Chomsky v. Bennett Debate

[Al6200]

Noam Chomsky debates Bill Bennett on 9-11

Just a little background on this debate - Noam Chomsky is a professor of computational linguistics at MIT, and is widely considered to be a brilliant mathematician. However his views on foreign policy, like that the US is an international terrorist organization and that the US is imperialistic are quite on the fringe.

Bill Bennett is a neoconservative thinker and former secretary of education. He also led the war on drugs during Bush senior's administration.

Here we see the two polar opposites, both brilliant men and accomplished thinkers, debate Noam Chomsky's controversial book "9-11".

I personally thought that Bill Bennett won, although they both got in good points. The thing is that Noam Chomsky was able to keep moving himself into positive actions taken by the US in order to stop Chomsky from framing the debate. In the end he was even able to get Chomsky to admit that the US was the greatest nation in the world.

[poxpower]

Bennet got massively OWNED in that :o
Holy shit.

I don't know who he is, but I see his line of thinking. He looks like a liar and a spin doctor and just knowing he was part of the "war on drugs" pegs him a sad loser in my book.

The only flaw I'd say about Chomsky's thinking is that we're fighting terrorists and sometimes those people will not play fair. They will force you to kill innocents. There is sometimes no other way. You have to kill 10 innocents or they'll kill 20.
That is a sad state of affairs and you could hardly blame the US for choosing the lesser loss of life.

But unfortunately it's not that clear-cut and I do believe the USA has acted recklessly in the past and that Bennet douche tries to gloss over it apparently while trying to illicit some meaningless patriotism from Chomsky.

[poxpower]

p.s. this is hardly a debate, I guess it lasted something like 3-4 minutes??

[Musician]

I think Bennet won rhetorically by backing Chomsky into a corner like that, but when I go back and look at his arguments they're not as strong as Chomsky's. For example, when Chomsky was talking about the US attacking "soft targets" (civilian targets) in Nicaragua, Bennet responded by noting that all the lawsuits were dropped after Chamorro took office. Sorry, but I don't see how that particular argument excuses the US from deliberately attacking civilian targets.

[Al6200]

At 11/26/08 01:44 AM, Musician wrote: I think Bennet won rhetorically by backing Chomsky into a corner like that, but when I go back and look at his arguments they're not as strong as Chomsky's. For example, when Chomsky was talking about the US attacking "soft targets" (civilian targets) in Nicaragua, Bennet responded by noting that all the lawsuits were dropped after Chamorro took office. Sorry, but I don't see how that particular argument excuses the US from deliberately attacking civilian targets.

I read that as him saying "the ends justify the means" more or less. In other words any illegal activities we did to change the government in Nicaragua were canceled by the ultimate outcome.

I also thought that Bennett's argument about the Khemer Rouge was particularly potent, assuming that it's true.

[Musician]

At 11/26/08 01:51 AM, Al6200 wrote: I read that as him saying "the ends justify the means" more or less. In other words any illegal activities we did to change the government in Nicaragua were canceled by the ultimate outcome.

Maybe, we could argue all day about whether or not the Nicaragua incident was really about spreading democracy, and whether or not the people of Nicaragua benefited more than they lost. Lets not do that in this thread. Whether or not the ends justify the means is irrelevant. For the US to engage in "terrorist" activities and at the same time condemn them is sheer hypocrisy. By the US's own definition, the United States has engaged in terrorist activities. Now in that light, tell me how Bennet even came close to adressing Chomsky's argument.

I also thought that Bennett's argument about the Khemer Rouge was particularly potent, assuming that it's true.

More like a textbook case of poisoning the well. "Dont listen to his arguments! he's a scoundrel!"

[Tancrisism]

At 11/26/08 01:51 AM, Al6200 wrote: I read that as him saying "the ends justify the means" more or less. In other words any illegal activities we did to change the government in Nicaragua were canceled by the ultimate outcome.

But couldn't this same argument be used for the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center, if it actually led to them gaining power or something of the sort?

I also thought that Bennett's argument about the Khemer Rouge was particularly potent, assuming that it's true.

I must say I agree here. Upon looking into it further, Chomsky does seem to choose to put a lot more blame in the American lap than is necessary or fair. Don't get me wrong, I am no friend to the American foreign policy, but I don't think it is fair to give blame where blame isn't due - http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm here is a place to read it. He seems to dispute the Khmer Rouge's massacres far too easily and with much more speculation than evidence and fact...

