So I listened to the Sam Harris / Scott Adams debate. People actually think Scott Adams' shilling constitutes good arguments? It's funny how Scott Adams talked about how people are biased and "filtering" Trump, but he spent basically the whole debate offering the most shill-tier arguments and "observations."
Harris was slightly more emotional than he usually is (because Adams argues in a very annoying way), but still rational. He thoroughly dismantled Adams' BS.
t. Sam Harris
Funny you say that because Scott Adams has actually been caught posing as a fan online:
They were having different arguments. At the base level, Scott Adams was merely arguing that Trump is not stupid, and not as simple as people make him out to be. Harris was essentially just arguing that he was immoral, and projecting stupidity and simplicity onto him because he's immoral.
Also, Harris cited democratic propaganda that has been retracted and proven incorrect. He's clearly not well informed on this.
it took you this long to figure out a response?
Yeah Dilbert persuasion guy is a moron. Yeah he predicted the Trump presidency early but his arguments are weak and he is biased. So is Harris imo, but he is much more eloquent and logical...
Yeah Hanz, I'm sure you're much more successful, have a hotter gf, and could blow him the fuck out with your incredible german hasheed dungeon porn tainted mind.
Molyneux/Harris would be the proper discussion. They are both atheist/moral-absolutists and have opposite opinions on Trump.
Awan bro got arrested slide thread?
Lock Harris up with his queen hillary
Lol fuck off Sam, you dirty kike, nobody likes you here either.
lol dilbert man. wtf? this guy trying to save a dying career? dilbert man. sheesh
I agree with Sam Harris a great deal,especially on Trump.
In the debate with Scott Adams my only disagreement with Sam was the fact that he thinks America is a "good guy" and his seemingly irrational dislike of Russia and Putin.
Of course Putin is not a saint,but he's doing his best to fight for Russia's interests,and while doing so he tries to do as little a damage as possible.
America in the last 15 years has caused more death,destruction and suffering than Putin's Russia could ever dream.
Scott Adams literally excused every Trump lie and wrongdoing.Sam was,in my opinion,very calm-I'd lose my temper at such bootlicking.
Scott Adams is a hypnotist. Everything he says is true.
To be honest I felt like he could have used much better arguments against Sam Harris. It seemed more like a tie to me in any case but not of ideas just because Adams was ok but could have been better and Harris was just completely retarded. They are both relatively civil but Adams didn't really get to the core of the issues and Harris was limp wristed-offensive using MSM talking points like how Trump CAUSED the MSM to be hysterical, which is ridiculous. The debate was so long and I didn't mark which points in particular but there were many times when I was like WTF Scott wrong argument!!!! I actually find Harris to be ultra-annoying, like he is putting on a fake-calm-and-rational tone of voice, it's like STOP motherfucker, just be real. Sounding calm and relaxed does not make you rational.
He also argued against Adams' ridiculous notion that Trump is some master persuader and manipulator and that every apparently stupid thing Trump does is really just 3D chess.
Woah, I was definitely watching a different movie.
I think it was in the first half when Sam explained that Trump's great negative impact to the USA was that "people were talking more about politics" I literally lol'ed out loud. The guy has bad Trump derangement syndrome. I don't get these "intellectuals" who can't figure out why people voted for Trump. I can totally get why people would have voted for Clinton.
Sam is smart, but he's a cunt
>I think it was in the first half when Sam explained that Trump's great negative impact to the USA was that "people were talking more about politics" I literally lol'ed out loud.
Me too.
It also showed he just didn't have anything to answer Adams's point there.
You're an idiot for not knowing that staying calm,even if "fake",is a key to winning a debate.
If you lose your calm,and allow opponent to push your buttons,you lose even with best arguments in the world.
Oh,you're also an idiot for supporting Trump.
sure is shill in here
go listen for yourself, in case you are inclined to believe any of these obvious shill in an obvious slide thread
And what got me pissed about Sam is that he just repeats the empty talking points about Trump University and Russia. I can't take anyone seriously that doesn't see through the Muh Russia narrative. To be honest, that podcast ruined Sam Harris for me.
How to argue like Scott Adams
>Opponent makes claim
>Respond with "Master persuader"
>repeat until listeners tune out
Yeah, the master persuader argument is far inferior to the lucky Hitler racist who fell into the presidency argument.
>but 17 agencies agree
>virtual treason
His every argument was literally "4D chess".
I listened to it. Did Scott Adams really try to convince us that Trump is playing some kind of nonpartisan 11th dimensional chess in order to get everyone to be nice to each other? Adams said some "interesting" things in this interview, particularly about Trump's method of negotiation. Some of it makes sense and some of it is ridiculous. I wonder what Adams gets out of all of it.
