Professor watch list, which has resulted in academics being targeted with harassment, threats, and coordinated campaigns to get them fired. It's the same tactic no matter the team. But on this Jubilee where Piers is complaining about the woke left, he's implicitly centering it as a single party issue. So with that in mind, let's see how Pierers defends his position. — How are you? — Hey, Pierce. I'm Tyler. Nice to meet you. — Good to meet you, T. — Okay, so I actually I read your book. — This is a fascinating start. Usually guests on these panel shows operate on direct responses or pre-prepared talking points. By announcing, "I actually read your book. " Tyler signals that he isn't here to debate opinions. He's here to audit the text. He has receipts and he's about to cash them in. — So, I actually I read your book. — Yes. What did you think? — So, um Oh, I liked that. I like that you gave like, you know, the movie American Fiction the praise it deserves. But, um so on page 81, you talk about how you're a liberal who respects free speech. Yet Donald Trump 2 — Tyler comes out swinging. He doesn't just say Republicans aren't pro- free speech. He cites the specific page number 81. Quotes the exact phrase ferociously free speech. — You say the Republican party, and I quote, is ferociously free speech. — And then collides that claim with a specific undeniable policy action, an executive order banning flag burning. The specificity leaves peers with no option but to address it directly. He's been forced into the field of political hypocrisy. — Yet Donald Trump two months ago signed an executive order banning the burning of the American flag. So, how does that work? — You see, Tyler's question exposes the real argument underpers's claim. This was never about free speech in the abstract. It's about left versus right. And since that's the game that we're playing, Tyler frames the contradiction perfectly. How can a party be ferociously free speech when its leader is signing orders to ban it? — If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. — Now, on the topic of framing and how much it matters, this one caught my eye. Trump threatens action against Greenland, Mexico, Iran, Cuba, and Colombia after Venezuela strike. Ground news shows 239 outlets have picked this up. 35 leaning left, 30 leaning right, 42 centrist, and 82% rated highly

factual. Balance coverage, yes, but wildly different stories. You can follow along at ground. news/rationality. Vox, a left-leaning outlet with high factuality, goes with, "After Venezuela, how far could Trump really go? " The tone is measured, almost dismissive. Their subheading floats the idea that he's bluffing. The implicit message is, "Calm down. It's probably posturing. " The Blaze sees it differently. Their headline, "Very sick, too. " Trump sets sights on more countries after successful Venezuela operation. No hedging, no questioning. Venezuela wasn't a gamble. It was a victory lap. And now Greenland, Colombia, and Cuba are all on the table. The framing assumes momentum, not bluster, and it's striking. Vox treats the threats as performance art worth interrogating. The Blaze treats them as a to-do list worth tracking. Same president, same quotes. two completely different assumptions about what's actually happening. Ground news also flags the blaze at mixed factuality. Vox at high. That context matters when you're trying to figure out who's spinning and who's reporting. This is why ground news has become part of my routine. Not to tell me what's true, but to show me how the same truth gets packaged for different audiences. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And right now, you can get 40% off their Vantage plan at ground. news/rationality or scan the QR code on screen. Your subscription supports this channel, too. Thanks. — Yeah. Donald Trump two months ago signed an executive order banning the burning of the American flag. So, how does that work? — And he's chosen the perfect example. Flag burning isn't just any free speech issue. It's the embodiment of free speech. It is the right to criticize the state. — Yet, Donald Trump two months ago signed an executive order banning the burning of the American flag. — I don't agree with Already crumbling under the pressure, Pierce sidesteps the question entirely. Rather than defending the claim that he made in print, he retreats to his personal opinion about Trump as if disagreeing with the policy somehow resolves the contradiction. — I don't agree with him. — It doesn't. His book doesn't say Piers Morgan is ferociously pro- free speech. It says the Republican party is. — Yeah, but then how are they ferociously free? — I don't agree with Tyler seeks clarity, but like an MPC with no dialogue options, Piers repeats the same deflection. I don't agree with him. — No, but no, on your book on page 81, you said they're fro. — I would say in the last few years, the Republicans have been more pro- free speech than the woke left. — There it is, the real claim. This was never about free speech. It's about the left versus the right. If nothing else happens in this entire debate, Tyler will have scored a big win just by getting peers to admit it. the