[Al6200]

At 11/26/08 02:57 AM, Musician wrote:

At 11/26/08 01:51 AM, Al6200 wrote: I read that as him saying "the ends justify the means" more or less. In other words any illegal activities we did to change the government in Nicaragua were canceled by the ultimate outcome.

Maybe, we could argue all day about whether or not the Nicaragua incident was really about spreading democracy, and whether or not the people of Nicaragua benefited more than they lost. Lets not do that in this thread. Whether or not the ends justify the means is irrelevant. For the US to engage in "terrorist" activities and at the same time condemn them is sheer hypocrisy. By the US's own definition, the United States has engaged in terrorist activities. Now in that light, tell me how Bennet even came close to adressing Chomsky's argument.

I also thought that Bennett's argument about the Khemer Rouge was particularly potent, assuming that it's true.

More like a textbook case of poisoning the well. "Dont listen to his arguments! he's a scoundrel!"

More like "Don't listen to his arguments! He's a liar!"

I'll admit that it is a logical fallacy, but it is nonetheless is a great point because it paints Chomsky as someone who is willing to ignore evidence and distort the facts to discredit America. Yes, it doesn't logically imply that Chomsky is wrong, but it leaves an impression on the audience.

Poxpower wrote:

Bennet got massively OWNED in that :o
Holy shit.

Come on, do you really think that Chomsky argued his points better, or do you just prefer Chomsky's points in the first place?

I mean, I though Bill Bennett won because he was constantly the one framing the debate. He was able to control the clock so to speak and make the debate revolve around his issues. When Chomsky brought up US actions in Nicaragua he diffused them by pointing out the positive results of those actions. Later on in the debate he put Chomsky in a position where he had to say that America was the greatest country in the world, and clearly in doing that he put forth the appearance that he had forced Chomsky to make a big concession.

I don't know who he is, but I see his line of thinking. He looks like a liar and a spin doctor and just knowing he was part of the "war on drugs" pegs him a sad loser in my book.

I'm not a fan of Bennett or Chomsky, but I'll admit that I prefer Bennett. People who will more or less say anything to discredit their country are, in my honest opinion, worse than people who admit to its mistakes but nonetheless try to paint it in a positive light.

The only flaw I'd say about Chomsky's thinking is that we're fighting terrorists and sometimes those people will not play fair. They will force you to kill innocents. There is sometimes no other way. You have to kill 10 innocents or they'll kill 20.
That is a sad state of affairs and you could hardly blame the US for choosing the lesser loss of life.

Yeah, I'd suppose. Although we have to admit that if we're spending our time discussing America's negative actions rather than America's positive actions, then Chomsky is framing the debate. But if we're hearing about how good America is and how bad our enemies are, then Bennett has the upper hand.

But unfortunately it's not that clear-cut and I do believe the USA has acted recklessly in the past and that Bennet douche tries to gloss over it apparently while trying to illicit some meaningless patriotism from Chomsky.

That's debating for you. You try to make sure that your strong parts are being discussed, and not your opponent's strong points.

Bennett did this so well that he even made Chomsky say that America is the greatest country in the world, which is clearly a positive reflection that plays well for Bennett.

[poxpower]

At 11/26/08 10:28 AM, Al6200 wrote:

I mean, I though Bill Bennett won because he was constantly the one framing the debate. He was able to control the clock so to speak and make the debate revolve around his issues.

That's not debating skills, he's just a moron.
That's what morons do: they ignore what other say and come back to their own rethoric. The more polite debater will just try to answer that, then move on.
But he was just interrupting and acting like a jackass. Another sad tactic is to try and get the other guy to "admit" things. Like "ha, you admit that America is great!". So what? It's a complete non-sequitur that doesn't have anything to do with anything and is just a waste of time.

And like I said; that wasn't a debate as far as I can tell, it's just a 5 minute exchange on TV :o
Real debates need to be at least 30-60 minutes long to get into some detail.

[Al6200]

At 11/26/08 12:29 PM, poxpower wrote:

That's not debating skills, he's just a moron.

Really all debaters will try to make the debate's central crux their strongest points. If the audience left the debate feeling like the central question was "Has the US had a net positive impact on the world?" then Bennett would have the upper hand. But if they had left feeling like the main issue was whether or not the US had done immoral things in its foregin policy, then Chomsky would've had the upper hand.

You can see this pretty clearly when you see an issue like abortion come up at a debate. A pro-life person won't even touch the argument about the right to choose, rather they'll spend their time talking about how important the right to life is - because it's better if the person hearing it thinks of the issue in terms of fetal rights then in terms of women's choice. Pro-choice people do the same thing.

