Why don’t you peterkikes admit that he lost the debate?
Multiple logical fallacies, hostile, aggressive white male pattern of behavior, appeals to nature and authority, and arguments revolving around unsound premises.
She controlled the tone and pace of the debate, made him giggle like a girl and went in for the kill.
She won.
...
Slide thread fuck off.
Wash your balls
IT WAS HER TURN
>appeals to nature are bad
cool can we stop letting faggots appeal to gay pandas as an excuse for their degenerate ways
>argue that to have proper discourse you may offend somebody
>"""lose a debate""""
I hate JP as much as the rest of you but I'll never say he lost this one
Peterson is funded by Red Lobster and The Claw.
A brief synopsis of a few of the many errors he made in the debate:
>Women and men have the same IQ
>There’s a a pay gap between men and women
>Lobsters and Humans share similar heirarchy
>Tranny anti free speech laws will lead to millions murdered
>I’m a clinical psychologist, therefore I’m right
can't wait till I see your talking points on CNN or MSNBC tomorrow.
but its more likely your college professor is feeding you this garbage
can you take your rug merchant worship to a board that cares? peterson is an opportunist. a well spoken one but an opportunist nonetheless. rehashing jung and telling fatherless soyboys that they need more jesus in their lives and the best way to start is to "le clean your room" (something you learn how to do when you're 3 when you have parents who love you) is neither political nor interest and I'm going to have to do it. in all fields
>believes women and men have the same IQ
>calls me a leftist
He’s making a mil a year in Patreon and still wants to be a rug merchant.
This exact slide thread has been posted over and over all day. At least you could change up the words a little
This is peterkike the rug merchant general.
sage kys
and the soys he has become a substitute father for are all to ready to depart with their government backed student loan shekels to get in on that sweet sweet indulgence action
Vacuum your rug
Buy my plugs
>aggressive white male
This isn't even good bait
Is there something wrong with being an aggressive white male?
wow they both really held their own,
that's a good debate
i agree, petersonfags are a borderline cult at this point, the guy is just a liberal who thinks transgenderism is 'illiberal', he doesnt have a single right wing bone in his body and i really dont understand why so many retards on this board like him
9/10 trolling
good work user
Because
1) it was an interview not a debate
2) he won
>this same yank shilling against Peterson multiple times a day
>will argue all thread but never responds to posts which BTFO his arguments
We've been through this mate; It's not an "appeal to authority" if the interviewer asks you for your qualifications and you oblige her.
Name one argument I haven’t responded to.
When I pointed out your mistake regards the "appeal to authority" in the earlier thread.
When I asked you to actually explain how Peterson was wrong yesterday.
Is it past your bedtime Peterkikes?
Did you brush your teeth?
What gives you the right to say that?
I’m a clinical psychologist.
youtube.com
Scott Adams says that the interviewer underwent at least a dozen cognitive dissonances.
The HE111 dropped its bombs vertically, tail first
>What gives you the right to say that?
Exactly.
It's not an appeal to authority if he's already made his argument, irrespective of authority, and she asks by what authority he can make that argument and he obliges.
As I explained earlier you have a sever deficiency in your logical abilities, you need to look at the whole picture mate - not just latch on the whatever small pieces fit your preconceived views.
>debate
lol wut
fagit
trolling or delusional, doesn't really matter which
hencould have made a claim that he had imperial data from his practice that shows it rather than claiming he’s a psychologist which doesn’t prove anything.
She wasn't asking for imperial data, she specifically asked what "gave him the right", he obliged.
What a terrible point to nitpick on, you clearly WANT to dislike Peterson to try to catch him out over such a trivial matter.
>imperial data
>imperial data
You people are idiots.
Right as in what evidence do you have.
>never heard of auto correct
No, you're projecting now.
Are you really trying to imply that auto correct changed the correct spelling of a word to a completely different word? Sounds like damage control to me.
It does it all the time.
women are lobsters , also you are either a ((( shill ))) or a legit mentally retarded potato head
Whether they have the same IQs or not. He did say they like different things which leads to different dominance in different jobs.
So, you're saying the wage gap came from UFOs and we need to gas the Jews?
Whole lotta lobsters in this thread
There is no wage cap.
There’s an income gap.
Top male chess player: 2834
Top female chess player: 2680
Top 100 male chess player: 2653
Second best female chess player 2572
the bit about jews seems reassonable enough
Is this the lobsterfag from yesterday?
And saged.
So let me get this straight... you're saying that your phone, or what ever you're using, decided to change the word empirical to imperial? And that it does things like that all the time? That's highly unlikely as most spell checks know that empirical is an real word and would have no reason to change it. It's pretty obvious that you thought the phrase was actually "imperial evidence". I bet you've also used phrases like "case and point" and "for all intensive purposes", like a low IQ troglodyte regurgitating things he thinks will make him sound smarter.
This is because chess is not something women are genetically inclined to be interested in because it's a game. Men love games more then women.
>b-b-but muh capitalism is jewish!
That’s why there are hundreds of men better than the second best woman in chess?