Republicans have been more pro- free speech than the woke left. That doesn't mean occasionally, as we saw with the Jimmy Kimmel thing, it doesn't mean that occasionally they don't do stuff which I think is hypocritical because actually it's not supporting free speech. So, I agree with you. With Tyler relentlessly dragging him back to the text, demanding he face judgment, peers has to break the loop, and he does by fleeing the point altogether. This is a Mott and Bailey fallacy named after a type of castle construction where someone retreats to a more defensible claim after their initial one is challenged. It's like Ben Shapiro arguing that renewable energy won't work until someone pushes back and then suddenly it's well an immediate switch isn't economically feasible. — Let's say for the sake of argument all of the water levels around the world rise by let's say 5T and it puts all the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. You think that people aren't going to just — sell their homes and move? — And that's exactly what Pierers does here. He wrote in his book that Republicans are ferociously free speech. An absolute bold claim. This is his weak point. The Bailey. It sells books. — This will be a massive global bestseller. — But when Tyler attacks it, Piers retreats to the M. Well, they're more pro- free speech than the woke left. A comparatively defensible position. And look at the hedges tucked inside. occasionally hypocritical, not supporting free speech. He admits that the book is wrong while pretending to clarify it. — I agree with you. So, what um executive order did the Democrats pull where they were banning anything to the regard of burning the American flag? — I don't think it happened. — This is great stuff. Tyler refuses to accept the retreat, immediately laying siege to Pier's new claim. If the comparison holds, show us the Democratic equivalent. When have woke politicians ever enacted restrictions on free speech in the way that the right currently is? There isn't one. Tyler knows it. Piers knows it. And now the audience knows it. — I don't think it happens. — I'm talking about Well, I don't agree with it. So, — for the third time, Piers retreats to his personal opinion. He's been checkmated in one move. He has no defense for the party. So, he tries to exit the argument with a shrug, but Tyler maintains the attack. Well, I

don't agree with it. So, — but your book says free speech. It's a contradiction. — Yeah. — Should we just turn or tear page 81 out of your book then? — Well, damn. Tyler has peers pinned right against the wall. If the claim on page 81 is contradicted by reality and you can't defend it, shouldn't we just remove the page? It is a devastating question because no requires a defense that he doesn't have and yes destroys his credibility. Should we just t turn or tear page anyone out of your book then? — No. No. You could be froy free speech and still occasionally do things which are hypocritical. — Oh dear. Piers is now leaning on another fallacy. This time special pleading, exempting someone from standards or rules without justification. You see, Piers is now arguing that you can be ferociously free speech while simultaneously acting against free speech. You know, like a militant vegan who eats KFC. The definitions of ferocious and free are being stretched to their breaking point. — No, you can be ferociously free speech and still occasionally do things which are hypocritical. — Okay. Like — well like yourself. But um so where have I been hypocritical? — So okay, so on um page 245 — Tyler lands a jab calling Piers a hypocrite and Pierers immediately reacts demanding specificity. — Well, where have I been hypocritical? But when Tyler reaches for page 245 to provide just that, PI panics. — So on um page 245, — wow, are you I like the book. What can I say? — Are you like one of those weird little mentalists who just remembers every single word? — Out comes the ad hominin, attacking the person rather than the argument. Pierce calls Tyler a weird little mentalist, but think about what he's actually saying. Tyler's crime is being too prepared. He did his homework. And when you attack the person for being too prepared, you are implicitly admitting that their preparation is a problem for you. — Are you like one of those weird little mentalists who just remembers every single word you played? — I'm just a massive Celebrity Apprentice fan, so I need no idea. Really? — Oh, you killed Trace Atkins in the end. I really appreciate that. — I actually bumped into him in Beverly Hills recently. — Tyler dismisses the insult with a friendly appeal to Pier's show. A potential pivot which is gladly accepted. The topic drifts into small talk. The pressure lifts at least for a moment. I actually bumped into him in Beverly Hills recently. — But so on page 245, you talk about how you are against if you were king for a date, you would ban anybody who participates in cancel culture online. Yes. And you would call him out. However, Michael Nolles, a guest you have on all the time, has recently said that he wants to ostracize certain people from society that when they say negative things, he was on this show and