That's what morons do: they ignore what other say and come back to their own rethoric. The more polite debater will just try to answer that, then move on.

Actually both Chomsky and Bennett were trying to frame the debate. Chomsky was trying to focus it on negative US foreign policy, while Bennett was trying to focus on positive US foreign policy.

But he was just interrupting and acting like a jackass.

I actually did a word count using MS word and Chomsky said 622 words. Bennett said 540 words. So even if Bennett did interrupt Chomsky, it was only to try to balance out the time that both of them were getting.

Of course if Bennett didn't interrupt at all then Chomsky could (but probably would not) have chosen to keep talking indefinitely and try to control the debate just by getting more words in.

Another sad tactic is to try and get the other guy to "admit" things. Like "ha, you admit that America is great!". So what? It's a complete non-sequitur that doesn't have anything to do with anything and is just a waste of time.

Chomsky admitting that America is the greatest nation on Earth is not a non-sequitur. It's more or less a concession that America is not a criminal or an international terrorist in a relative sense (and yes, criminal is relative to the world that we live in).

And like I said; that wasn't a debate as far as I can tell, it's just a 5 minute exchange on TV :o
Real debates need to be at least 30-60 minutes long to get into some detail.

I called it a debate because it was in the debate section of Chomsky's website.

[dySWN]

Honestly, that was a darn good debate right there. I do believe that Bill Bennett won, although it seems to me that there were times where he brushed the fringes of ad hominem with his arguments against Chomsky's position.

[Al6200]

Here's another, slightly older, Chomsky debate if you're interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmx dk

[killxp]

At 11/26/08 01:06 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/26/08 12:29 PM, poxpower wrote:

poxpower wrote:

That's not debating skills, he's just a moron.

Al6200 wrote:

Really all debaters will try to make the debate's central crux their strongest points. If the audience left the debate feeling like the central question was "Has the US had a net positive impact on the world?" then Bennett would have the upper hand. But if they had left feeling like the main issue was whether or not the US had done immoral things in its foregin policy, then Chomsky would've had the upper hand.

You can see this pretty clearly when you see an issue like abortion come up at a debate. A pro-life person won't even touch the argument about the right to choose, rather they'll spend their time talking about how important the right to life is - because it's better if the person hearing it thinks of the issue in terms of fetal rights then in terms of women's choice. Pro-choice people do the same thing.

Yes, that is a way to gain the confidence of the majority of the audience but any learned person would see past these lame tactics. You have to keep in mind what exactly the topic of the debate is and debate points for the affirmative and give counterarguments for the opponents points. Otherwise those that can see past your "debate tactics" know that you have not done anything for your supposed side. The reason these two were brought together, in my opinion, were to have them discuss points in their books and concerned the morality of USA's foreign policy. Bennett spent most of his time personally attacking Chomsky and his own interpretations and opinion of Chomsky and on at least two separate occasions Chomsky gave direct quotes to negate Bennett's comments to which Bennett simply ignored him and changed the subject. Those who can really understand the debate see that Bennett did not truly debate his opponent, Chomsky, and rather debated Chomsky's record and patriotism. When he was not doing this he was arguing some other points that did not concern the central points of the debate. Yeah, Bennett did achieve something. He won the debate only he was arguing and did not really have to answer to Chomsky avoiding any more fallacies he could of made by this.

poxpower wrote:

That's what morons do: they ignore what other say and come back to their own rethoric. The more polite debater will just try to answer that, then move on.

Al6200 wrote:

Actually both Chomsky and Bennett were trying to frame the debate. Chomsky was trying to focus it on negative US foreign policy, while Bennett was trying to focus on positive US foreign policy.

I think Bennett spent more time trying to frame Chomsky as a terrorist or something. The debate was supposed to be about the morality of the United States foreign policy and both Chomsky and Bennett were brought in because of the books they had written on the subject. Bennett tried to accuse Chomsky of implying something in his book, however, Chomsky gave a direct quote from his book which Bennett simply ignored. Bennett never discussed his own book or what points he made in them. At the end he simply said, "Read both books." Why? He should of made the better argument and had everyone read his and not the other. Same thing that Chomsky should of done and I believe he did a better job of it.

poxpower wrote:

But he was just interrupting and acting like a jackass.

Al6200 wrote:

I actually did a word count using MS word and Chomsky said 622 words. Bennett said 540 words. So even if Bennett did interrupt Chomsky, it was only to try to balance out the time that both of them were getting.