It's not really that ridiculous. Trump convinced about half the country to vote for him despite a hell of a lot working against him. He isn't an idiot, he's just an educated salesman. I wouldn't say he is a 'master' but he definitely is very good at what he does.
>muh ethics
Reminder you can't have objective ethics without God
But that was literally his response to everything
>Harris: "Do you think Trump's specific stance on issue X is good or bad"
>Adams: "Trump is a master persuader, and you just don't understand his 4D chess maneuvering."
He said he has enough money and wants to do stuff that actually interests him.
I agree with Russia,but what's wrong with Trump Uni mention?
It literally gives you everything you need to know about Trump's character.
Harris, like most bigots, assumes that people he disagrees with must be some combination of ignorant, stupid, crazy, or evil. Adams just pointed him to the obvious evidence that he was wrong about Trump, and then tried to draw his attention to the cognitive dissonance inherent in his statements.
>Trump convinced about half the country to vote for him
Sure. But Sup Forums jokes aside, it wasn't his election to win. It was Hillary's to lose. The story of 2016 is of Hillary losing, not Trump winning. On election day they both had approval-disapproval ratings near-as-makes-no-difference.
>that every apparently stupid thing Trump does is really just 3D chess.
Oh child, after all this time you still doubt him?
Sad!
Reminder to never trust the Jew.
>literally
you literally don't know the meaning of the word, literally
Sam Harris never brought up an issue. Sam kept saying
"but what about Trump University"
"but what about Trump's way of talking about himself"
"but what about Trump with women"
I thought the debate was very Bill Maher tier.
I think they talked about one real stance: Reponse to terrorism and terrorism. And the "going after of families". Which I thought was meant to be their bank accounts. I think Scott did assume what Trump actually meant.
No, that's just not a plausible read. Trump first had to defeat the Republican establishment in the Republican primary, which is no mean feat. Then he had to defeat the favored candidate in the general. Hillary, or rather her people, ran a decent campaign, but Trump ran a better one.
You should listen to the podcast. It was a licensing issue and people went after Trump himself. I could understand if you rent out your name to a crappy business you should be able to defend yourself if the business you rent your name to fucks up.
It's actually an appropriate usage of the word to stress that I was not making that statement figuratively.
It was LITERALLY his response to everything.
Now be a good boy try harder next time.
That was not a good counter by Harris, I will admit. It's clear that question caught him off guard and he didn't have an answer for it. He should have pointed out Trump's horrible foreign policy (alienating Euro allies for Russia), decreasing civility of politics, and giving false hope to his supporters, who really think he's going to bring factories back.
Shekels from Trump supporters
Adams has said hes lost all income since he started supporting Trump
>trigger
>tell
>cognitive dissonance
>absurd absolute
Yep, you've satisfied all categories. Mad that your "ethics" teach Sam Harris got all emotional and squirmed in his seat because he refused to rationalize the actions of Trump, and then even suggested he knew what Trump was thinking?
Sam Harris got eternally BTFO. It was quite entertaining to watch him have a meltdown while Scott remained calm and collected.
you quoted things that nobody said
you literally made it up quotes and claimed that people literally said them
literally
I half-expected Harris to cite the 2 scoops as evidence of Trump's evil.
I'll agree that Hillary's campaign did the best with the deeply flawed candidate they had. I"ll also agree that the GOP primaries was a hell of a spectacle. He took down on candidate after another. Both parties leaderships lost in 2016. It was the year that the country's "establishment" insofar as there is one, lost control.
You're saying this on the same day that Apple just literally announced 3 big factories to be built in the US.
which newspaper do you work for?
I listened to the podcast.
There is NO excuse.
Even if we assume that Trump didn't know about the scam that was the Trump University(which i'm almost positive he did,but didn't care),he should have checked.
You don't just licence your name to everyone.YOU HAVE TO CHECK WHO DOES THE JOB WITH YOUR NAME ON IT.You're making it as if that removes responsability.
Second,he literally said in add that he HANDPICKED people to teach them success,so right there he mislead people,and lied to get them signed.
As I said,it tells you everything you need to know about Trump.
>then even suggested he knew what Trump was thinking?
That was the best part: Harris trying to simultaneously argue that Trump was a conman AND that he had no "inner world" and should be taken at face value.
Do you actually not think that Trump is a conman?
I also agree with Scott's arguement that sorting it out in the courts is the best move. Imagine you have 400 companies and 1 makes a mistake. Do you run to apologize and write a blank check? Or go to court sort it out?
