Lesson for GbajiFollow

Bill Buckley's death got me thinking about the difference between someone articulately arguing positions I disagree with, which I respect, and someone inarticulately trying to pass off falsehoods for fact while arguing positions I disagree with (or agree with, really).

This link is a famous debate between Buckley, with whom Gbaji should share nearly all opinions, and Noam Chompsky, with whom I share nearly all opinions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1214894113898255184

Note how Buckley makes similar flawed arguments as Gbaji, but when Chomsky refutes them, Buckley moves on to other arguments, rather than persisting to more and more wildly justify something he knows is undependable.

It's entertaining to me to watch, regardless, but I accept that may just be me.

Gbaji, I urge you to watch it and attempt to emulate Buckley as opposed to whatever homeless drunk psychopath's arguing technique you currently employ. I'd really, legitimately enjoy an actual debate on the issues in this forum with someone from the other side capable of arguing.

Oh Smash, you crack me up.

You've clearly never seen the man eat an apple.

Oh Smash, did you watch the TDS & Colbert Report last night too?

I didn't, actually. Did they do a thing on WFB?

Also, Colbert contrasted Buckley refuting a point by saying something erudite with O'Reilly telling people to shut up and threatening to cut their mic.

Of course, Colbert followed it up by saying words to the effect of that O'Reilly was a worthy carrier of Buckley's crown.

Interesting debate.



More like when Chomsky attempts to distract the point being discussed by introducing secondary points of contention, Buckly smartly ignores them and moves back to the point at hand (at which he demolishes Chomsky).

And you're correct. You use a similar style to Chomsky, which relies on distraction of the main point in an attempt to "win" many small and semi-unrelated points and expecting that this means you won the main point. And you're also right that I tend to allow myself to be distracted into those points as well. But then part of that is that I actually kinda enjoy going off on tangents, especially in an internet forum format.

In the debate you linked Chomsky is basically attempting to defend his position that the US is essentially "just as bad" as the Soviet Union in terms of imperialist agenda. He dances around the issue pretty adroitly, but fails to prove it IMO. Buckley basically "gets him" at the end by questioning Chomsky's assumption that US intervention in Guatemala is comparable to USSR intervention in Prague.

Honestly though, I think Buckley didn't do as good a job on this as he should have. He allowed Chomsky to bring up several undefensible points as support for his position and then didn't nail him on them. He dropped the whole "there's no difference between sending a bushel of wheat and a soldier", when I think that was a major salient point. He did get Chomsky on his creative use of starting points for history. In Greece, Chomsky starts with a state in which the USSR has meddled and created a huge socialist movement within the country. This is just as effective at oppressing the people there as someone standing over you with a gun. Had Buckley continued with the line of reasoning, he's have made Chomsky look foolish on this, but he backed off and let it basically be a draw.


Also, I think what you see as Buckley's willingness to withdraw from "flawed arguments" has more to do with time constraints on his show then anything else. Given time and format to fully debate the issue at hand, it's pretty clear he'd have blasted every single point made by Chomsky. Instead, he seemed to have a style that assumed that his audience "got it", made a broad point, and then moved on. I don't think it's because he didn't believe his position to be undefensible, but because he believed he'd adequately proven it to any intelligent person. He didn't need to drive home that the free-market Greej farmer can't use his lands because the socialists are taking them from him and therefore needs a soldier to protect the bushel of wheat. He said enough to allow any rational person to see this, and by extension see the massive flaw in Chomsky's position.


Unfortunately, more people today *don't* do that sort of rational thinking. They need to have points pounded home to them, and are more influenced by the kind of "clever rhetoric" that Chomsky favors. It's one of the sadder parts of modern society really. The old comment about being an MTV generation really is starting to be true. We want people to just tell us what's true and support it with cleverness and smart sounding words rather then thinking things through and drawing logical conclusions from the facts before us.

Buckley's debating style relies on simply putting those facts before the audience and assuming they'll be able to connect them. Chomsky's relies on people *not* making those connections and simply believing the guy who says things that sound more "smart". So quick zingers and the recitation of dates and names designed to bedazzle the audience work well for him (like when he's rattling off dates and movements in VietNam. Buckley doesn't care about this because it doesn't prove anything more the that Chomsky memorized a bunch of dates).




I would. Except as I've pointed out, the Buckley style of debate generally doesn't work. I suppose people like you prefer that style in your opponents for exactly the reason that it allows you to appear to "win" debates even though you're utterly wrong.

How quaint

Or did you mean something else by your statement?

Oddly, I meant what the words are agreed to mean in the English language. I could see how that would cause you no end of confusion, however.

Um... Whatever Smash. I've listened to or watched Chomsky speak on several occasions. Every time, I'm left with basically the same impression. That he's essentially an idiot who speaks well and can quote a bunch of BS so he impresses people who are easily impressed by such things.

Just when I think you can't possibly lose any more credibility on this forum, you prove me wrong.

You nailed it, buddy. Noam Chomsky, idiot who uses excess verbiage to disguise his lack of knowledge. That's it Exactly.

"There really aren't many people like Buckley left in the world. I suppose Bill Kristol would be sort of close, but the chances of him ever directly debating Chomsky is essentially nil." --Smash

First off, Buckley pwned Chomsky. Strictly on debating points/style/rules alone-- which is what you claim to pine for, Smash --he destroys Chomsky. Sound bites? Perhaps Chomsky wins a couple, but that doesn't compare to the sheer brain power that Buckley wields like a cudgel.

Secondly, George Will is more gifted as a debater than Kristol. Kristol, while entertaining, is drawn towards making controversial statements for the effect of creating conversation. However, like Buckley, George Will has a better grasp of irrefutable logic trains that crushes flitting and scattered arguments, much like the ones you see here on this board. Moreover, he'd make a terrific baseball commish.

Totem

I find it interesting that such an avowed realist (you) are complaining so much about the means to gaining support for a position. Assuming for the moment that your argument holds some weight, I'd think that a "realist" would recognize such rhetorical tactics as a very practical way of gaining enough power and clout to shape the world in some meaningful way; you ought to be applauding him and his insight into how best to enable his dreams. Instead you seem quite bound to the (ultimately arbitrary and meaningless) ideals of the rules of debating.

What's wrong with Conservative posters?

I kept waiting for Chomsky to just grab Buckley by the head and yell "JUST SHUUUT UUUP!"

"surely you agree that a soldier can be just as useful as a bushel of wheat"
WHOOSH