Of course if Bennett didn't interrupt at all then Chomsky could (but probably would not) have chosen to keep talking indefinitely and try to control the debate just by getting more words in.

Actually, I did a word count and found Bennett have said 620 words while Chomsky said only 523. While we will both have a little bit of error due to how our versions of MS Word define a word and everything I checked my numbers twice and there was no variance. Bennett: 620 Chomsky:523 So I believe my numbers to be accurate and it seems like the difference between your numbers and my own are too great to leave to any mechanical error. I am of the opinion that you may have accidentally switched the counts for the debaters. Everyone is welcome to check the numbers on their own and please let me know, AI6200, what you find. I sincerely apologize in advance if I am mistaken.

poxpower wrote:

Another sad tactic is to try and get the other guy to "admit" things. Like "ha, you admit that America is great!". So what? It's a complete non-sequitur that doesn't have anything to do with anything and is just a waste of time.

Al6200 wrote:

Chomsky admitting that America is the greatest nation on Earth is not a non-sequitur. It's more or less a concession that America is not a criminal or an international terrorist in a relative sense (and yes, criminal is relative to the world that we live in).

In the spirit of Mr. Bennett:
No, it is not, sir.

poxpower wrote:

And like I said; that wasn't a debate as far as I can tell, it's just a 5 minute exchange on TV :o
Real debates need to be at least 30-60 minutes long to get into some detail.

Al6200 wrote:

I called it a debate because it was in the debate section of Chomsky's website.

Whatever you want to call it, I liked it. It kept me very interested for awhile and I am going to look more into debates by the two of them and maybe even check out their books. Thanks.

[Al6200]

To help keep this discussion clear, here is Zahn's introduction to the debate:

Noam Chomsky accuses the United States of being a terrorist state. He says the war in Afghanistan is wrong, states that in recent history, America has committed acts of terrorism, and maintains that America's foreign policy is hypocritical.

In Bill Bennett's "Why We Fight," he says the war on terror is morally just. He maintains that democracy and human rights are America's noblest exports, and that we must be prepared to respond to anti-American critics. Talk about a war of words.

So, more or less, the central question being debated is:

Is America's foreign policy, especially with respect to the war on terror, morally just and ethically right?

At 11/26/08 04:46 PM, killxp wrote:

Yes, that is a way to gain the confidence of the majority of the audience but any learned person would see past these lame tactics.

I don't think it's a lame tactic. No matter what we're discussing, technical or non-technical, educated audience or lay audience - there's always going to be a battle to frame the debate on terms that work in the debater's favor. If we were discussing nuclear power, the pro team would try to focus the debate on how we need electricity - and the con team would focus on security and such.

Unfortunately because you can only get in so many words, it's often better to just repeat your points instead of actually challenging your opponents point - because you want your audience to hear more about your strong points and less about your opponent's strong points.

Yes, that is unfortunate, but it is simply the optimal strategy in debates where you can only talk so much.

You have to keep in mind what exactly the topic of the debate is and debate points for the affirmative and give counterarguments for the opponents points. Otherwise those that can see past your "debate tactics" know that you have not done anything for your supposed side.

The problem with doing that is that your opponent can throw out "bait" that takes a long time to respond to but allows them to keep talking about their strong points, and force you to debunk some tiny facet of their argument.

The reason these two were brought together, in my opinion, were to have them discuss points in their books and concerned the morality of USA's foreign policy. Bennett spent most of his time personally attacking Chomsky and his own interpretations and opinion of Chomsky and on at least two separate occasions Chomsky gave direct quotes to negate Bennett's comments to which Bennett simply ignored him and changed the subject. Those who can really understand the debate see that Bennett did not truly debate his opponent, Chomsky, and rather debated Chomsky's record and patriotism. When he was not doing this he was arguing some other points that did not concern the central points of the debate. Yeah, Bennett did achieve something. He won the debate only he was arguing and did not really have to answer to Chomsky avoiding any more fallacies he could of made by this.

I don't agree with that assessment. Chomsky started the debate by pointing out how the US used terrorists tactics in Nicaragua that it now condemns in the war on terror - and is therefore a hypocrite. Bennett countered that the end result of our actions in Nicaragua was positive (a democratically elected country), and therefore the US was no hypocritical because, more or less, the ends justify the means.

