Відео

After 2000 Mules, it's safe to assume D'Souza jumps to conclusions and he manufactures evidence.

Jordan Peterson's constant interruptions and injection of gish gallop half way through just about every sentence Matt says makes it so hard to watch this video. I admire Matt's ability to keep his cool and not just tell JP to shut up.

Reminds me of that "debate" Destiny had with those two women that wouldn't stop interrupting.... JP is like the big one

Peterson is a smart guy for stupid people

What Denish is saying is not true. To be present of the country you have to believe in god or claim to do it. That is almost the same as saying that the voters put that fact first in order to vote for anyone.

Islam is NOT destroying France . western politicians implementing Globalist agendas are using Islam to destroy France

In France, violence against white people has already been openly called for and the police and relevant authorities do nothing, believing that racism does not happen against whites..

God I wish sacha baron cohen wasn’t famous so borat could debate Jordan

My friend from Röcken, once wrote "Knapsack of the Metaphysicians.- Those who boast so mightily of the scientificality of their metaphysics should receive no answer; it is enough to pluck at the bundle which, with a certain degree of embarrassment, they keep concealed behind their back; if one succeeds in opening it, the products of that scientificality come to light, attended by their blushes: a dear little Lord God, a nice little immortality, perhaps a certain quantity of spiritualism, and in any event a whole tangled heap of 'wretched poor sinner' and Pharisee arrogance."

Dinesh is full of BS.

Bela Bartok, one of the most important composers of the 20th century, was an atheist.

To play devil’s advocate, there are excellent arguments that atheists tend to wave off that are legitimate, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. Atheists love to call out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and strawman personal beliefs to a common religious perspective. Even looking at the “canonical” Christian bible, it is very easy to point out that the books were selected with extreme bias by Christian leaders. You can solve whether or not a spiritual belief is rational - you can not disprove the supernatural, unless of course there are certain stated rules that can be proven false.

With JP, just about everything he says can be dismissed with “so what?”.

Toxic comments enraged at De Souza are atheists angry at God and it’s highly likely they suffered some kind of Trauma, or parental family issues, and they resent God in this way as a coping mechanism. Some of this is sub-consciously done.

We know this man is full of sh*t, but we spend our time and energy trying to understand arguments that he makes that in most instances are circular, spontaneously blurted, and flawed. These are not the comments of a person that has deeply thought through his beliefs, and yet he claims to be an expert on these topics.

Matt started stuttering very quickly once the right questions are asked. Liar exposed

I'm not religious, but I thought Peterson trounced both Dillahunty and Harris in the Pangburn debates. My impression is that a lot of the people who criticize Peterson, especially those who accuse him of not making sense, really don't understand what he's trying to say. They need to remember that he's a psychologist and a Junguan psychologist. He is looking at religion as a psychological phenomenon that is a cultural universal throughout human history. The problem is the only vantage points we typically see presented in our culture are the fundamentalist Christian perspective and the fundamentalist atheist perspective, Jordan is being a real scientist by stepping outside of those perspectives and saying let's take this phenomenon seriously because it exists, and let's see what we can figure out about why it exists and what it has meant and does mean for humanity.

Man... JP is very hyped...

After having admittedly gone through a JP phase in my youth, he has a tendency to equate God TO whatever someone's presuppositions about the universe are, regardless of their specific faith. The ironic thing in this video is that the argument he is trying to dismiss from the beginning here is one that he himself believes, Petersons primary presupposition is just that the Bible is true (in a "metaphysical" sense), and all his morals come from that. Except the bits that aren't of course

Believers, when you listen to Souza do you actually think he makes sense?

It's very obvious which person here is trying to construct a logical set of arguments and which one is simply trying to "win". There are a lot of logical fallacies Peterson sets up here, it's almost every line he says but he uses such big words that it's only obvious to those on the outside

Jordan is truly nauseating

Peterson is more like a kid who learned to get out of sticky situations by quickly thinking up excuses rather than an actual thinker

They were stopped at the battle of Tours in 732 AD so consider this the second invasion and the French are losing.

I missed the part where Jordan Peterson's atheism was exposed

Peterson constantly trying to deflect and move the goal post because he doesn't like to hear the right answer...

Jordan Peterson is, by and large, immeasurably more intelligent than his bedwetting critics, but in the area of theistic apologetics, he's an utter clod. Matt Dillahunty is quite sharp, but I could give him much more of a challenge in a debate. Even if he won, which is likely, I wouldn't be revealed as a dolt.

I wanted my step sister real bad , but , she wasn't having it .

In terms of debate and intelligence, Dinesh turned up with a flaccid sponge to a gun fight.

Totally outclassed, as it should be. I like how NOW he is in the "so, what you are saying is..." camp.

The biggest mistake was Sam sharing a platform with these two idiots.

All I can say is that D'Souza is a better tap dancer than most. Still dodging logic though.

FRANCE-ISTAN😮

Islam will destroy all of Europe and eventually the world.I fear for my grandchildren.

Although I don't have a dog in the fight, it's fascinating to see the religious zeal of MD's supporters on this comment section. All hail Matt!

Jordan is saying a simple thing -- There is a literary account that is as real as the statement "this is a statement about God". The content "God" is also then made true by the truth of the previous statement. Assessing the contents beyond that is placing unjustified attention to the "sanity" of the claim purported by the statement, which is according to him, a waste of time. Hence, he takes away his own cushy interpretation of the statement, i.e., an interpretation that benefits him, and leaves the rest at I dont know.

This is painful to watch.

People have different standards for burden of proof. You can reject what someone else accepts.

Both opponents were great, enjoyable discussion, thanks!

JP can't be this dumb, he is being adverserial for the sake of it.

The problem with Jordan’s argument is that it orders required steps incorrectly. You need said intuitions in order to produce stories. Without first grasping the former the latter can not be produced. The whole concept of stories becomes unattainable, likewise impossible to produce without first recognising intuitions, hence it’s not as though you need stories to form initiations, as demonstrated by the fact that we write the stories. If we needed the stories to form our intuitions, stories wouldn’t have ever been produced, much the same way you can’t argue that we need cars in order to fathom transportation, as cars would have never been produced without first fathoming transportation.

The West has been too accommodating for too long with poor immigration controls. The global irony is that the communist countries and dictatorships will be the ones to actually stop the insurgence in their countries, but the west is in real danger of being overrun because of the left/soft policies that are forced on their people. Wake up world, and protect your own country and culture first.

53:28 I think dawkins legit didn't realize what he said 😂😂

Peterson has long been exposed as a grifter.

Jordan is a quack, a charlatan, snake oil salesman

Peterson is such an @$$

Peterson is right it took him 1:50 to recognise the amount of barbarism in the bible. He is plain wrong that sex Ed doesn’t work. Uk had the highest teen pregnancy in Europe and improved sex and relationship ed and it dramatically reduced. He is factually wrong. Fear of god does not stop people making bad choices in their sex life. Education however does.

If someones friends exclude someone for being an atheist then they are not really your friends. The same would go for an atheist excluding someone for their religious views. i remember the late great Christopher Hitchins who i think once said something like if religion makes you happy then fine but some arent happy till others believe it too .

I used to really like JP. His lectures at university are still great, but he's become a victim of his own success. He's become arrogant and self assured. Not too keen on him anymore.