Other than William F Buckley, has anyone ever beaten him in a debate?

I did. Got BTFO so hard he stopped emailing me

>is anyone cruel enough to beat a senile old pseud
No.

Foucault tore him a new one

>>9161271

what a true hero fampai

>>9161271

This. The world must know Pol Pot is innocent of murdering 2.1 million people.

He only killed 1.3 million.

Nice bait. If you really think Buckley's argument for altruistic imperialism was anything other than pure delusion you need to get your head checked.

>>9161295
>altruistic imperialism
Was that like the "compassionate conservatism" of early 21st century neocons?

Rich people doing everything they can to help the poor and disenfranchised, except tolerating any change to the economic system that may allow poor people to attain a better standard of living at the expense of the rich?

>>9161295
woah so progressive. I bet you hate yourself for being white aswell

File: 169438.jpg (176KB, 400x539px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 400x539px

>>9161268
Foucault got torn a new one by AIDS

>>9161315
Yup

>>9161321
Nope. Being white is the shit. But good job groping blindly for a personal insult rather than making an actual point.

>>9161268
Nope

>>9161331
Guess William F Buckley's the female Mother Teresa

>>9161257

Sam Harris would rape his ass like the cops did to that negro in France.

>>9161271

He didn't say Pol Pot was innocent.

He's hardly done any debates ever though I'm pretty sure.

>>9161366
No as innocence assumes that an event occurred and the accused just wasn't the perpetrator; Chomsky outright said no one got murdered at all, and then retreated to "n-no, it's a CONSPIRACY, the GOVERNMENT killed those millions of people, not Pol Pot!" once shown proof that a large amount of people had died.

>>9161356
They actually had a debate in which harris just sperged out at chomsky for disrespecting the 9/11 and violating the sacrosant 'limits of decent liberal discourse'

>>9161268
That was barely a debate, they weren't within the same framework and just talked past each other.

>>9161257

Me, when I piss on his grave.

>>9161383
>all those outright lies
Embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>>9161268
>foucault
>tearing anyone a new one but himself in a San Francisco bathhouse

>>9161510
All these things do is lie to themselves. It's saddening.

>>9161257

0/10

On the contrary, OP, even the most /pol/ of /pol/ users, with a modicum of honesty about what they are watching and being presented with, can easily see that in this particular battle, Chomsky won not just easily, but to the point of embarrassing Buckley. And I say this as a Trump voter who rejects Chomsky's politics and worldview.

This is the debate:

Buckley: "Well, um, how about [sentimentality, noble notion, pleasant fiction, concrete assertion]

Chomsky "Er, no, on the contrary [news item or recent report not only negating what Buckley just said, but making Buckley look like an ignoramus who doesn't open newspapers much or pay very close attention to much at all, with citation]

I am not interested to fact-check every last thing that Chomsky said, because that's beside the point. The point is that Chomsky was readily able to /present a counterargument to every single point that Buckley made, give some sort of citation, and thus cumulatively refute Buckley's central point/. That's one way of /winning an argument/, to just tenaciously smack down every last thing that the opponent says, and hold your corner. You don't even /need/ facts to do this, as we've been getting a master class recently, but they sure help.

>>9162500

Everyone can judge for themselves. Like Chomsky or not, he handed Buckley Buckley's ass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4

>>9161386
harris is such a thickheaded cunt lmao
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

>>9162500
>you don't even need facts to win an argument
>just need to come up with an immediate response to each assertion your opponent makes
Your post is the true 0/10 one.

Sam Harris mauled him before Chomsky even got to the debate room.

For the people who think that this is bait: check the youtube comments under that debate. Every conservative in these is 100% sure that Chomsky got demolished, and I've read the same opinoin on /pol/.

>>9162544
> ayy nah chomp-brah results of war, death statistics or covert objectives of war don't matter, if your (((((((intentions))))))) are good it's all gravy- ignore the bodies lmao

>>9161510
someone should edit this so he's talking about the holocaust

>>9161257
I see it so often but I feel like the anti-Chomsky sentiment is so unbased.

I think he's a pretty competent honestly. I've heard so little (or none practically) legitimate, well reasoned retort to his claims

>>9162544
Harris basically just indulges in hypocritical handwringing about what he sees as Chomsky's unforgivable crime, the fact he's not to praising the moral superiority of enlightened American empire. that means- GASP! the regressive left is siding with the terrorists! When ironically, the US has been one of the major backers of international salafism from Afghanistan to the so called free syrian army. Sam Harris is full neocon, the 'rational enlightened liberal' facade is just a cover for deep state interests. He just did a podcast with the Daily Beast's Michael Weiss, one of the worst Gulf petrostate shills in Washington. That's the worst thing about Harris, he's not even coherent, his discourse amounts to nothing more than disingenuous performative faux indignation wrapped up in fetishised 'rationality' and 'decency'. In short he's a fucking worm and a trust fund hack 'neuroscientist'

>>9162544
I read that debate every month to get my vanity in check. It's probably the cringiest document on the internet, I can't believe Harris released it.

>>9162632
>I can't believe Harris released it
dude's too dumb to know he's dumb

>>9162609
What about the prelude of that debate, in wich Harris links a videos with a erroneous title (his name was in the title but Chomsky doesn't actually mention him), and then proceed to mention a single quote of Noam, while ignoring the rest of his extremely vast literature.
It was embarassing, his career should have ended there.

File: IMG_0598.jpg (29KB, 220x196px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x196px

>>9162593
[laughs internally]

>>9161510
>>9162593
i feel like most mass killings (including the holocaust, cambodian genocide, holodomor, etc.) are greatly exaggerated to fit certain political purposes in general.

>>9161257
Why do people bait about Chomsky so hard? It would make sense if the Chomsky following was load and aggressive but no one ever talks about him.

Really, what is even the point of this because it's obvious to everyone that Buckley got destroyed on that episode?

>>9162516
>1. Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply. They have communicated their concerns to the FDA but were rebuffed. Acting rashly, with the intention of saving millions of lives, they unleash a computer virus, targeted to impede the release of this deadly vaccine. As it turns out, they are right about the vaccine but wrong about the consequences of their meddling—and they wind up destroying half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.

>What would I say? I would say that this was a very unfortunate event—but these are people we want on our team. I would find the FDA highly culpable for not having effectively communicated with them. These people are our friends, and we were all very unlucky.

>2. al-Qaeda is precisely as terrible a group as it is, and it destroys our pharmaceuticals intentionally, for the purpose of harming millions of innocent people.

>What would I say? We should imprison or kill these people at the first opportunity.

this is complete gibberish

>>9164055
Get le rational

>people on /lit/ talked about the Peterson v Harris debate for months

>>9161257
Foucault did, imo. It isn't that Chomsky's views weren't sound, but that they were engulfed by the perspective which Foucault was presenting, and Chomsky did not seem to realize this.

>>9161450
this. fucking laughable

>>9162516
>SH: To the point about my refusing to “reciprocate” by referring to places where you have written about me or my work: I’m unaware of your having done so. I have seen a video or two in which, when asked to comment about my views, or about the “new atheism” generally, you have said something disparaging.
>NC: Easy to know why you’re unaware of my having written about your work. I haven’t done so.
BTFO by The Brain

>>9161257
He was never respected by serious reasearches outside of a narrow border field between linguistics and formal language theory in informatics.