the man, hes just that guy that would be there if you needed to talk about ANYTHING. He is always so supportive of anything, and his smile, is EVERYTHING. He also has a great sense of humor, and he will know how to make you laugh if you're in the absolute worst mood.
by clownpoo October 20, 2020
Get the jordan poulsen mug.
Get the jordan osbourne mug.A Jordan Golder is the most sweetest adorable hottest thing you can meet she sooo nice and will love to be around her you will never stop telling her i love you and never stop staring at her
by Uknown_User99 October 15, 2011
Get the Jordan Golder mug.Chad jordan is one of the fattest bitches at starkville high man pulls no bitches at all and has zero game man, tried to pull my girl and i got 12 SCREENSHOTS ON THIS NIGGA BRO MAN TRIED AND FAILED that shii is crazy yk what else is neveah aslo said that shii was small.... hat shii is wild fr
by urabitch101 April 3, 2023
Get the Chad jordan mug.he is a tall handsome or fine boy
who is really good at art and science
he used to date a girl named eno-mfon
and he is really good at getting bitches and hoes
who is really good at art and science
he used to date a girl named eno-mfon
and he is really good at getting bitches and hoes
by black pele February 2, 2023
Get the Jordan Pele mug.by 12_34_j_56_n February 15, 2023
Get the Jordan Long mug.A logical fallacy where one of the sides attempts to discredit the opposition by painting the other side as incapable of arguing on the topic, by pointing out a source about the topic (which is mostly too long to skim through in a short time) and stating that they must scan the said source extensively before they can talk about the said topic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
Example 1
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
by Doge of Chamberlain October 11, 2023
Get the Jordan Peterson mug.