But once again we are talking about "ethics" and I kinda agree with Scott about the pointlessness of debating ethics. Especially with a story that I don't think we know the whole story.
Do I really have to give a lesson on grammar? Literally?
lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/Submit
adjective
adjective: literal; adjective: literal-minded
1.
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
Literally is modifying MY words, not the words I'm quoting. I know this is a bit beyond your level of understanding, so we can just simplify things to "I'm right, you're wrong"
So you license your name? You know what that's about? You have experience in this? Or do you just pretend like your life and opinions are worth sharing on an anonymous message board with absolutely no point of reference from which to espouse your drivel?
>Harris cited democratic propaganda that has been retracted and proven incorrect
Well hold on, hold on now. Harris may not pass fact checking as well as others, but his point is emotionally true. He's using hyperbole to get his point across. If we change our filter, and look at Sam Harris as an effective persuader, I'd say he's a 15 out 10, and I would know. I've studied persuasion.
he's not persuasive enough to be a conman, right?
>Harris, like most bigots, assumes that people he disagrees with must be some combination of ignorant, stupid, crazy, or evil.
Harris doesn't seem able to entertain the thought that he could be wrong about something.
Sam Harris was trying to understand the mental gymnastics Trump supporters go through to support him.
Yeah and that is another great point. I will Scott would have asked what he thought about a Clinton scandal.
You live on this earth long enough you got some dudious decisions in your past. I just don't get the people that portray Clinton as 100% pure and Trump as 100% evil. For the mob it makes sense but Sam Harris is supposed to be better than that. Sorry to write so much, as a Sam Harris fan it really disapointed me. I don't think I can listen anymore. Even the last one about North Korea I turned off when they said "I can't believe Trump doesn't read books!!!!1"
That was an experiment in persuasion. Notice how you find yourself wanting to download WhenHub? That's no coincidence.
I will do a push-up for every Trump scandal and you do one for every Clinton scandal and lets see who lasts longer?
If Scott Adams is so smart, why is he bald? Checkmate vegans.
Sam Harris is no titan either, I read his book awhile back. It's full of illraltional Muslim baiting, he had the same PTSD meltdown the boomers did after 9/11, which allowed g. Bush to take us to war for no real reason against the wrong country, wasting trillions of dollars and 100,000s of lives, and making the middle east useless for the next 3 generations and likely to cause ww3 in the end.
It was litterally just two buildings, who cares, the US has lots of buildings. We could have just invested that money in air Marsals and port scanners and still had enough wealth left over to improve science research.
Anyways Sam Harris end of faith aurgument was all about bombing Muslim schools and was a weak as fuck and emotional augment for atheism.
Are you fucking braindead?
What makes you think that Hillary being a shit candidate,and all around a shit person,is an excuse for Trump being the same?
uh no, the literally would actually refer to
>Yeah, the master persuader argument is far inferior to the lucky Hitler racist who fell into the presidency argument.
which also no one literally said
again, stop saying words you don't understand
>What makes you think that Hillary being a shit candidate,and all around a shit person,is an excuse for Trump being the same?
The argument goes that we have to pick the better of the two options we're offered
I don't think you even remember how Trump was perceived before 2015. He was seen by all as a preposterous figure, a tasteless, garish walking cliche of 80s excess. To even consider voting for him would have been like voting for Carrot Top. The inconceivable fact of him turning all this around and actually becoming a viable option, then winning, defied all logic.
No, I think he's a salesman. He engages in puffery and hyperbole, which are legitimate modes of communication in American culture. His audience, who share his culture, understand he's exaggerating for emphasis, and he knows they understand him. That means there is no deception intended in his statements.
I also don't sell cars,yet I know you shouldn't sell car with defects.
Nice try though,you're the type of a guy Trump loves to scam,and laugh his way to the bank.
this was meant for
What is Sam Harris' end game for policy?
All I ever get from podcasts is that he spends 3 hours dancing around his grand thesis: We should be careful with Muslim immigration.
says you
I understand that this is your job.
But, nobody but you believes it. Assuming you do.
I agree completely. That's the point of my post. He was able to run up huge numbers to win the GOP nomination before the convention (thus beating the GOP leadership) and then go head to head with an equally unpopular Democrat in the fall. Trump was able to win by appealing to the anxieties and aspirations of the country and to do so better than Hillary.
My point is that Trump was able to win the GOP nomination because he appealed to a majority of the party, but he was only able to win in the fall because of such weak opposition.
But Trump is not better,at all.
>He was seen by all as a preposterous figure, a tasteless, garish walking cliche of 80s excess.
No, he was seen by most as a world class businessman with a down to earth charm rooted in his cultural affinity for the working class. Put more simply, he was seen as a "blue-collar billionaire".
