Tyler Mauldin This never gets old 😂

Love it!

Tyler Mauldin I totally thought that was Ben Stiller when I first saw the thumbnail XD

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I can't stop laughing Dude , you are Hilarious :) :)

Tyler Mauldin hahahaaha

Hahahahhaah I just saw something very unpretty! I looked in the mirror! But I am the cool KZfaqr with two hazardously hot girlfriends so it is all good! Thanks for you attention dear foudnign

I still can't get over the new music.

AlphaCrucis same here. I can’t get over the name change tbh

Bahaha!

Hahaha! Fanboy showing. Nice.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

no u

*hahahahahahahahaha you're right ya know*

-4 Subscribers with a hammer addiction 😆😆😆

no uuuuuuuu

@Jake Watson what he quoted was one of Sam's satirical arguments against compatibilism .

I believe Sam was quoting someone else when he said, "If a puppet loves it's strings it thinks itself free."

Reminds me of Henry Fords' "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."

The lack of self awareness by Sam in that quote is beautiful

@@donkidik5653 How do you mean?

Rightly said!

Like...Cathy Newman when she interviewed Jordan Peterson? So you're saying, so you're saying, so you're saying...

And every rebuttal to a reductio ad absurdum is alway: oh that's a strawman, that's not what I meant

This is why I think the video should have focused on Harris’s steel-manning. He does this before going into the reductio ad absurdum.

Well said! And, as Cody said, a reductio ad absurdum is much more effective if preceded with a steel man to show that you’re not misrepresenting their position.

@Jake Watson ?

@Jake Watson ?

@Jake Watson no u

@Jake Watson Obviously it isn't. r/woosh

Zaaron Gaming are u a troll?

As well as a BJJ black belt.

"Statements found on the Internet are rarely accurate." -Abraham Lincoln

@@sarttan Goddamnit Abe, your wisdom once again shines beyond grave.

"And Dave Rubin is not" -Everyone

“Sam Harris is an intellectual blackbelt” -Joe “Sam Harris is an intellectual blackbelt” Rogan

Agreed, Sam is very good-looking and it's hard to take your eyes off him.

Lol Ben Stiller 😂

Sam's opponents: "Am I really losing a debate to Derek Zoolander?"

@@GustAdlph All too true. And he's so charming and personable. Love to get my hands ON him!

He looks like Dr. Evil's son doesn't he?

And make sure to get into KZfaq debates you're not ready for just to test and improve your logic skills 😂. God bless vicious KZfaq comment sections, helped me hone my logic since I was 12 lol. People never hold back in comments because they don't know you're 12, especially if you write well enough, so you're arguing with people much smarter and experienced than you are (usually lol) and get destroyed but that only makes you stronger because you learn from your mistakes. My 23 yo self is thankful for all the humiliation my younger selves had endured over the years. That experience also translated into (relative) dominance in real life debates, naturally. I learned to think quicker and spot holes in logic more easily.

@@KabooM1067 No kidding 🤣🤣🤣

@@GosuTricks To be honest, I only apply this 'philosophy' to this specific situation because anonymity provides a layer of protection from personal attacks, so I can argue to my heart's content without fear of social repercussions in my real life. I still struggle with applying that frame of thinking to actual life situations, but I'm trying. It's harder to do when people see you, know your name and face and know things about your life.

@@KabooM1067 Anonymity isn't really that important. I've debated loads of people on both the radical left and right with my real name visible and have had no repercussions whatsoever. The people debating on KZfaq aren't the ones who will run you over or hit you with a bike lock. Edit: I agree with your perspective though. I love it when someone shows me a weak point in my argument.

@@harryradley it is where I live though xD. I live in the Middle East, we don't have such freedoms and people are very, very intolerant of different opinions that it can easily escalate to physical attacks.

THE EARTH IS FLAT!!

I'm stealing that.

Zephyrus Auron -No problem. Honour it by applying it!

@@TheEternalOuroboros 👍

I will steal and change a... little bit. "Always smash his face instead of spend your voice".

@Jake Watson Mitch Manly.