said, "If you wave the pride flag, you should be in jail for that. " that is against the First Amendment and that it's absolutely cancel culture that you never call him out on the — brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Tyler maintains control returning to the book to the claim about hypocrisy determined to hold Pier's feet to the fire. He deploys the same structure as before. Stated principle, specific contradiction, evidence of silence. It's even harder to escape the second time. — I don't agree. — There's that phrase again. It's becoming his signature tell. Well, I don't agree. — Yeah, you never call him out on the show. — You've never done it. YOU HAVE HIM ON THE SHOW ALL THE TIME. — I will. Next time he's on, I will. — Now, this sounds like a strong response, but it's actually a confession. By promising to do it next time, Piers is admitting that he failed to do it every previous time. And remember, the claim here is that Nolles, — he was on this show and said, "If you wave the pride flag, you should be in jail for that. " Not social media backlash, not boycott. Jail for waving a flag. That's cancel culture on steroids. My counterp proposal is that we ban that evil pride flag from every public space forever. We could do it. We ban all sorts of flags from public spaces. Nazi flags, hammer and sickle flags. Would not be that hard at all. that state suppression of speech far worse than anything that Pierce has blamed the woke left for. And he said nothing. — Next time he's on, I will You promise you have a bad — So like right now though, it just seems to me — anyone who watches my show will know I call out everybody. — No, you don't. You never CALL MICHAEL NOLLES. HE'S DONE IT multiple times. — If Pierce tries to recover from his branding, I challenge everyone. But Tyler's not having it. Piers admitted mere seconds ago that he hasn't challenged nulls. The reality on the ground has made the slogan impossible to say with a straight face. — He's done it multiple times. — You've just pointed that out to me. I will call him out. — It just sounds like you're not — Michael, if you're watching, I'm going to ask you about that. You better you better have your — Pierce pivots to the camera. Part performance move to regain control, part distraction from the fact that he has no real answer. The point stands. He missed it. — You better have you. — So, okay. So then other than So what has the left done? has — I'm not I don't come at it from left or right. — Oh, interesting. Piers claims neutrality. I don't come at anything from left or right. But his book tells a

different story. It's obsessed with brand boycott and language policing, framing them all as woke left problems. But none of these are inherently partisan. Again, think of the outrage over Bud Light featuring a trans content creator, or the rights hatred of terms like DEI, privilege, or cis. Again, the details don't matter. What's important is there is cancel culture. Same tactics, different team. So, when Pierce claims that he's not ideological, he's not being neutral. He's hiding which side he's playing for. It's the new conservative but not conservative strongman act. Cowardice dressed up as centrism. — I'm not coming from left or right. — What has the left done in the past 10 years that has been worse than trying to ban the burning of the American flag? — Notice what Tyler's doing here. He's demanding a concrete example, not an abstraction. Legislation, policy, something real — that it's been worse than trying to ban the burning of the American flag. Well, what's the woke left done? Pretty. They tried to ban everybody and everything. — And Pier gives him nothing. Everyone and everything. He says no names, no bills, no specifics. Man, talk about waste — Weak, whiny, woke waste rules. Really? They're trying to ban everybody and everything. — Really? They try to make it illegal? What? Name one example. That's just an — Flag. — So, yeah, but what legislation they put forward? — Nothing. — No, but here's let me question back to you. — What's more being canceled than being put in prison? — This is great stuff. The pressure maintains. Tyler returns to Pier's weakness. The facts on the ground and nails the asymmetry. Pier wants to talk about social pressure, boycott, firings, online backlash. Tyler is talking about prison. This is the fatal flaw in Piers's thesis. The woke left has never criminalized speech in the same way. — No blasphemy laws, no gag laws on libraries restricting books about sex and gender, no revoking visas for disagreeing with policy. Sure, we can and should criticize the social ostracization, the pressure on companies to fire people, but the right, the side peers calls ferociously free speech, is actively calling for people to be imprisoned for flag burning, for waving pride flags. One side will ruin your career. That's bad. Fair. The other side will take your freedom. Trump, the president of the United States, the head of the Republican party, has even called for senators to be hanged for treason and sedition after they released a video reminding soldiers that they have the right to disobey unlawful orders. Peers wrote a whole book ignoring the