Bennett then asked Chomsky why he would choose to live in the US if he thought it was a terrorist state. This is a legitimate argument. If someone really hated their country, and wasn't just blowing hot air, they'd leave. I'm sure there are tons of schools across the world that would love to have Noam Chomsky. Note that this isn't a personal attack on Chomsky, rather it's pointing out the logical discrepancy between Chomsky's words and Chomsky's actions towards the US.

Also Bennett points out that Chomsky is allowed to stay in the US and express his criticisms of the US even though they are overwhelmingly negative. This is a valid criticism. If the US was really a terrorist state, why wouldn't it do anything to silence Chomsky? Of course you can say that it's easier for the government to just ignore him and write him off as a whacko, but that doesn't explain why no stops him from getting coverage on CNN and debates with high profile people within the government (Bennett was secretary of education). Chomsky did not respond to this point (and I think that was probably a good move on his part).

Chomsky made the point that the US is a terrorist state because it attacks civilians and violates treaties/laws. He then goes on to point out how the US contributed to some of the worst atrocities in Turkey. Bennett responds by saying that the US's net impact is positive, even though we've done bad things, and that we're not as bad as other countries. Given that terms like "terrorist" are entirely relative, this is not an invalid argument. The US can only have destructive foreign policy in the sense that we have a more destructive foreign policy then other countries.

Then there's a little exchange about Chomsky saying that there's moral justification for 9-11. I don't have access to the book so I don't really think I can comment on the claim.

Then Chomsky goes on to say that it's hypocritical for us to think that positive US actions cancel negative US actions. I'm sort of neutral on this one. I don't think that anyone out there really has figured out whether utilitarianism (in which a good can cancel a bad) or rights-based ethics (where goods cannot cancel bads) is correct. It is certainly a topic of much discussion.

Bennett responds by saying that the US is open about the atrocities that it has committed, and that Chomsky has a consistent tendency to exaggerate faults in US foreign policy and ignore or underplay faults in the policies of communist countries. This is definitely a personal attack, but it works to some extent because it sort of undermines Chomsky's credibility. It's sort of akin to debating a Republican by saying "You guys are liars and pretended that the economy was good even when it wasn't".

So there were plenty of cases where Bennett made a point and Chomsky didn't respond to it, and vice versa.

I think Bennett spent more time trying to frame Chomsky as a terrorist or something. The debate was supposed to be about the morality of the United States foreign policy and both Chomsky and Bennett were brought in because of the books they had written on the subject. Bennett tried to accuse Chomsky of implying something in his book, however, Chomsky gave a direct quote from his book which Bennett simply ignored. Bennett never discussed his own book or what points he made in them. At the end he simply said, "Read both books." Why? He should of made the better argument and had everyone read his and not the other. Same thing that Chomsky should of done and I believe he did a better job of it.

I don't think he framed him as a terrorist, however he definitely did try to undermine his credibility.

Also it turns out that I did the word count incorrectly, Chomsky did speak somewhat less then Bennett.

In the spirit of Mr. Bennett:
No, it is not, sir.

Why? Obviously if Noam Chomsky thinks that America is the greatest country in the world, then it probably doesn't have a foreign policy that is much worse than the average country's - considering that Noam Chomsky is hugely interested in foreign policy.

Whatever you want to call it, I liked it. It kept me very interested for awhile and I am going to look more into debates by the two of them and maybe even check out their books. Thanks.

I enjoyed it to. It was quite a good debate, and I think both of them argued their points well, although it would've been better if it had been longer and had the moderators forced them to discuss specific topics.

[killxp]

Referring to AI6200 above:
I will reply ... later. Quite a bit later I am afraid but I did read your entire post. Just wanted to make sure I got this in before I forget.

You are good. I like you. You got great stuff going on here and you really discussed your opinions well and never did you get overly emotional about anything. You formatted your topics, gave examples and counterexamples and basically, in response to the debate, debated your thoughts well and let them do the "fight for your side." Whatever that means. Anyways, you have been most gracious and I appreciate you arguing my points and not personally attacking me as is often the case in these forums. I still think that Chomsky, and yourself, did a better job debating than Bennett, but I'll get to that later. I just wanted to let you know I it was fun to have a change of pace here, so thank you.

[Musician]

The problem, Al, is that Bennet trivializes Chomsky's position on the issue. Chomsky isn't anti-american, he's not even anti-america, he presents arguments against the foreign policy conducted by the leadership of the country, not the country itself. Notice how Chomsky never refers to the US as a "terrorist nation" in the debate? It's because that argument was a strawman fabricated by Bennet. Chomsky refers to the US as a nation that commits "terrorist acts". That doesn't mean that he thinks that the US is "evil", nor does that mean that Chomsky has some sort of moral obligation to leave the country. Bennet just wants you believe that because that makes his faulty arguments look more appealing than they actually are.

