METADEBATE!: Noam Chomsky vs. J.Kenyon

How does one win a debate on this site? Is it by using logical fallacies that fool others? Is it by having a record of more experience? No. Whenever I debate someone I don't copy my record on this site, then use a bunch of logical fallacies and attempt to win. Let's face it, it doesn't work on this site. 1. Experience Famous people usually have extreme and incorrect opinions. They then argue these opinions by use of logical fallacies. Clearly the evidence I provided of Chromsky I provided shows this. The fact that these debates have been on television only exemplifies my point. They are entertaining because they possess extreme views. Not because they are brilliant individuals. They are idiots who are unbelievably arrogant. These people debate other idiots on television to increase their own perceived self importance. When it comes to economics, the brilliant individuals are running the country in businesses, the federal reserve, and wall street. They are not on TV debating others. Therefore his experience of making a fool of himself with other fools, is completely irrelevant on website that values not extreme views, but ones that adhere to logic. 2. Knowledge What is knowledge? (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information Does Chomsky know facts or information? Not really. Anyone who read the excerpt I posted knows that's not true. His views are not knowledge, but rather extreme views backed by logical fallacies. Not only does Chomsky use logical fallacies to support what he does, but so does my opponent. If the above argument is not riddled with appeals to authority, I don't know what is. JKenyon does not harbor extreme views and thus can use basic logic to support what he says. Economics is not a subject where you can have an opinion as to the reality of things. They either are, or they aren't. When Chomsky states that the internet is entirely started by the government, it either is, or it isn't. It's a yes or no answer. Chomsky is flat out wrong, and literally anyone capable of using logic can defeat this. Conclusion: I'd like to think that the members of this site do not vote for famous people, but rather vote for those who are correct. Chomsky harbors extreme views and defends them with logical fallacies. My opponent's only favor of chomsky is his experience at which I laugh at. Was Ben Bernake any less intelligent or knowledgeable about the economy when he was in college? I think not. His experience is irrelevant to whether or not he would win on this site. If you use logical fallacies and your opponent can make your argument look like swiss cheese, you won't stand a chance. Defense of Defense 1. Whether or not voters agree with the debaters is not a factor in the scoring. Clearly this is incorrect and anyone reading it can tell it is incorrect. It is ideal for this site that the above be true, but it's not unfortunately. I would go out on a limb and say that at least half of the voters on this site vote for someone they agree with. This site is crowded with libertarians. Based on how this site works, Chomsky would lose. 2. Unfortunately, Chomsky's quotes are not of the bible and thus cannot be interpreted. What he says is what he says. One cannot "interpret" it one way or the other. Especially with the amount of content I posted. My opponent clearly hasn't read anything I posted instead attempting to make appeals to authority in order to win his argument. Below are a few of instances of him skimming over what I said: A. Saying that trails were not continent on pre-existing trails is completely false. Highways were built on top of that existing technology. Trails prevented having to clear things out of the way as trails had already accomplished this. B. "It is a true fact that taxpayer dollars spent by the state during the Cold War did in some ways contribute to the invention of the Internet. " It is not true at all. The technology invented the Internet, not a military network that used the technology. To say that without the military making a network we would not have the Internet is absurd and clearly shows a lack of knowledge (similar to Chomsky) on the subject you are talking about. Furthermore Chomsky doesn't say "IN SOME WAYS". Chomsky says that the Internet was "ALMOST ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS" Sound different then "IN SOME WAYS" Yeah it does. My opponent calls my argument a "STRAW MAN". How can someone's opinion of the economy be a strawman when the debate is whether that person would win in a debate against J.Kenyon? Clearly my opponent cannot defend Chomsky based upon his quote. Therefore he's incorrectly attempting to call it a strawman to avoid having to deal with how ridiculous the opinion is. In case my opponent didn't know, Technology and the Internet composes a large sector of the economy, and it is continuing to grow as time goes on. Chomsky clearly has no clue that computers exist. Conclusion: 1. The only thing my opponent has done is make appeals to authority. 2. "It is a true fact that taxpayer dollars spent by the state during the Cold War did in some ways contribute to the invention of the Internet. " It is not true at all. The technology invented the Internet, not a military network that used the technology. To say that without the military making a network we would not have the Internet is absurd and clearly shows a lack of knowledge (similar to Chomsky) on the subject you are talking about. Furthermore Chomsky doesn't say "IN SOME WAYS". Chomsky says that the Internet was "ALMOST ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS" 3. Whether or not voters agree with the debaters is not a factor in the scoring. Clearly this is incorrect and anyone reading it can tell it is incorrect. It is ideal for this site that the above be true, but it's not unfortunately. I would go out on a limb and say that at least half of the voters on this site vote for someone they agree with. This site is crowded with libertarians. Based on how this site works, Chomsky would lose.