bigger problem. What an incredible journalist. — Well, okay, I let me give an example. I'll give you an example. — Yeah. — Graeme Lahan. — Yeah. Okay, I'm not bringing it back cuz I want to talk about his issue. He's the comedian did Father Ted. Obviously, his issue is singular. It's the trans issue. We've debated that. — Yes. — Okay. Pier is about to offer an example of something that he thinks is far worse than banning flag burning. But notice what happens next. Tyler is talking about state punishment for political expression, the right to openly criticize the nation and its symbols. — What legislation they put forward — and peers reaches for Graham Lahan. Graham Lahan, — not as an example of disscent being criminalized, but as a case of alleged offensive jokes prompting police action. That is already a problem because Graham was not targeted for abstract political criticism. He was investigated over posts that explicitly encouraged violence against a protected minority. That isn't the same category of speech at all. But I'm getting ahead of myself. — Obviously, his issue is singular. We've debated that. However, the principle of a comedian posting jokes which people may find offensive on social media as he did back in April about the trans issue then being met by five armed police officers at Heathrow airport in London and arrested and taken off and a very interesting thing happened which is why I say woke is dead as a as an ideology because two three years ago that would have been supported by everybody on the woke left. Yeah, bang him up. Absolutely disgusting. How dare he? He's transphobic. He's horrible. We know this because of the way that Hang on. — Right. We need to stop here because there's a lot to unpack. First, Piers is filibustering, eating up time with a long, detailed story so that Tyler can't press further. But that's not all. Piers is misrepresenting what actually happened. Graham wasn't arrested for offensive jokes about the trans issue. He had a post where he called for his followers to punch trans women in the balls. That's not edgy comedy. It's not protected speech. It's incitement to violence and against a minority group at that. Even in the US, incitement to violence is an exception to free speech protections. But he's not done with his monologue.

— We know this because of the way that Hang on. We know this from the way that JK Rowling was treated, right? For doing the same stuff about the trans issue. She was given death threats. She was threatened with this, that, and the other. But what a different thing happened this time. This time there was such a public outcry including from many on the left actually to be fair to them that this had crossed the line. We've got to stop doing this for stupid posts on social media. Hundreds of people on social media in the last two years in Britain have been arrested. It's completely ridiculous. — Well, let me finish. — Let you finish. Pier, you haven't shut up. So, so actually the police not only said we're not going to prosecute him, but anybody for this kind of offense going forward. That's a big win and repudiation of cancel. Wait a minute. Again, this is a misrepresentation. Yes, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case, citing no realistic prospect of conviction, but that doesn't mean the speech was harmless or protected. It means they couldn't secure a conviction. Those things aren't the same. The policy change that Piers alludes to means that police no longer investigate incitements perceived to be motivated by hostility towards a particular characteristic such as transgender identity, race, or religion. It does not mean that they won't persecute incitement to violence. His is a journalist, is he not? He should be able to report the facts accurately. But why can't he? I wonder. — That's a big win. the repudiation of cancel. — All you've told me is the left has progressed in their position on free speech, but the right has regressed. — This is the knockout. Tyler doesn't get bogged down arguing the details of Pierce's long-winded example. He simply accepts it and uses it against him. Pier spent 2 minutes telling this story and Tyler flips it in one sentence to prove the opposite of Piers's thesis. — It's hilarious, right? Pierce cited a case where the left stood up for free speech while defending a party that is signing executive orders to ban it. He handed Tyler the ammunition to slaughter his own argument. — The left has progressed in their position on free speech, but the right has regressed. That's all you say. — I'm not here to defend the rights position. — And here Pier just gives up. I'm not here to defend the rights position. He says, but hang on. The book does explicitly that. He wrote that Republicans are ferociously free speech. He made that claim. Tyler challenged it. And now he's pretending he never staked that ground. — That's not a defense. That is desertion. I think that — I'm saying if you're going to write a book, it's trying to defend free speech. You should focus on where it's actually being attacked. But you wasted your time talking about this left boogeyman that does not exist. I agree with you. I love free speech. I am