Unfortunately arrogance comes across as pretty uncharismatic although accurately demanding in this case ;)

meta

no he seems to just want to win....sad

@@marcokite You seem to have Sam confused with every living Christian.

and because of that he's all-powerful

quite right, a public debate is not a place to lose or win, rather to learn each other position and more importantly let the audience learn these positions.

I agree 100%.

Erkki Dreiak yaas

Hitchens was an introvert?

@@RJFares The famous stutterer?

@@RJFares lmao that's your best shot at hitch? That he stuttered?

Rami-John Fares what else can you say of him?

Non of which was actually unpacked. It all just referred to other videos. Guess how many videos are referred to in each of those videos...

@@DiscoFang completely agree. I usually like this channel, but this was extremely click baity and shallow

@@Blackmuseops So you're saying in way too many words that you didn't even watch the video. Got it.

@@85Funkadelic where did you get that?

I don’t think anybody got the joke / reference

stephen stewart or dmt

Or Quake

Charlie already said he likes his podcast. We'll probably have a Joe Rogan video soon.

DMT, Quake and random facts about animals.

Open ended questions/inquiries: So instead of saying “have you had a good week so far?”, to which you box the other person into saying “yes” or “no”, say something like, “Tell me how your week has been so far.” That way they are free to answer the question however they want. Good doctors use this technique to get more information out of a patient. Rather than saying “does your back hurt?”, say “Tell me how your back has felt this week.”

He's very good at playing both the humble debater and the smirking homerunner. I find it rare for people to display such genguine care for honesty balanced with strong integrity.

100% cosign. Over the last years I‘ve jumped from entertainer to entertainer because after a while the jokes, the persona became a shtick. But with Sam it‘s always so pleasantly lowkey.

@Rod Steel what is hell? Nigeria?

Who’s Sam Harris? But Ben Stiller was great in this video

there's no such thing called subtle charisma. Also, what's the difference between the mage and the sage?

Ricardo Magalhães Like when he walked back his "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" comment? 🤔

But islam is the mother lode of bad ideas .... he was absolutely correct to say that but if you get enough death threats towards you and your family I reckon anyone would succumb to that kind of pressure ....

I find him patently dishonest, especially concerning his debate topics. This is borne out by a few of his opponents views that he doesn't treat the subject with which he's engaged seriously.

@@jonathanrandall4140 There's nothing wrong with walking back on a statement, changing your mind or misspeaking. If that were the case we'd get nowhere, no?

He actually stated in his podcast that he should've said "a" motherload of bad ideas.

You guys cracked me up!

"Hey! I'm no one's messenger boy, all right? I'm a delivery boy."And with this simple quote, he won the plot.

ogres are like hydras...

sounds like a harry potter spell

@Jake Watson, when you feel personally attacked by a sentiment about some random percentage of the general population, maybe YOU should go back to your own research and try looking the terms up to be sure you are NOT guilty as hell... ...as opposed to protesting and painting yourself as OBVIOUSLY GUILTY AS HELL. ;o)

@Jake Watson How's that condescending at all?

@Pacna Sesim A "proper implementation" comes in the form of a question. The inappropriate method turns accusatory. It's not rocket science. ;o)

@Pacna Sesim, THAT would be why a "proper" argument or debate between reasonably sensible (even if not exactly educated) people doesn't consist of the "shouting match"... Obviously we're ALL susceptible to "the heat of the moment" intentions that don't get elaborated articulately. It's the duty of BOTH sides of a "proper debate" to call each other out for "BS" and allow for some manner of rephrasing, even retro-actively. Misapplied, and miscommunicated arguments can obscure the whole purpose of a debate, online or off... AND it's worth the effort, if you're remotely passionate about the substance of said debate, to give a reasonable slack to the "others" so they can go back, and examine where the phrasing or wording got in the way... OR they can even understand where they stated the reductio' as an accusation, "You do understand that you're saying..." (for example)... and withdraw that formally, replacing it with an acknowledged and proper line of logic. "Are you sure about that? Because if we step this way... blah-blah... to my concern of the logical next step. {enter absurdity} AND I don't see where you've pointedly avoided that." (more proper example) Today's debates are full of people with zero patience for anything but hearing their own head rattle. (or keyboard "peck") BUT patience is the key virtue of anyone intent on debating and getting progress. -I'll spare you- ... no. I won't spare you the extra giggle at me, when I saw "fallacious" (regarding "fallacy" obviously) and my twisted brain immediately went to "fellatious" as in "fellatio"... ;o)