[poxpower]

At 11/26/08 01:06 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Really all debaters will try to make the debate's central crux their strongest points.

Intelligent people don't try to convince with tricks, they do it with smart arguments.
In that way you can think that Kent Hovind is a genius debater, but he's actually a moron of the highest caliber.
Any informed person will see through his act within moments.

You can't ask me to objectively say if Hovind wins a debate or not since I know everything he says is insane :o

Same as this, you can't ask me to pretend I don't know anything and then see who I think "won" the conversation. Like it mattered.

If the audience

Chomsky admitting that America is the greatest nation on Earth is not a non-sequitur. It's more or less a concession that America is not a criminal or an international terrorist in a relative sense (and yes, criminal is relative to the world that we live in).

You can easily be a great country and commit a war crime. They're not exclusive at all.

[mrdurgan]

At 11/26/08 12:29 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/08 10:28 AM, Al6200 wrote:

I mean, I though Bill Bennett won because he was constantly the one framing the debate. He was able to control the clock so to speak and make the debate revolve around his issues.

That's not debating skills, he's just a moron.
That's what morons do: they ignore what other say and come back to their own rethoric. The more polite debater will just try to answer that, then move on.
But he was just interrupting and acting like a jackass. Another sad tactic is to try and get the other guy to "admit" things. Like "ha, you admit that America is great!". So what? It's a complete non-sequitur that doesn't have anything to do with anything and is just a waste of time.

i think this is chomskys strength as a professor of linguistics, he understands exactly how language works and how to correctly use it, and not to be entirely caught out when people start using agressive debating tactics.
as far as this particular one goes im quite a fan of chomsky so im pretty biased.the arguments of both were good but it was more bill bennetts style of debating that made him look worse, very childish at points.

[Al6200]

At 11/27/08 03:19 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/08 01:06 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Really all debaters will try to make the debate's central crux their strongest points.

Intelligent people don't try to convince with tricks, they do it with smart arguments.

The thing is that both Chomsky and Bennett tried to control the focus of the debate. Chomsky tried to focus it on America's war crimes and atrocities, Bennett tried to focus it on positive US actions.

And it's not a "trick", it's simply a strategy that any debater of any intelligence needs to use if they don't want to get trounced.

In that way you can think that Kent Hovind is a genius debater, but he's actually a moron of the highest caliber.

It's not that Bennett did well because he smeared the facts, he did well because he controlled the topic of the debate. Note that Chomsky tried to do this too.

Any informed person will see through his act within moments.

Did you see through Chomsky's act within moments too?

0 :

You can't ask me to objectively say if Hovind wins a debate or not since I know everything he says is insane :o

Same as this, you can't ask me to pretend I don't know anything and then see who I think "won" the conversation. Like it mattered.

Well, I'm more asking you to come in with an open mind. Obviously if you think Chomsky is better from the get go than the best that Bennett can do in a few minutes is to lower your opinion of Chomsky and at least make the debate winnable. He did this in a particularly acute way when he accused Chomsky of downplaying the Cambodian genocide to make America look bad.

You can easily be a great country and commit a war crime. They're not exclusive at all.

But can you be the greatest country in the world - in the eyes of a person with a huge fascination with foreign policy - and still have terrible foreign policy?

[poxpower]

At 11/27/08 09:59 AM, Al6200 wrote:

And it's not a "trick", it's simply a strategy that any debater of any intelligence needs to use if they don't want to get trounced.

They're not "debating" like I said, this is a conversation.
Chomsky is just trying to say his piece and the other guy was invited specifically to disagree with him.
And he does so in a very stupid manner :o
Everything he says you just want to punch him for saying.

It's not that Bennett did well

He didn't "do well".
Where does it say he "did well" other than you mind? :o

Did you see through Chomsky's act within moments too?

There's no act, he's just honest.

Well, I'm more asking you to come in with an open mind.

Honestly I hadn't ever heard either of them speak before but I clearly see that Bennet got his ass handed to him as far as looking like a moron goes.
I know those tactics, they don't impress me anymore.

But can you be the greatest country in the world - in the eyes of a person with a huge fascination with foreign policy - and still have terrible foreign policy?

Yes you can.
He's not evaluating america solely on the merit of its foreign policy.
Obviously.