Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2

From 1969, but still very relavent today.

Noam Chomsky debates William F. Buckley.

Part 2 is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samv...

Who is Noam Chomsky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky

Who is William F. Buckley?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...

• Category

  Howto & Style

[daandorr3]

i wish people would debate like this still today

[Wishcraftian]

Buckley's appeal to emotion with his condescending inflections and facial expressions have no place in an intellectual debate.

[CrateofStolenDirt]

He died in a sick bead, but what of it? What the hell is your comment even supposed to mean?

[Oliver Kleinman]

At least he died with his boots on.

[1Mperios]

Who need to read and talk facts if you have a wide range of vocabulary and can spout anything you desire without the audience having any idea of the truth.

[Jay Louis]

Buckley personifies the arrogance, condescension and complete lack of interest in critical thinking that defines the contemporary republican cult movement.

[CrateofStolenDirt]

Chomsky is able to make his case clearly because, and only because, in an unconstrained two person discussion, there is after all a limit to how much a single interlocutor can do to divert and stymie his opponent without too obviously coming off as a Pleistocene brute. Buckley attempts everything *short of* simian hooting, and to my mind his urbanity is not to be commended for demurring precisely there.

His attempts to evade can travel no further only because the format affords no more road.