If you ever get a copy of his memoir "Hitch-22" it will explain a lot. He, more than anyone else who is associated with him as a peer or in "The Four Horsemen", was devoted to taking part in all the culture, travel, politics, and absorbing life lessons through putting himself at risk. He didn't just write books and go on speaking tours, he travelled for many years to many war-torn countries, but unlike other journalists, was also tirelessly dedicated to a love and appreciation for literature. Not to mention the fact that he could booze it up and socialize better than anyone else. He was just a better formed human being than most anyone he went up against or was ever compared to, because of his tireless devotion to real experience and confrontation.

elbryan9 Christopher Hitchens had fantastic delivery and wit, yet he strayed off point and remarks could have had more substance. Someone like Richard Carrier is great when presenting content, as he can compress and relate technical information with authority. Liberace vs. Rubinstein?

@@petersinclair3997 Yeah Christopher Hitchens is fun to watch but his arguments aren't all that great.

Not really. Some people know amazing truths, but know no charisma. Vice versa

@@Terry-nr5qn Harris' raw pragmatism is what's compelling. He's not particularly charismatic. He's relatively robotic in his delivery actually.

Interesting...when I watched that I hated Affleck - he seemed like a triggered stupid bulldozer that wouldn't listen! How come you were on Affleck's side at the time? I absolutely agree about his exceptionally rare level of objective clarity and verbal and intellectual fluency.

@@NAJMYNex well I thought he was an anti muslim bigot but it turned out he wasn't. He was just critical of ideas.

shahbaz khan No he still is an anti-Muslim bigot as evidenced by his backing of race science...

RodanTheMonster Man so because he believes that IQ scores (as measured by IQ tests) varies from race to race (eg Asians score higher than whites, and whites higher than blacks), and he is critical of Islam (and religion in general) that makes him an anti-Islamic bigot? Please explain how all this ties together. It seems you are conflating many things.

@@TheBaaz07 I have him to thank for introducing me to Muslims and ex-Muslims as brilliant as Majid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I honestly think, though he is portrayed as an Islamophobe, that he is the bridge between people, Western or Eastern alike, his style of discussion is what can make us finally enter an era of "colorblindness" as he's put it, where collectivist identity politics can play as small a role in our political and daily life as possible.

Years of meditation, studying under and meditating with roshis, babas, and gurus, have brought him the ability to be that calm in the face of conflict.

Seth Green

Seth stiller

K- MDN If Ben Stiller and Bradley Cooper had a baby.

I thought this was Sam Stiller, or Ben Harris? Can't keep people sorted any more.

James absolutely this!

They did. Twice.

@@Zerradable The word "analogy" wasn't even used once in this video. I believe that's because there's a big difference between taking someone's logic to extremes to expose it's not so obvious flaws... is not the same thing as a well crafted analogy that supports your own line of logic. Two sides of the same coin but I was referring to the latter.

Ethics and semantics

Shame on Sam for debating these small minds and then refusing to debate Bernardo Kastrup who is a step above Sam. Reach up Sam and give us a real debate.

@@tnvol5331 When did he refuse to do so? I googled the Kastrup guy and he doesn't seem to be well known. I think Harris just isn't aware of him.

@@MrCmon113 Kastrup is very well known and recently I discovered that Sam did debate others with similar ideas as Kastrup. He most definitely did not dominate in that debate but it was much more a friendly discussion than pure debate. I enjoy the debate between idealists and materialists. Great physicists like David Bohm and Heisenberg are idealists that differ so much from some other theoretical physicists . The only simplistic comment that Sam makes is that idealism is a discredited idea. That is clearly false as Kastrup,Bohm,and Heisenberg pointed out.

@@tnvol5331 Well when did he refuse to debate or talk to Kastrup? Did Kastrup write a mail or something?