My iPad, not phone. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Absolutely, my explanation makes perfect sense. Being good at chess is not simply being intelligent, it's being intelligent and then desiring to study chess. Men want to do that, women don't.
So that’s why men are faster and stronger than women too?
5 minutes in and the bitch is only getting wrecked
Nope, I think you're just retarded user. I'm sorry to say it but despite being bigger and faster than women you aren't smarter than most of them
So why do women score lower on the MCAT?
Watching this video might make me a peterfag. 8:30 his comment goes right over argumentative more I talk means I'm right bitch
Did you take the MCAT and score higher than women? Are you in the top 100 chess ratings of players today? If not then you don't get to revel in their superiority. When you are an exceptional man you are allowed to brag about it. Until then you are just as useless as all the dumb women.
I actually did take the MCAT and scored very high.
The video that made me a peterfag was the Canadian television roundtable that got the TA almost fired for showing in class. He's excellent. Watch his talk about the Marxist lie of white privilege
...
What about the SAT?
>Math
Post reading, I'm curious
>She won
>Gotcha
So women don‘t like math either?
>troglodyte
Complains about spelling
>Spells troglodite wrong
Studied have showed that the way an introduction is worded can flatten out or increase the differences between genders and races. For example, mentions of respected black mathematicians in the introduction of an exam will make black students grades much closer to those of white students. Same with women. This has to do with stereotypes being in mind prior to exams which could act as self-fulfilling prophecies.
It's like watching a lesson from a master. Peterson destroys her cookie cutter liberal regurgitations.
fuck off shill
Does this apply to white men too?
The math stereotype about whites and males is a positive one, so an introduction including a respected white male won't increase scores much since that stereotype is already in mind. However, scores can be reduced by mentioning someone that isn't respected
>increase scores much
So you admit that it will increase their score?
Yeah. The stereotype influences your behavior on a larger level when you have more conscious awareness of it. So if a positive stereotype is already influencing you unconsciously it will influence you more when its put a bit more into your consciousness. However, the degree of change isn't as much as when the stereotypes are challenged.
Women are the biggest children in the room famalam, they should be barefoot and pregnant and nothing else.
Peterson appeals to the high IQ portion of Sup Forums.
High IQ people are smart enough to see beyond the left/right dichotomy. That's just a simplification for simple minds.
So if we separated people and showed each of them a mathematician of their respective race and gender before a test, would white males still score higher than black females?
Yes we must individually fight the collective.
They’re funny.
SHILL MEMO COMING
Uhhh... excuse me? I think your simpleton brain is trying to make thoughts... but it's not working.
I don't know of studies that did race and gender at the same time. So I can only speak of comparing males to females and one race to another during the same test. I've seen studies showing the difference was eradicated completely in such studies and I've seen studies showing only some of the difference was removed. So the conservative answer to your question would be that there will still remain a small difference.
She was a joke
He was calm, intelligent and articulate
She was angry, offensive and insulting
He was playful, informed and composed
She was all righteous indignation and anecdotes
He was experience and statistics
She was the embodiment of feminism.
He was the embodiment of man
You sound like a bot.
>arguments revolving around unsound premises.
Premises can't be sound or unsound
Why don't feminist SJWs and MRA MGTOWs both admit that the two of them FUCKED after the interview? They were flirting so hard it was embarrassing to watch
>lefties are authoritarian
>SO YOU ARE SAYING THEY'RE MAO AND KILLED MILLIONS
>TELL ME ABOUT HE LOBSTER
YASSSSS KWEEEEN SLAYYYYYY
sage
>aggressive white male pattern behavior
Lol
Get gassed
funny 1.5 minute summary of the debate :)
youtube.com
>Peterson brings up agreeability.
>Bitch doesn't seem to understand it
>She still going circles debating a fix when there isn't one and she doesn't bother to understand it.
This is the issue and why it will never be fix. You avoid so many variables and demand a solution because a solution should exist.
This is her problem through and through. Yet Peterson is simply being a realist while she is all about unrealistic utopias existing because reasons. There's a reason why he understands all those variables you can/can't account for but she doesn't give two shits about them and only cares about solution.
Rational person who doesn't care about Petersen either way here.
>When the interviewer did well
The Mao comments, Petersen looked like another hyperbole spouting autist here. Also the Petersens' lobster analogy is stupid and she knew it.
>Where Petersen did well
Every other part of the interview.
>What was missing
Could've done with more nuanced discussion peeling apart gender traits and biological sex. interviewer didn't seem to know anything about this area and Petersen even corrected her on one point (using the term feminine instead of female). This would've been one of the weaker parts of Petersen's case, or at least a part that would give his supporters pause for thought, and it's a pity the journalists doesn't get it.
Refute any of this kikersons.
I already destroyed you 5 times.
His fans are bigger idiots which is sad.
Literally none of what you said is true. kys
Ir doesn't matter anyway. What matters is is there a consensus that he won? The answer is 1000000000% yes - he slaughtered that oddball lefty nutjob and she was left faundering. Now let's say you are actually right, and that when the interview is disected, he did what you say he did. Well guess what? Only you believe it anyway. He won in peoples hearts and minds.