Hillary tried to play the Hitler / unstable leader card. jesus christ don't you remember the Pepe the white supremacist Frog speech. Both campaigns played to the worst emotions.
Are you really that fucking thickskulled that you consider every criticism of Trump as someone being paid?
Go back to the_donald,you fucking brick.
but, but, Russia, right guise?
> You're an idiot for not knowing that staying calm,even if "fake",is a key to winning a debate.
> If you lose your calm,and allow opponent to push your buttons,you lose even with best arguments in the world.
I didn't say it wasn't 'key to winning a debate'. I said it does not make you rational. Speaking calmly and putting on the decorum of a 'calm relaxed person' does not make you more correct.
You are an idiot for not paying attention to what I wrote.
> Oh,you're also an idiot for supporting Trump.
Not an argument retard.
Well that's a totally valid position in a democracy where even idiotic opinions are valid.
Now that you know why hillary's viability as a candidate matters to the decision of whether to elect trump, you can try making an argument.
>Are you really that fucking thickskulled that you consider every criticism of Trump as someone being paid?
I literally do.
literally
I think you should go back to re_ddit with your folder of ugly cow tit women. I get called a shill every day here and I am a big Trump supporter.
This.
I've been following Trump since I was a little kid and could read his name off the Atlantic City casinos on the boardwalk.
I remember that speech completely. It's as hilarious now as it was then. Also, I don't think the country was satisfied with the campaign. We didn't really talk about issues or the future. It was the two of them tearing each other down. I think the country decided "WTF?" and gave Trump a shot.
>Are you really that fucking thickskulled that you consider every criticism of Trump as someone being paid?
Go back to the_donald,you fucking brick.
Well it is pretty obvious you're new around here. Hell youre even posting some old gross slag instead of a trap.
>I wonder what Adams gets out of all of it.
his new book is coming out in a couple of months
Even though that's true, I think making money is just a favorite hobby of him now.
He persuaded a little over half his voters, ie 25% of the voting population. The rest of his voters didn't like him and voted him because he was the GOP candidate. The rest of the country hates his guts. This is far from a "master persuader."
As I have said,fuck off back to the_donald,you can mindlessly follow and defend Trump there without any criticism,weak beta fucks.
>Getting elected president when both parties are against your politics and your brand
Still waiting for the criticism tho.
That's what I asked you for.
If you think any argument in support of Trump is shilling then you may be the one who's biased
I thought the debate was good until you started in
Piss off sam.
fuck off shill
I have literally never been to "the_donald"
the only thing on that shitshow I have literally ever looked at is dgu
The content of the debate seemed to be me about perception and emotion rather than drilling down into specifics. Both were light on specifics although Harris often just plain misinformed. For example:
Harris kept repeating the lie about the 17 intelligence agencies claiming that Russia "tampered" with the election. Oh really? Can you name those 17 agencies? Can you point to those reports? No, you cannot because it is utter B.S.
Harris kept trying to conflate the meeting by Trump Jr. with the Russian lawyer as meeting with the Russian government. Adams refuted this, but should have pointed out the Russian lawyer's connection to Fusion GPS, which is funded by Clinton to dig of dirt on Trump.
Harris kept talking about Russia hacking the DNC emails. Adams pushed back somewhat saying that the evidence consisting of a Russian IP address was flimsy. He should have pointed out that neither the FBI or homeland security was allowed to examine the DNC servers that supposedly were hacked, and that the report claiming it was the Russians came from DNC's private security firm's assessment. Adams should have also pointed out that Assange, who as far as I know has never been caught in a lie, has stated that the emails came from non-state actors.
Also, Adams should have pushed harder with the alarmist flip-flops by the climatologists. (Pic related) But his point about what the best thing to do about climate change is well taken. We need to be careful so as to not cause more damage implementing a supposedly green solution.
Basically Harris is buying the almost all of the MSM narrative without the required level of skepticism given how distorted the media has been in the past. Little time was spent on Hillary, but Adams would have benefited by pointing out that the alternative candidate displayed many of the problems he found objectionable in Trump.
> Muh 17 intelligence agencies
You literally said that trump is worse than clinton. There's not a single person who's been on here for more than a day that genuinely believes that regardless of how much they dislike trump. Just lurk more before posting or get out
>You don't just licence your name to everyone
Trump has. He's had steaks, water, board game, ties, and so on.
He's let all sorts of people use his name to sell products so he could make a buck and that is fine as that is the American dream.
>Harris was essentially just arguing that he was immoral
Kike Harris is an atheist and has no grounds to call anything immoral or not, given that atheism necessarily entails moral nihilism.