@@MrCmon113 As far as I know he never did directly refuse to answer any posted challenges but then he never did answer them either (he may not have even seen them) .I dont care now that I know he did debate someone similar to Kastrup as I described in my last answer to you.

I've watched over 500 hours of Sam Harris' content on youtube, great stuff.

Trust me, you won‘t regret it. His “making sense” podcast is my absolute favorite.

I love how these true intellectuals keep their cool no matter how frenzied their opponents become. They are so calmly confident while other lesser beings :) need to scream to make themselves Feel superior, as they create the opposite effect.

Classic, just add the name of the Catholic church to make it juicy

@@krugersavage6347 I don't think you got the reference I was making

@@krugersavage6347 Dude was quoting a rebuttal by Harris to an argument made by Shapiro about the Catholic church

Just as many catholics have bombed bridges as built them

@@bryansimmons2001 where are you pulling that out of sir?

I think jbp says this. Courage doesnt come from some magical place. Its the courage to do whats right acording to your beliefs. And once you educated enough and you think the discourse will be a net negative for the improvement of people. Then thats where courage comes from. Or it might not be entirely what he said but something along the lines yes.

MetalCooking666 to play devils advocate, this is not always the case with Harris. I’ll admit that he is an insanely smart dude and a hell of a debater, but a particular argument of his, in his theism vs atheism debate, is intellectually dishonest. Specifically the one in this video regarding the children dying each year; More broadly it could be called the random suffering argument. This argument basically states that with the random suffering in the world and all good, omnipotent creator cannot exist. why can’t it? Because the suffering. When he uses this argument he merely begs the question. When in reality there is no attempt to meet the burden of proof. and that which is asserted without evidence... however this is one of the most powerful arguments that sways people’s opinion because of the emotional reaction it elicits. Now of course my proof of the former is anecdotal but it’s seems common rationale despite how flawed it is.

@@jonmaster5000 Hi. Four questions. Can you explain how Harris’s argument is begging the question? Also, do you mean to reference a benevolent god, rather than an omnipotent god? Can you explain how Harris is wrong to point out that millions of children dying of cancer each year is inconsistent with theist claims of the human race being ‘loved’ by a benevolent god? And I’ve never actually heard Harris say that a benevolent god *cannot* exist, so can you cite your source, please? Thanks in advance.

Sam Harris only uses pure logic, lol? You sound a little too enamored to be objective.

Practice

You're a goldfish. Congratulation.

@@europeansovietunion7372 probably ADD attention deficit disorder. easy to get distracted.

@@europeansovietunion7372 that's rude 🤣🤣🤣

With him, it´s also the fact that he does it for a living. As a day to day job. He´s so used to all the arguments and fallacies that religious people use that his brain has them in kind of a "muscle memory". I don´t think he even has to think about the responses anymore. I think now he just puts in the correct sound file and proceeds to educate the caller/opponent.

Depends whose watching the debate. There are audiences with higher standards too.

He brought up Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro as examples of other good debaters, and they are awful.

@@levib no they just dont fit your political views. Nice try though lol

​@@azndudefromhabbo Both of them can't really argue with anyone more than college students. Neither of them really present logically consistent arguments. Even someone like Joe Rogan tripped up Jordan Peterson on his own contradictions, and Ben Shapiro melted down debating Andrew Neil.

@@levib Cathy Newman interview? The cq interview?

Pretty much. Congratulations.

That’s a conversation lmao

~ Happy to share it!

No, too honest to resort to puffery.

I think he is one of the people who really try to embody that phrase. Nobody can do it perfectly, as we all have our natural biases based on our upbringing, religion, class etc., but I think Harris does it better than most people.

I think what he does not take arguments to a personal level, in a way that could make him emotional in any way (frustrated at most), and expects his opponents to do the same, which I think is a reasonable think to expect when you are in a debate. It's a clash of ideas after all, not people, and if you loose a debate to someone smarter than you, you haven't lost anything more than a bad idea, and have gained a very valuable new one instead.

~ Happy to share it!

Like Sam Harris on politics, world events and foreign policy

@@cockoffgewgle4993 What a brainless thing to say.