against all that stuff. I'm wearing the poppy today because of Remembrance Day and we fought for free speech and the right now is attacking it and you have a huge platform and you can take this time to actually defend free speech but you're not. Tyler cleverly reframes the stakes. He's not attacking peers. He's disappointed in him. They should be allies fighting the real threat. — And you can take this time to actually defend free speech but you're not. — I always defend free speech. — Okay. So then why don't you put more focus on the right then? So let me give you an example. You actually agree with my argument. Let me let On page 241 of your book, as I'll quote it again, you you attacked Bob Chapeek because he um denounced Ronda Santis for putting in like anti-gay laws to put it uh quotly, but you said he should be attacking people like Jinping because he does way more human rights violations. But that applies here. Trump and the right do way more than left. You said that in your own book, but right now you're contradicting yourself again. — Tyler isn't just checking facts now. He's checking logic and he's using the book's own standards to do it. — You said he should be attacking people like Xi Jinping because he does way more human rights violations. — The principle that Piers established on page 241 is simple. Critics should focus on the biggest threats. Tyler simply applies that same principle to Piers himself. If the right is doing way more, shouldn't peers follow his own advice and focus there? — But right now, you're contradicting yourself again. — I think both sides are capable of The retreat is total now. We've gone from an absolute claim about Republicans being ferociously pro- free speech to a vague shrug that both sides are capable of rank hypocrisy. — Both sides are capable of ranky. — That move relies on a false equivalence, treating state punishment for political expression and social backlash as though they're the same thing. They aren't. One involves the coercive power of the state. The other involves social consequences. Collapsing these into a single moral category isn't balance, it's evasion. — Both sides are capable. — Tyler keeps pushing unabated and it is such a good follow-up. Who's worse, Pier?

— I actually think on balance over the last 5 years, the woke left have been more suppressive of free speech than the Yes. — Oh, dear Pier, listen to yourself. on balance over the last 5 years. — The absolute claim has died a death of a thousand qualifications. It's no longer ferociously free speech. It's on balance over the last 5 years, more than the woke left. Tyler gave peers concrete evidence of egregious Republican violations of free speech, demanding a single equivalent from the left. — What has the left done in the past 10 years that it's been worse than trying to ban the burning of the American flag? and Pier has nothing. Yet, he's still clinging to the position despite the executive orders, despite the calls for imprisonment over flag burning and pride flags. Despite having to reach all the way across the Atlantic to misrepresent a UK arrest just to find an example, an example that isn't actually an example. Somehow in his mind, the left is still the bigger problem. The woke left have been more suppressive of free speech than the Yes. Let me give you an examp but you take like 15 minutes to give an example and we have 14 minutes. — Tyler clocks the game. Pier has been filibustering filling the air to avoid the debate. But he's not done. He still has so much more to say. Don't you know? And you really have to hear it. But you take like 15 minutes to give an example and we have 14 minutes. — We haven't stopped talking. — That's right. He blames his interlocator. It's Tyler's fault that peers take so long to say anything. — That's true. — All right. — I had a great time. — That was good. — Yeah. — I like the Thank you. — Tyler ends it with a smile. He had the receipts and Pierers couldn't face his own words. And can I say what a performance. Tyler was effective because he understood Pier's tactics from the outset and never allowed them to work. He kept control of the exchange by setting the agenda, asking the questions, and refusing to be dragged off topic. Pier never got the chance to turn the tables to put Tyler on the defense because Tyler simply wouldn't allow it. He held control. He asked questions. He set the agenda. And he never let up. Every time that Pierce tried to retreat, Tyler dragged him back to the text. Every time Pierers tried to deflect, Tyler returned to the irrefutable claims. Page 81. — Page 241. — On page 241 of your book, — page 245. — On um page 245. — Wow. Here's his own words used against him. Tyler kept the pressure relentless, armed with evidence his opponent couldn't deny. And that's the lesson. In a debate, the one asking the questions controls the conversation. And damn, did Tyler do a good job. — What legislation they put forward? — Nothing. — No, but here's there'll be question about you. — What's more being cancelled than being put in prison? Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to everyone who supports the channel, including today's sponsor, Ground News.